Editing Triple bottom line (section)

==Criticism==
While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions. The following are the reasons why:

* ''Reductive method'': Concurrently the environment comes to be treated as an externality or background feature, an externality that tends not to have the human dimension build into its definition. Thus, in many writings, even in those critical of the triple-bottom-line approach, the social becomes a congeries of miscellaneous considerations left over from the other two prime categories.<ref name="academia.edu">{{Cite journal | year=2010 | last1= Scerri | first1= Andy | last2= James | first2= Paul | author-link2= Paul James (academic) | title= Accounting for sustainability: Combining qualitative and quantitative research in developing 'indicators' of sustainability | url= https://www.academia.edu/3230887 | journal= International Journal of Social Research Methodology | volume= 13 | issue= 1 | pages= 41–53| doi= 10.1080/13645570902864145 | s2cid= 145391691 }}</ref> Alternative approaches, such as [[Circles of Sustainability]],<ref>{{cite book |last1=James |first1=Paul |author-link1= Paul James (academic) |last2=Scerri |first2=Andy |editor1-last=Amen |editor1-first=Mark |editor2-last=Toly |editor2-first=Noah J. |editor3-last=Carney |editor3-first=Patricia L. |editor4-last=Segbers |editor4-first=Klaus |title=Cities and Global Governance: New Sites for International Relations |date=2011 |publisher=Ashgate |location=Farnham, UK |isbn=978-1-4094-0893-2 |pages=110–146 |chapter=Auditing cities through circles of sustainability}}</ref> that treat the economic as a social domain, alongside and in relation to the ecological, the political and the cultural are now being considered as more appropriate for understanding institutions, cities and regions.<ref name="academia.edu"/><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Scerri | first1 = Andy | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.027 | title = Ends in view: The capabilities approach in ecological/sustainability economics | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 77 | pages = 7–10 | year = 2012 | bibcode = 2012EcoEc..77....7S }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Magee |first1=Liam |last2=Scerri |first2=Andy |title=From issues to indicators: developing robust community sustainability measures |journal=Local Environment |date=1 September 2012 |volume=17 |issue=8 |pages=915–933 |doi=10.1080/13549839.2012.714755 |bibcode=2012LoEnv..17..915M |s2cid=153340355 |issn=1354-9839}}</ref>
* ''[[Social inertia|Inertia]]'': The difficulty of achieving global agreement on [[simultaneous policy]] may render such measures at best advisory, and thus unenforceable. For example, people may be unwilling to undergo a [[Depression (economics)|depression]] or even sustained [[recession]] to replenish lost [[ecosystem]]s. {{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}
* ''Application'': According to Fred Robins' ''The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom?'' one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in the practical world.
* ''Equating ecology with environment'': TBL is seen to be disregarding ecological sustainability with environmental effects, where in reality both economic and social viability is dependent on environmental well-being. While [[greenwashing]] is not new, its use has increased over recent years to meet consumer demand for environmentally friendly goods and services. The problem is compounded by lax enforcement by regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, the Competition Bureau in Canada, and the [[Committee of Advertising Practice]] and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice in the United Kingdom. Critics of the practice suggest that the rise of greenwashing, paired with ineffective regulation, contributes to consumer skepticism of all green claims, and diminishes the power of the consumer in driving companies toward greener solutions for manufacturing processes and business operation.
* ''Time dimension'': While the triple bottom line incorporates the social, economical and environmental (People, Planet, Profit) dimensions of sustainable development, it does not explicitly address the fourth dimension: time. The time dimension focuses on preserving current value in all three other dimensions for later. This means assessment of short term, longer term and long term consequences of any action.<ref>Lozano, R. (2012). "Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives," ''Journal of Cleaner Production'' 25 pp. 14-26</ref>
*"One problem with the triple bottom line is that the three separate accounts cannot easily be added up. It is difficult to measure the planet and people accounts in the same terms as profits—that is, in terms of cash."<ref name="elkington" /> This has led to TBL being augmented with [[Cost–benefit analysis|cost-benefit analysis]] in [[Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)|Triple Bottom Line Cost Benefit Analysis (TBL-CBA)]].
* ''Performance/eco-efficiency'': According to Rambaud, A. & Richard, J., "the TBL model [...] is based on the concept of ‘eco-efficiency’. In his seminal book, Elkington [...] gives a fundamental role to eco-efficiency in constructing the TBL model. According to him, the development of the concept of eco-efficiency allowed the development of the TBL model, a framework that he believes can save businesspeople from ecological communism".<ref name="rambaud">{{Cite journal | year=2015 | last1= Rambaud | first1= Alexandre | last2= Richard | first2= Jacques | title= The ''Triple Depreciation Line'' instead of the ''Triple Bottom Line'': Towards a genuine integrated reporting | url= https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1045235415000234 | journal= Critical Perspectives on Accounting | volume= 33 | pages= 92–116 | doi= 10.1016/j.cpa.2015.01.012 | url-access= subscription }}</ref> Eco-efficiency is equivalent to weak sustainability and corresponds to a relative measure of socio-environmental impacts compared to value creation. In this, eco-efficiency differs from eco-effectiveness, which is concerned with the absolute measurement of these impacts. A company can therefore increase its socio-environmental impacts and increase its eco-efficiency, if at the same time it increases its value creation even more. The TBL is thus the dedicated reporting system structuring this notion of performance at the expense of eco-effectiveness. Yet eco-efficiency is at the heart of rebound effects and cannot be a credible basis for ecosystem management in particular.  
*Elkington himself has called for a rethink on TBL and a "product recall" on use of the concept. He argues that the original idea was to encourage businesses to manage the wider economic, social and environmental impacts of their operations, but its practical use as an accounting tool has now undermined its value. More precisely, he explains "It [Triple Bottom Line] was supposed to provoke deeper thinking about capitalism and its future, but many early adopters understood the concept as a balancing act, adopting a trade-off mentality. [...] Such experimentation [de la TBL] is clearly vital — and typically sparks a proliferation of potential solutions. But the bewildering range of options now on offer can provide business with an alibi for inaction. Worse, we have conspicuously failed to benchmark progress across these options, on the basis of their real-world impact and performance".<ref name=recall />

In short, the criticisms can be summarised as:
* attempting to divert the attention of regulators and deflating pressure for regulatory change;
* seeking to persuade critics, such as non-government organisations, that they are both well-intentioned and have changed their ways;
* seeking to expand market share at the expense of those rivals not involved in greenwashing; this is especially attractive if little or no additional expenditure is required to change ''performance''; alternatively, a company can engage in greenwashing in an attempt to narrow the perceived 'green' advantage of a rival;
* reducing staff turnover and making it easier to attract staff in the first place;
* making the company seem attractive for potential investors, especially those interested in ethical investment or socially responsive investment;
* inability to add up the three accounts unless tools such as [[Cost–benefit analysis|cost-benefit analysis]] or eco-efficiency (weak sustainability performance) are added to put social and environmental [[Externality|externalities]] in monetary terms.

In response to these limitations, the concept of the "Triple Depreciation Line" (also called "CARE - Comprehensive Accounting in Respect of Ecology - model") has been proposed.<ref name="rambaud"></ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Improving Nature's Visibility in Financial Accounting" Natural Capital Coalition's report |url=https://www.chaire-comptabilite-ecologique.fr/Natural-capital-visibility-in-financial-accounting-Method-3-Extended-Version?lang=fr.|access-date=17 October 2022}}</ref>