Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability,

Triple bottom line of sustainability, or TBL, represents one of the management trends that tries to establish itself as a regular practice within the activity of global corporations. As a consumer and as an individual directly and indirectly affected by the activity of such corporations, I must declare myself in complete favor of integrating TBL practices and principles into companies' strategic approach.

Regarding the effects of TBL in the U.S. And its progress, it is important to take into consideration that the awareness of TBL practices and principles do not go back very far in time, given the fact that its definition and description were designed only a decade ago. In other words, there has not been enough progress made in the U.S., since "everything in America is oversized. Steaks, cars, buildings, people. The U.S. ranks as the 9th most obese nation. It is also the Planet's greatest user of natural resources and the greatest polluter" (TBL Magazine, 2009).

In addition to this, it is worth mentioning that the U.S. did not sign the Earth Declaration signed by over 170 countries that participated along the U.S. At the First Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Another proof of lack of progress regarding CSR and TBL concerns the $750 billion used for the bail-out caused by the financial crisis.

Given this context, it is not difficult to understand why companies are not trying to do more in order to improve the integration of TBL within their strategies. However, this is not just the case of the U.S., but of most developed countries across the world.

Also, it is not an easy task for companies to take action in the interests of people, planet, and profit at the same time. Investors demand certain levels of return on investment, and they are pressuring companies with quarterly or annually financial performances and other financial objectives that must be met by the companies.

In such conditions, it is difficult for companies to put stakeholders before shareholders. And their action is punished by customers themselves. More and more consumers tend to orient towards companies that support the environment, the community in which they activate, companies that socially involved.

TBL cannot be implemented effectively if supported by companies only. The community, through its individuals, must be aware of the necessity of TBL and it must demand such practices from companies activating in the community in case, demand expressed in the form of buying behavior.

However, such a situation can become a reality in a richer society. In such cases, individuals are more actively oriented towards implementing social responsibility. But in regions with lower financial power it is quite unlikely for the majority of individuals to be preoccupied by social or environmental issues.

The reasons behind implementing TBL practices and furthermore, including them in companies' Financial Reporting practices are numerous. They are all related to stakeholders, since "many stakeholders have ways to influence your decisions. In some cases, they have a direct vote: shareholders aligned with activist groups have been increasingly successful at forcing proxy votes on social and environmental issue" (Savitz & Weber, 2006).

Even more, politics are indirectly connected with TBL practices and stakeholders. The connection is made by stakeholders that may vote for or against candidates that favor or not the company in case, thus affecting the future activity of the company.

As mentioned above, it is difficult to make profit and protect the environment or support the community at the same time. But there may be solutions to this problem. For example, companies interested in including TBL in their Financial Reporting practices can try to find unexplored niche areas presenting opportunities of connections between social benefits and achieving profit.

For example, companies providing certain types of services may provide pro bono counseling for certain customer categories. However, there are cases in which common good and financial profit cannot coexist. or, even if a company does create certain benefits for some of its stakeholders, other categories of stakeholders might be negatively affected by the company's actions.

In cases of stakeholder conflict company managers must decide which stakeholder category will be favored in spite of others. In certain regions, environmentalists, on the one hand and antipoverty or public health activists, on the other hand, require opposite solutions to their problems (Savitz & Weber, 2006). Even more, there may be causes of conflict even within one category of stakeholders.

Even if such cases are extraordinary, as they do not represent a majority, they make TBL integration very difficult to implement within the Financial Reporting Practices. It is expected that stakeholders' requirement will become more and more specific, thus generating more causes for conflict.