See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4738432

Triple Bottom Line: A business metaphor for a social construct

Article · April 2006

DOI: 10.4324/9780203892978 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

193 3,151

3 authors, including:

Darrell Brown Jesse Dillard

Portland State University Victoria University of Wellington/ Portland State Univ/
19 PUBLICATIONS 2,630 CITATIONS 123 PUBLICATIONS 7,162 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Darrell Brown on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Documents de Treball

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE:

A BUSINESS METAPHOR
FOR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Darrell Brown
Jesse Dillard
R. Scott Marshall

Document de Treball núm. 06/2

Departament d'Economia de l'Empresa

© Darrell Brown; Jesse Dillard; R. Scott Marshall

Coordinador / Coordinator Documents de treball:

David Urbano
http://selene.uab.es/dep-economia-empresa/recerca/Documents.htm
e-mail: [email protected]
Telèfon / Phone: +34 93 5814298
Fax: +34 93 5812555

Edita / Publisher:

Departament d'Economia de l'Empresa

http://selene.uab.es/dep-economia-empresa/
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Facultat de Ciències Econòmiques i Empresarials
Edifici B
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
Tel. 93 5811209
Fax 93 5812555
 Març / March, 2006

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE:

A BUSINESS METAPHOR
FOR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Darrell Brown
Jesse Dillard
R. Scott Marshall

Document de Treball núm. 06/2

La sèrie Documents de treball d'economia de l'empresa presenta els avanços i resultats d'inves-
tigacions en curs que han estat presentades i discutides en aquest departament; això no obstant,
les opinions són responsabilitat dels autors. El document no pot ser reproduït total ni parcial-
ment sense el consentiment de l'autor/a o autors/res. Dirigir els comentaris i suggerències direc-
tament a l'autor/a o autors/res, a la direcció que apareix a la pàgina següent.

A Working Paper in the Documents de treball d'economia de l'empresa series is intended as a

mean whereby a faculty researcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested
readers for their comments. Nevertheless, the ideas put forwards are responsibility of the au-
thor. Accordingly a Working Paper should not be quoted nor the data referred to without the
written consent of the author. Please, direct your comments and suggestions to the author, which
address shows up in the next page.
 Triple Bottom Line:
A business metaphor for a social construct

Darrell Brown
School of Business Administration
Portland State University

Jesse Dillard*
School of Business Administration
Portland State University
503-725-2278
503-725-5850 (fax)
[email protected]

And

R. Scott Marshall
School of Business Administration
Portland State University

3 March 2006

*Contact Author

Support is acknowledged from the Center of Professional Integrity and Accountability, School of
Business Administration, Portland State University.
 Triple Bottom Line:
A business metaphor for a social construct

INTRODUCTION

Organizational management is specifically granted fiduciary responsibility over society’s

economic resources, which consist of natural and human resources. Because of their privileged

status, organizational management and the associated business professions play a central role in

the long-term viability of a democratically governed society grounded in justice, equality, and

trust. Acting in the public interest requires consideration of natural, social, and economic

systems. Natural systems provide the context and sustenance for social systems and, therefore,

must be respected, nurtured, and sustained. Social systems provide the context and purpose of

economic systems. Business professionals, such as accounting and other information providers,

analysts, and monitors, and regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange

Commission, 1 Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration, facilitate

and scrutinize organizational management in carrying out their fiduciary responsibility.

By accepting the right to control society’s economic resources, organizational

management accepts the responsibility to be held accountable for their use of these assets. Upon

exercising the right to grant organizational management control over its economic resources,

1
In the USA.

2
society accepts the responsibility to hold organizational management accountable for their use of

these assets. Corporate accountability 2 represents the lynch pin for motivating responsible

behavior. Throughout the world, publicly held corporations control and transform natural and

social resources into economic goods and services. Publicly available information is a

necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite for responsible resource stewardship and

management. Thus, the relevance and integrity of information contained in, and made available

by, measurement and accountability systems holds a place of central importance in our ability to

hold accountable those granted the responsibility for society’s resources.

The triple bottom line is emerging as a popular conceptualization and reporting vehicle

for articulating corporate social, environmental, and economic performance and is receiving

significant attention in connection with its efficacy and sufficiency as a means for reporting the

extent to which an organization meets its societal responsibilities. By preparing and

disseminating triple bottom line statements, an organization conveys an image of concern and

sensitivity to the three dimensions of societal responsibility: economic, environmental, and

social. However, as currently conceived and operationalized, we question whether the triple

bottom line reports actually provide information relevant to accessing corporate responsibility

and enforcing accountability, particularly social sustainability. In addition, we discuss the

efficacy of using the bottom line as a metaphor to help determine the metrics and measures

relevant to social sustainability. Our conclusion is that triple bottom line reporting, although a

step towards increasing the awareness of multiple, competing, simultaneous objectives for

2
We consider this term to be inclusive of the economic, environmental, and social responsibilities of organizations.

3
organizations, is an inadequate, and perhaps detrimental, representation of organizational

sustainability. While our primary concern is social sustainability, the associated issues cannot be

adequately addressed without considering the natural and economic systems. This work is part

of an ongoing program of research concerned with the developing an enabling accounting. 3

In the following discussion, we explicitly consider the concept of the triple bottom line

report that has been generally set forth in the accounting and reporting literature as a significant

step forward in the quest for enhanced social and environmental corporate responsibility. The

triple bottom line statement purports to render corporate actions more understandable and

transparent in areas not covered under current reporting conventions. Within a democratically

governed society, information provides the basis upon which citizens and their representatives

stipulate and regulate the parameters within which organizations are required to operate. If

managers are held accountable for the social and environmental impact of their decisions though

the external reporting of results in these areas, they will of necessity more fully incorporate them

into their decision processes.

Following this introduction, we consider the origins of the triple bottom line report. The

third section explains the meaning of the metaphorical bottom line. In the next section, we

consider whether the triple bottom line can sustain social sustainability. Brief closing comments

conclude our discussion.

THE ORIGINS OF THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

3
See Dillard, et al. (2005), Brown, et al. (2005). Also, Broadbent, et al. (1997).

4
 Whence the triple bottom line? The term ‘triple bottom line’, is often attributed to John

Elkington, a co-founder and chair of SustainAbility, a sustainable business consultancy

(Elkington 2004). Elkington explicitly chose the language to resonate with business managers.

As it evolved, triple bottom line reporting has been employed by organizations for a plethora of

purposes. Some argue that the primary application is no more that a means for enhancing the

organization’s public image (Schilizzi, 2002). Others (Cheney, 2004) argue that it is a method

for the organization to show its engaging in legitimate environmentally and socially responsible

activities. A third application is an acknowledgement and representation of trade offs made

among the three components (CICR, 2004). The reporting formats range from providing a

“dashboard” of measures (Epstein and Weiser, 1997) to attempts to monetize all three

perspectives (Richardson, 2004). Schilizzi (2002) points out the difficulties in attempting to

quantify the environmental and social dimensions of organizational performance and as an

example of one possible solution, recommends “real options” valuation techniques.

Numerous consultancies, organizations, and researchers are working to develop metrics

that can, in some way, capture the relevant “values” of the components of the triple bottom line

in a way that can allow users of reports to “understand the full, blended value” of the

organization (Emerson 2003, Lingane and Olsen 2004). For example, Howes (2004) presents a

statement of “environmentally sustainable adjusted profit.” While the final determination of

what the triple bottom line may look like is not yet completed, Richardson (2004) notes the most

commonly held conception presumes that each of the three components can be calculated in

monetary terms.

Advocates of the triple bottom line argue that since an organization’s long term viability is

dependent on sustaining “profitability” over all three dimensions, they should be measured,
5
reported, and assessed on a periodic basis, in a manner conceptually similar to the current

financial reporting model. Further, stakeholder groups, such as socially responsible investors,

non-governmental organizations, green consumers, and governmental regulators and agencies

are increasingly calling for information related to the social and environmental dimensions.

Responding to the increasing desire for both financial and nonfinancial information related to a

broader conceptualization of corporate responsibilities, all of the major accounting consultancy

firms, along with a host of others, offer dedicated services to assist companies in developing

triple bottom line reporting tools (Tschopp 2003). The proponents allege that these tools assist in

enhancing the organization’s reputation as well as reducing the risk profile and aligning

managerial and stakeholder needs (Group of 100, 2003). Next, we consider how the measures of

the triple bottom line report developed and how they relate to social sustainability.

The Road to Social Sustainability

In the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a widespread, although by no means dominant,

recognition that human activities, including corporate activities, had great and potentially

disastrous impacts on the natural environment. Although the root of the world’s sustainability

problems may well be cultural and political (Hart 1997), corporations and their activities have a

significant impact on the environment. As society began to demand cleaner water, cleaner air,

fewer toxins, and the other benefits of environmentally thoughtful stewardship, corporations,

however reluctantly, initiated improvements in their environmental behavior (Hoffman 2000).

As we moved into the 1990s leading thinkers in the environmental movement as regards

corporations began to talk about environmental sustainability. Without addressing the reality or

sincerity of the sustainability initiatives undertaken by corporations, it is significant that many

corporations began to acknowledge at least the notion of environmental sustainability.

6
 However, in the early and mid 1990’s it became increasingly apparent to a variety of

thinkers and organizations that environmental sustainability was unlikely to be achievable

without addressing issues of social sustainability as well. For example, The Natural Step

introduced social awareness as an integral component, identifying four “system conditions”

required to achieve a sustainable society: 1) nature must not be subjected to systematically

increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust, 2) nature must not be

subjected to systematically increasing concentrations of substances produced by society, 3)

nature must not be subjected to systematically increasing degradation by physical means, and 4)

the ability of humans to meet their needs worldwide must not be systematically undermined

(Robèrt 2003). A casual reading of the four conditions presents a picture of three rigorously

conceived (although not necessarily rigorously implementable) environmentally related

conditions and one vague condition relating to social issues. The first three state that “nature

must not be subjected to…” followed by specific, if complex, requirements. It is possible, from

the conditions themselves, to determine whether an action, if sufficiently understood, violates the

condition. The fourth, dealing with social systems, states that the object of the condition is not

impaired…without any real reference to what that may mean. To know whether an action

violates the condition, we must not only understand the action but also must come to some

common agreement about what it means to impair the ability of humans to “meet their needs.”

This leads to concern that the issue of social sustainability is either weakly conceived or has been

attached to the framework as an afterthought. Alternatively, perhaps the social systems are so

fundamentally different from environmental systems such that we cannot create social system

conditions analogous to the environmental system conditions.

7
 The centrality of the corporation’s public interest responsibility is reflected in the

legitimating arguments for their initial chartering (Bakan, 2004). In the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries, corporations were chartered to undertake public works projects such as

building bridges, roads, and canals and had an explicit duty to operate in and for the public’s

interest (Champlin and Knoedler 2003). As corporations grew and as absentee owners

(shareholders) became the primary corporate stakeholders, the public interest dimension became

subordinate to the goal of maximizing shareholder (owner) wealth. Ultimately, in most capitalist

societies, not only did the corporations abdicate any pretext of acting in the broader public’s

interest, but also their responsibility to shareholders has been effectively outsourced to regulators

and auditors, not the least of which were Certified and Chartered Accountants. This explicit

assignment of protection of the public (at least protection of shareholders) to entities completely

outside the organization represents the nadir of corporate social responsibility. It might be

argued that any organization that relies on regulations and verifiers/enforcers of the public

interest cannot be thought of as a “socially responsible” business. 4

Updating this conversation within the current vernacular, social sustainability represents

the social dimension of the public interest. For businesses, the idea of social sustainability, if

recognized at all, is narrowly and conveniently conceived and likely to be interpreted as the

ability to continue to stay in business through good relations with supply-chain partners,

4
There is less than a little irony in the fact that in 2002, as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the primary guardian
for third party interests, the accounting profession, in the US, lost the right of professional self monitoring and
regulation with respect to its public interest responsibilities to the SEC as a result of the widespread misconduct and
conflicts of interests that took place during the late 1990s and early 2000s that culminated in historic corporate
failures.

8
employees, and unions, an interpretation that is rather limited, and possibly destructive. Rather

than expanding the scope of their public interest responsibilities, managers focus on reducing

social resources to monetary terms, measuring, and maximizing it. Hawkins, et al. (1999)

attempt to broaden this perspective they refer to as human or social capital by including it as one

of four primary “types” of capital: natural, manufactured, financial, and human. When the stocks

and flows of these objectified concepts are managed effectively, organizations become

sustainable. Social capital, by implication at least, represents another factor of production and a

profit generator for the organization.

Elkington accurately, and in some respects prophetically, articulates the subordinate

position of the social dimension in his initial conceptualization of the triple bottom line. “We

felt that the social and economic dimensions of the (environmental) agenda…would have to be

addressed in a more integral way if real environmental progress was to be made” (Elkington

2004: 1). The interesting issue here is that the social (and economic 5 ) issues are subordinate to

the environmental agenda. Not surprisingly, researchers find that issues relating to reporting

social aspects of corporate responsibility generally lag behind the reporting of environmental

issues, in terms of both timing and quality (Kolk 2003, Adams 2002, KPMG 2002).

Thus, one might conclude that the road to social sustainability reflects more of a meandering and

awkward afterthought (e.g. The Natural Step Framework), an objectification through mechanistic

management (e.g., social capital), and a subordinated and imprecise objective within an

enhanced reporting initiative (e.g. triple bottom line). We now consider more explicitly how the

5
Given their current overwhelming dominance, it is difficult to conceive of the economic well being subordinate.

9
accounting and reporting dimensions of social sustainability have culminated in the current

rendering of the triple bottom line.

The Road to Accounting for Social Sustainability

Using the history of accounting as a guide, 6 we can see that as business organizations

were conceived, developed, and matured they required and created new ways to address the

issues of concern to their stakeholders. Initially, accounting was developed to meet the needs of

business owner-managers to address the day to day concerns of running a business by making

the processes and their effects more transparent. As the owners delegated the tasks of managing

to others, accounting methods were developed to communicate the important business

characteristics, predominantly the effects of operations and the status of the business, to the

owners. Though the scope of concern, and the concerned, has changed, the process continues to

evolve along the same trajectory. The needs of affected constituencies needs continually develop

and change, and accounting methods, rules, and regulations evolve to meet these ever-changing

information needs.

Information needs regarding organizations’ environmental and social impacts are an

example of the expanding scope of concern. Unlike the efforts associated with the conception of

triple bottom line reporting described above, relatively early on accounting recognized the

importance of human capital and attempted to measure and report its attributes previous to and

separate from environmental capital. Social accounting arose in the 1970s but never gained

purchase, partly due to the inability of relevant stakeholders to agree on an acceptable method for

6
The history of accounting is well detailed in books and articles galore. See Johnson and Kaplan (1987), Chandler
(1977), and Previts and Merino (1998).

10
quantifying and reporting the relevant attributes. Social accounting, to most businesses, was an

attempt to capitalize the “value” of the employees, management skills, and business acumen that

generated wealth for shareholders. For some social activists, social accounting was an attempt to

expand the recognized benefits and costs that businesses created for society. The significant

measurement problems coupled with the financial community’s skepticism thwarted the attempt

to recognize the previously ignored (unrecorded) social and human capital. Insufficient political

will and waning public demand thwarted the move toward enhanced social impact reporting by

corporations. At the time, acceptable measurement systems were not available to companies for

achieving their goals of recognizing unrecorded assets, and there was insufficient public demand

for reporting the social impacts of companies. Thus, the concept of social accounting faded

away (Gray 2001), only to be resurrected in the waning of the 1990s. Next, we consider this

resurrection as it has culminated in the metaphorical bottom line manifested in triple bottom line

reporting.

THE METAPHORICAL BOTTOM LINE

The “bottom line” is a metaphor arising from within the business lexicon that confers the

ability to capture in a unique representation (a number) the effect of a multitude of separate

actions (transactions) by systematically representing these actions using a common metric and

summing the contributions (benefits) and detriments (costs). The quintessential symbol of the

bottom line is the net income (earnings) reported on the financial statements of publicly held

corporations. Net income is the difference between the revenues of a period generated by selling

the products or services, capturing the organization and the costs of producing and selling those

11
products or services and purportedly captures the organization’s inflows and outflows in a single

figure. 7 As a metaphor, the bottom line (net income) represents information capture of a

collection of activities enabling the synthesizing of the effects in a concise representation. The

requisite unit of measure is presumed to be compensatory, additive, inclusive, and, to be useful,

relevant. The “triple bottom line” is a reporting technique that applies the bottom line metaphor

to the social and environmental aspects of a business organization. The legitimacy of such an

application depends on the extent to which the characteristics of the application domain (social

and environmental) conform to those of the initiating domain (economics/accounting).

Representation

Figure 1 illustrates the resource and information flows associated with a business

organization. The organization occupies the center of the diagram. The circle on the left

represents the social system, and the circle to the right represents the natural system. The top

portion of the figure shows actual resource flows into and out of a business organization. Both

natural and social systems provide resource inputs to the organization and both are impacted by

its resource outputs. These inputs from the natural and social world inform the “organization

action space,” the behaviors and activities of the business. In turn, the behaviors and activities of

the business impact the natural and social world. The lower portion of Figure 1 shows

information flows. The organization’s information systems and measurements identify, filter,

7
We realize, of course, that net income is a technical accounting term that includes many complex and sometimes
convoluted ideas and activities. For purposes of this paper, we choose to provide a more intuitive and
understandable description of net income. We feel the more simple description avoids unnecessary detail that will
be more likely to obfuscate than illuminate. In addition, the metaphor of the “bottom line”, which is the focus of
this paper, is not burdened with the additional detail. The bottom line metaphor is a relatively simple metaphor
addressed sufficiently by our description.

12
and measure inputs from the organization’s actions, the natural system, and the social system.

These inputs are then used to create, among other communications, triple bottom line reports.

(***** Enter Figure 1 here *****)

The information flows between the organization and the social and natural

systems as well as throughout the organization itself. The “accounting” systems inform the

organizational strategies that ultimately motivate changes in the organizational action space. So,

ultimately, the process that produces organizational reports relies on information systems that

collect information designed for, and are controlled by, the organization that takes a

predominately economic perspective in collecting and analyzing information related to the

natural and social systems. Next, we consider the basic characteristics that underlie each of the

three dimensions of organizational activity.

Economic Systems

Exchange of (markets for) scarce resources provides the operational model upon which

economics, and accounting, is predicated. The transaction represents the instantiating atomic

unit. Measurement and accumulation systems reflect resource flows associated with exchange

transactions consummated. It might be argued that the offsetting debit and credit system as

currently articulated in US accounting presupposes an ends oriented perspective and implies a

cost-benefit decision frame arising from a utilitarian foundation. That is, extant accounting

systems are based on neoclassical economic theory. Neoclassical economic theory is

philosophically based on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a teleological philosophy that assumes

benefits and costs can be specified measured and aggregated. The greatest good for the greatest

13
number is presumed to be represented by the alternative that maximizes the net benefit. 8 The

bottom line metaphor embodies this utilitarian base. We now must consider whether this

metaphor is appropriate when considering the natural and social systems.

Natural systems

Ecosystems make up the environmental system. Ecosystems are interrelated natural

systems that are in constant and symbiotic interaction. These complex, self organizing systems

are studied and monitored by scientists and engineers using formal representations

(equations/models) of the ecosystems. The elemental concept underlying natural systems is

balance in the effective and efficient use of biomass, energy, resources, etc. within the context of

the system boundaries. Balance, not maximization, represents the controlling decision rule. The

means, or in this case the formula, is preeminent, not the outcome, which is the consequence.

The inputs and the rules determine the outcome. The scientific method structures the

fundamental decision framework. Representations of the natural system are predicated on, and

attained through, the application of the scientifically specified relationships.

The underlying logic of the natural system is, generally, the natural laws that are

perceived to underlie the physical world. The laws of physics represent the dynamics of the

universe; the laws of thermodynamics represent the flow of heat or energy within an ecosystem.

The “accounting system” for the environment is implemented by scientist and varies with the

components being considered. For example, energy use is measured based on the laws of

thermodynamics. The “accounting systems” such as electricity metering or heat loss calculations

8
If a choice is required between alternatives, all of which evidence costs greater than the benefits, then the
alternative with the lowest net costs would minimize the detriment.

14
are application specific with mechanical or chemical measuring devices calibrated in the

appropriate units of measure such as kilowatt hours or degrees centigrade. The underlying

philosophy reflects the cause and effect logic of science and the process is one of observation

and experimentation.

Natural resources can be classified into the following three types (Gray and Bebbington,

2000: 307-308):

• Critical resources – resources without which the biosphere could not sustain life and must not
be violated (ozone layer, critical biomass, etc.).

• Sustainable, substitutable, or renewable resources – resources which are renewable or which

can substitutes can reasonably be expected to be found (fossil fuels).

• Artificial resources – resources created through the transformation of natural resources that
are no longer in harmony with the natural ecosystems (machines, roads, products, waste).

These categories cannot be combined or aggregated. Neither can they be evaluated using a cost

benefit calculus because of their diversity and interrelatedness. The philosophical grounding

tends to direct effort toward identifying and specifying the physical models that reflect the

behavior of the individual system components as well as their interrelationships (e.g., see

Gunderson and Holling, 2002). The classical scientific constructs associated with cause and

effect underlie the undertakings and representations.

Environmental systems are less amenable to maximization, as there are considerable

difficulties arriving at a currency that is fungible, agreed upon, and can be aggregated. 9 For

example consider the environmental objective of achieving biological diversity, a commonly

stated indicator of environmental health, stability, and resilience. Biological diversity refers to

9
The mixed unit problem.

15
the possible ecological niches that must be occupied to achieve maximum energy captured and to

support living organisms over long time periods. The system achieves biodiversity when no

more renewable inputs are available. At that point, it is impossible to add to the biological store.

In the environmental world, biodiversity can be defined as:

The sum total of all the plants, animals (including humans), fungi and
microorganisms, along with their individual variations and the interactions
between them. It is the set of living organisms and their genetic basis that
make up the fabric of the planet earth and allow it to function as it does, by
capturing energy from the sun and using it to drive all of life's processes.
(Rutgers University Biodiversity Initiative
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~biodiversity/whatis2.htm#DEFINE).

Here, we see that the input is the sun’s energy, and the output is life’s processes. Any

addition to the ability to capture the sun’s energy, and any increase in the genetic pool are

increases in biodiversity. However, as opposed to “maximizing” an objective function, the

system prospers only if a balance is maintained that incorporates a “sufficient”, that is enough

but not too much, amount of all the requisite component factors in the system. Balance arises as

the objective. At the core, the actionable objective functions relate to achieving objective

functions that represent a dynamic range of possible values, none of which are maximized or

minimized.

There may be instances where sub-objectives may lead to maximizing, or minimizing,

objective functions, but these are not the ultimate goal of the natural system, just a recognition

that certain impacts have absolute benefit or detriment to the natural system. For example,

consider the emission of greenhouse gasses from the production of human-useable energy from

fossil fuels. A reasonable case can be made to absolutely minimize these emissions. At a

broader level, we may be able to convert environmental measures to one currency. The concept

of “ecological footprint”, relating the impact of an individual human to the consumption of

16
naturally renewable resources is proposed (Pearce and Barbier 2000, Lenzen et al. 2003).

Attempts to arrive at a single measure or index to allow maximization or minimization of one

factor have not yet achieved universal, or even common, support.

Social System

Social systems are the “patterning of social relationships across ‘time and space’

understood as reproduced practices” (Giddens, 1984). These systems are highly variable in these

representational patterns relative to the internal structural unity of biological systems. The

elements of social systems are human relationships and interactions. The underlying logic of

these systems is grounded in social integration and reflects generally a communitarian logic.

Measurement systems are grounded in political, social, and psychological models 10 of social

relationships and characteristics of human populations. The models are developed by

sociologists, psychologists, and political scientists. The “accounting system” reflects the social

structures as articulated by these particular models based on underlying social theory.

Social systems, in a broad sense, differ dramatically from systems that can be maximized

(or minimized). Social sustainability attributes do not fit a scarcity (conservation/natural

capital/limits-to-growth) mindset in that at least some of them will increase the more they are

employed. For example, the quality of daily life is an attribute of social sustainability that many

people could agree is important. Creation of a feeling of community might well be one of the

10
We recognize the influence that these have on the specification of the economic domain. An adequate critique of
the perceived neutrality of neoclassical economic theory is beyond the scope of this discussion. For a discussion of
its influence on accounting see Tinker, et al. 1982, Dillard, 1991.

17
components of quality of life 11 . It seems likely that as a feeling of community increases, the

ability to create a feeling of community increases. Some psychologists argue that feelings of self

and feelings of community are recursive, and that they can enhance each other, creating

reinforcing loops that, conceptually, have no limit (Stein and Edwards 1998).

MacGillivray (2004:121) conceptualizes social capital as “creative trust” and represents

the “stock of networks, stakeholder relationships and shared rules that help organizations and

their surrounding communities work more effectively.” Creative trust, unlike economic or

natural capital, is not inherently depleted when used. Using economic capital leads to a

depletion of these assets. Using nonrenewable natural resources means that the natural system is

permanently diminished. Using social resources, however, may often increase their stock. For

example, showing and using trust in relationships results in more trust, not in the depletion

thereof. Exchanging knowledge is more likely to result in additional sources and stocks of

knowledge.

In economic systems maximizing wealth may be appropriate. In natural systems

maximizing (or minimizing) biological diversity (or greenhouse gas emissions) may be desirable,

but does it really make sense to either maximize or minimize in the realm of social

sustainability? However, when we talk of social diversity we talk of increasing the range of

racial, gender, sexual preference, national heritage, religious affiliation, age, ethnicity, etc.

11
To further probe the meaning of “feeling of community” see a set of quotes relating to this concept at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/qu-comm.htm (found on 11/13/2004).

18
diversity in a given community 12 . What is the input to a community that can be renewably

consumed? How do we measure the diversity—by the gene pool? Do we really want to have the

greatest possible amount of biomass exist in a particular volume of space when we are talking

about humans and human social sustainability?

The core nature of the triple bottom line dimensions emerge from fundamentally different

domains. The environmental system tends more toward an objective function that attempts to

achieve interactive balance. The social system, we argue, tends to an objective function that

values quality of ongoing integration and interaction. The fundamental differences in the

attributes of social, economic, and environmental sustainability illustrate the inappropriateness of

measuring, reporting, and conceiving of these three facets in the same ways. 13 Next we directly

address the concept of the triple bottom line, using the ideas developed above.

THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE: CAN IT SUSTAIN SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY?

Metaphor is a figure of speech used to describe one concept with attributes normally

associated with another. Lakoff and Johnson (1998) identify metaphors as the primary medium

by which humans gain an understanding and through which they communicate this

understanding to others. Metaphorical structures are both enabling and constraining with respect

to the ability to understand and communicate. As discussed above, the bottom line represents a

simple and widely understood metaphor grounded in the cost-benefit calculus of neoclassical

12
Here, community is a term that implies a coherent, bounded group of people, joined in this bounded group by
some social institution.
13
Note, we are not saying that all social systems constructs are nondiminishing. For example, a good reputation can
be destroyed by behaviors in opposition to the reputation; a culture of trust can be lost by changing the leaders of an
organization. Alternatively cultural variability may impact the effects on social sustainability attributes.

19
economics, conveying a facility to sum a vast array of (potentially disparate) attributes into a

single, commoditized value, and excludes any representation of social (and environmental) well-

being beyond a crude materialism. This is the metaphorical representation upon which we are to

represent, communicate, and evaluate the social and environmental stewardship of business

organizations using triple bottom line reporting. We consider the enabling and constraining

capabilities of triple bottom line reporting with respect to measuring, reporting, and evaluating

social sustainability.

The initial legitimating argument for triple bottom line reporting was to direct

management’s attention to the social dimension of overall sustainability. Drawing attention to

economic sustainability was not a concern at this point, and the issues of environmental

sustainability were being recognized, at least at the level of internalized costs and benefits. The

bottom line metaphor provided a representation that resonates with business owners and

managers, who see it as real, meaningful, and relevant; therefore, a using this terminology

increases the likelihood of awareness and action by the target audience. Although certainly not

universally accepted, the triple bottom line and its various derivatives such as Triple-E

(economy, environment, equity) or 3P (people, planet, profit) are penetrating the traditional

language of business.

Triple bottom line reporting represents an application of the bottom line metaphor to

facilitate a more complete and transparent representation and, therefore, more prudent

management of the actual stocks and flows affected by business operations. For example, in

supporting the concept, MacGillivray (2004:121) states that the “economic, environmental and

social balance sheets must all be in the black for a business to be sustainable”. Wright et al.

(2002) touts its inclusively and exhorts decision makers to look to the “triple bottom line from
20
which tradeoffs can be more clearly defined and simultaneous social, economic, and ecological

benefits can be achieved and maintained over time”. As illustrated in such directives, the

metaphorical frame conveys an impression of compensatory relationships among the three

dimensions implying a common currency and additivity. However, as discussed above, the lack

of the requisite attributes is particularly apparent in the social sustainability domain.

Use of the bottom line as a common metaphor for these sustainability systems constrains

our ability to see them as both different and interrelated and, therefore, inhibits the development

of different approaches for representing, measuring, and understanding them. First, we consider

the problem of specifying the systems as different when in fact they are interrelated, which is

implied by the triple bottom line format. Second, we consider the problem of assuming the

systems are interrelated, or at least compatible, by applying a common economic based metaphor

to all three systems. Third, we consider the current weaknesses in how the reporting is being

described and carried out.

Perhaps the greatest disservice in applying triple bottom line reporting is the implication

that there are three separate, assessable measures (or sets of measures). Returning to Figure 1,

we see that there are multiple relationships among and within the three facets of the

sustainability triad. It is important to note, however, the relationships among the systems. The

organization affects, and is affected by, both the social and natural systems. The systems have

different goals, objectives, and performance criteria, however, changes in one system impact the

others. Even such careful observers as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) explicitly devise

sets of indicators that conceptualize and measure each factor separately (GRI 2002). As such,

the interactions among the components yield synergies and new complex relationships that

would not be recognized, therefore, restricting the representations’ validity. Masking the
21
interrelational complexity at best leads to misrepresentation and misunderstanding, culminating

naïve responses on the part of managers, regulations, and stakeholders. These distortions go

beyond merely not knowing what to measure, how to measure, or even how to define attributes.

Implying that the attributes are separate conveys a dangerous illusion of noncompensatory

precision.

The concept of triple bottom line, in fact, often turns out to be a “good old-fashioned

single bottom line plus vague commitments to social and environmental concerns” (Norman and

MacDonald 2004). Privileging the economic dimension not only obfuscates the interrelations

among the factors at another level, but also adds unwarranted legitimacy and perceived accuracy

to the resulting triple bottom line portrait. As previously discussed, the attributes of economic

sustainability and environmental sustainability are functionally and fundamentally different from

those of social sustainability. The economic bottom line, as the dominant bottom line frame, can

project attributes of measurability and aggregation on to these systems that they do not possess.

In this case, implying that the attributes are similar conveys an illusion of compensatory

precision and validity.

The triple bottom line report purports to provide information about the status and

progress on each of the three sustainability dimensions. However, most counsel associated with

triple bottom line reporting in the professional literature represents little more than platitudes.

Statements such as “implementing (the triple bottom line) would not be as demanding as one

would think” (Tschopp 2003) are intermingled with statements that the triple bottom line helps

“investors distinguish companies that are efficient now and well-positioned to protect their

market competitiveness” (Cheney 2004). Companies that prepare sustainability reports, include

(and exclude) a variety of social, environmental, and economic issues in them. By and large the
22
economic issues are related to traditional accounting and finance concepts which are, in general,

comparable among companies and over time. However, as described in SustainAbility’s 2004

report, even the top 50 corporate sustainability reporters provide a mixed bag regarding

environmental and social reporting. GRI standards, currently the most developed standards for

sustainability reporting, are rarely adhered to, and even the very few companies reporting in

“accordance” with GRI standards produce only minimally comparable information. As yet, there

are no generally accepted accounting or auditing standards, no public or regulatory requirements,

and no uniform reporting format, rending comparability across organizations and over time

difficult, if not impossible.

The bottom line is a disconnected and misconstrued metaphor when it is applied within

the guise of triple bottom line reporting and provides little, if any, utility for organizations or

their stakeholders. As argued above, the application of the bottom line metaphor, as currently

construed, represents a limited and conceptually flawed application. It then follows that the

resulting triple bottom line reporting would also be flawed as a portrait of the three categories of

sustainability. The categorical reporting moves from the traditional economics based business-

related concept of bottom line to broader, more ill-defined, and non-rigorous concepts of the

environment and the social systems. The triple bottom line report gathers together the three legs

of sustainability but provides no focus and fails to address, even at a high level, the need to arrive

at some salient point, some essential value. The bottom line is a disconnected and misconstrued

metaphor, with no real utility for organizations or their external stakeholders when

operationalized within the triple bottom line statement.

CLOSING COMMENTS

23
 An organization’s bottom line is perceived as the ultimate measure of its performance for

many managers, owners, investors, creditors, and other various constituencies. The “bottom

line” carries a patina of finality, summary, and importance and is traditionally formulated in

wholly economic terms. In the previous discussion, we explore whether the “bottom line”

provides a suitable metaphor measure for representing sustainability, generally, and social

sustainability specifically. In order to do so, we discuss the elemental properties of a bottom

line. We argue that while strongly interrelated, the elemental dimensions for each of the

sustainability systems are fundamentally different.

The triple bottom line report was developed to meet the needs of businesses engaged or

interested in sustainable development. Adams et al. (2004: 17) call the triple bottom line “an

inspiring metaphor that challenges contemporary corporations” to meet economic, environmental

and social goals simultaneously. The idea of sustainable development addresses some

businesses’ desire to see the opportunity to engage and embrace environmental and social issues

without giving up the desire to be economically prosperous. The triple bottom line report uses

the bottom line metaphor from financial reporting as a template for the reporting of economic,

social, and environmental sustainability.

We conclude that the bottom line as a metaphor for measuring and reporting business’

contribution to social sustainability is fatally flawed. The metaphor’s application through current

triple bottom line reporting protocols allows businesses to ignore critical sustainability concerns

for several reasons. First, businesses attempting to legitimate themselves without actually

addressing sustainability can use the reporting exercise to co-opt the external pressure for true

sustainability. Due to the lack of mandatory standards, businesses freely pick and choose which

characteristics they measure, derive their own metrics and standards for these characteristics, and
24
produce a report that reveals precisely what they wish to disclose. The bottom line metaphor

implies rigor and objectivity that fail to exist in these situations. Second, businesses that start

with a genuine commitment to enhancing their sustainability efforts can be distracted as the

inter-relationships among the dimensions are masked by the apparent independence of the three

“bottom lines”. There is neither demand to analyze inter-relationships nor pressure to consider

how the impacts from one dimension affect the others. The focus is an atomistic one, a

(relatively) easy and uninformed perspective for addressing sustainability objectives. Third, the

fundamental differences between the three the triple bottom line elements make using a single

framework problematic. The major differences are in: the ability to identify, quantify, and

measure these central constructs; the applicability of being metaphorically designated as capital;

and the metaphorical representations and conceptual approaches to understand, quantify, and

report the dimensions.

Our conclusions reflect the complexity and richness of the character of sustainability. To

give credit, however, the triple bottom line metaphor does provide notice that sustainability

includes social issues. This seemingly intuitive insight became real for most companies now

embracing social sustainability only after the bottom line terminology became prominent in

reporting discourses. The triple bottom line did yeoman’s work in this arena. But it is time to

move on to better, more thoughtful, more useful notions to drive sustainability. It is time to find

a new metaphor for imaging sustainability. As a start, we propose the following. Accounting is

the language of business. Triple bottom line reporting attempts to frame social sustainability in

the language of business. Why can we not articulate business in the language of social

sustainability? This should be our next metaphorical quest.

25
 References

Adams, C.A. (2002), “Factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: moving on from
extant theories”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-50.
Adams, C., Frost, G. and Webber, W. 2004. Triple Bottom Line: A review of the literature. in
Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson (eds) The Triple Bottom Line: does it all add up.
EarthScan: London UK.
Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation. Free Press: New York.
Brown, D., J. Dillard, S. Marshall. 2005. Incorporating Natural Systems as Part of Accounting’s
Public Interest Responsibility. Journal of Information Systems.
Broadbent, J., Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S. and J. Haslam. 1997. Enabling accounting: the way
forward? Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal 265-275.

Champlin, D. P. and Knoedler, J. T. 2003. Corporations, Workers, and the Public Interest.
Journal of Economic Issues. 37(2): 305-313.
CICR. 2004. The triple bottom line. Centre for Innovation in Corporate Responsibility. at
http://www.cicr.net/tblbasics.html. found 11/13/2004.
Chandler, A. 1977. The Visible Hand. Cambridge: Belknap.
Cheney, G. 2004. The Corporate Conscience and the Triple Bottom Line. Accounting Today.
July 12, 2004.
Dillard, J., 1991. Accounting as a Critical Social Science, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 8-28.
Dillard, J., D. Brown, S. Marshall. 2005. An Environmentally Enlightened Accounting.
Accounting Forum 29:77-101.
Elkington, J. 2004. Enter the Triple Bottom Line. in Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson
(eds) The Triple Bottom Line: does it all add up. EarthScan: London UK.
Emerson, J. 2003. The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating social and financial returns.
California Management Review. 45(4): 35-51.
Epstein, M. and Wisner, P. 2001. Good Neighbors: Implementing social and environmental
strategies with the BSC. Balanced Scorecard Report. May/June. 4p.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gray, R. 2001. Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have
we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review. 10(1): 9-15.
Gray, R. and J. Bebbington. 2001. Accounting for the Environment 2nd Ed. London: Sage
Publications.

26
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. 1997. Struggling with the praxis of social
accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal. 10(3): 325-64.

GRI. 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative. Boston, MA.
Group of 100. 2003. Sustainability: A guide to triple bottom line reporting. Report by Group of
100 Incorporated. Melbourne: Australia.
Gunderson, L. and Holling, C. (eds.) 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Systems of Humans and Nature., Island Press: Washington, D. C.

Hart, S. J. 1997. Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harvard Business Review
75(1):66-77.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, L. H. 1999. Natural Capitalism. Boston, MA: Little, Brown
and Company.
Hoffman, A. J. 2000. Competitive Environmental Strategy. Island Press: Washington DC.
Howes, R. 2004. Environmental Cost Accounting: Coming of Age? Tracking organizational
performance towards environmental sustainability. in Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson
(eds) The Triple Bottom Line: does it all add up. EarthScan: London UK.
Johnson, H. and R. Kaplan. 1987. Relevance Lost. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Kolk, Ans. 2003. Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business
Strategy and the Environment. 12: 279-291.
KPMG. 2002. Beyond Numbers: How leading organizations link values with value to gain
competitive advantage. KPMG LLP White paper.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1998. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lingane, A. and Olsen, S. 2004. Guidelines for Social Return on Investment. California
Management Review, 46(3) 116-135.
Lenzen, M., Lundie, S., Bransgrove, G., Charet, L., and Sack, F. 2003. Assessing the ecological
footprint of a large metropolitan water supplier: Lessons for water management and planning
towards sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 46(1): 113-141.
MacGillivan, 2004. in Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson (eds) The Triple Bottom Line:
does it all add up. EarthScan: London UK.
Norman, W. and MacDonald, C. 2004. Getting to the bottom of the “triple bottom line”.
Business Ethics Quarterly. 14(2):243-262.
Pearce, D. and E. Barbier. 2000. Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. London: Earthscan.
Previts, G. and B. Merino. 1998.
Richardson, J. 2004. Accounting for Sustainability. in Adrian Henriques and Julie Richardson
(eds) The Triple Bottom Line: does it all add up. EarthScan: London UK.

27
Robèrt, K. H. 2003. Integrating Sustainability into Business Strategy and Operations: applying
The Natural Step approach and Framework and backcasting from principles of sustainability. in
Sissel Waage (ed) Ants, Galileo, & Gandhi: Designing the future of business through nature,
genius, and compassion. Greenleaf: Sheffield UK.
Schilizzi, S. 2002. Triple Bottom Line Accounting: How serious is it? Connections. Online
publication of Agribusiness Association of Australia, at
http://www.agrifood.info/10pub_conn_Win2002.htm (11/13/2004)
SustainAbility. 2004. Risk and Opportunity: Best Practice in Non-Financial Reporting.
SustainAbility: London UK.
Tinker, A.M., Merino, B. and M. D. Neimark, “The Normative Origins of Positive Theories:
Ideology and Accounting Thought,” Accounting, Organizations and Society (1982) 167-200.
Tschopp, D. 2003. It’s Time for Triple Bottom Line Accounting. The CPA Journal. 73(12): 11.
Wright, P. A., Alward, G., Colby, J. L., Hoekstra, T. W., Tegler, B., and Turner, M. USDA
Forest Service. 2002. Monitoring for forest management unit scale sustainability: the local unit
criteria and indicators development (LUCID) test (management edition). Fort Collins, CO:
USDA Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Report No.5. 54 p.

28
 So gen
ci ts
A
et
al

Figure 1. Resource and information flows among the economic, social, and natural systems.

29
Edicions / Issues:

95/1 Productividad del trabajo, eficiencia e hipótesis de convergencia en la industria

textil-confección europea
Jordi López Sintas

95/2 El tamaño de la empresa y la remuneración de los máximos directivos

Pedro Ortín Ángel

95/3 Multiple-Sourcing and Specific Investments

Miguel A. García-Cestona

96/1 La estructura interna de puestos y salarios en la jerarquía empresarial

Pedro Ortín Ángel

96/2 Efficient Privatization Under Incomplete Contracts

Miguel A. García-Cestona
Vicente Salas-Fumás

96/3 Institutional Imprinting, Global Cultural Models, and Patterns of

OrganizationalLearning: Evidence from Firms in the Middle-Range Countries
Mauro F. Guillén (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)

96/4 The relationship between firm size and innovation activity: a double decision
approach
Ester Martínez-Ros (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
José M. Labeaga (UNED & Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

96/5 An Approach to Asset-Liability Risk Control Through Asset-Liability Securities

Joan Montllor i Serrats
María-Antonia Tarrazón Rodón

97/1 Protección de los administradores ante el mercado de capitales: evidencia empírica

en España
Rafael Crespí i Cladera

97/2 Determinants of Ownership Structure: A Panel Data Approach to the Spanish Case
Rafael Crespí i Cladera

97/3 The Spanish Law of Suspension of Payments: An Economic Analysis From

Empirical Evidence
Esteban van Hemmen Almazor

98/1 Board Turnover and Firm Performance in Spanish Companies

Carles Gispert i Pellicer

98/2 Libre competencia frente a regulación en la distribución de medicamentos:

teoría y evidencia empírica para el caso español
Eva Jansson

98/3 Firm’s Current Performance and Innovative Behavior Are the Main Determinants of
Salaries in Small-Medium Enterprises
Jordi López Sintas y Ester Martínez Ros
98/4 On The Determinants of Export Internalization: An Empirical
Comparison Between Catalan and Spanish (Non-Catalan) Exporting Firms
Alex Rialp i Criado

98/5 Modelo de previsión y análisis del equilibrio financiero en la empresa

Antonio Amorós Mestres

99/1 Avaluació dinàmica de la productivitat dels hospitals i la seva descomposició en

canvi tecnològic i canvi en eficiència tècnica
Magda Solà

99/2 Block Transfers: Implications for the Governance of Spanish Corporations

Rafael Crespí, and Carles Gispert

99/3 The Asymmetry of IBEX-35 Returns With TAR Models

M.ª Dolores Márquez, César Villazón

99/4 Sources and Implications of Asymmetric Competition: An Empirical Study

Pilar López Belbeze

99/5 El aprendizaje en los acuerdos de colaboración interempresarial

Josep Rialp i Criado

00/1 The Cost of Ownership in the Governance of Interfirm Collaborations

Josep Rialp i Criado, i Vicente Salas Fumás

00/2 Reasignación de recursos y resolución de contratos en el sistema concursal español

Stefan van Hemmen Alamazor

00/3 A Dynamic Analysis of Intrafirm Diffusion: The ATMs

Lucio Fuentelsaz, Jaime Gómez, Yolanda Polo

00/4 La Elección de los Socios: Razones para Cooperar con Centros de Investigación y
con Proveedores y Clientes
Cristina Bayona, Teresa García, Emilio Huerta

00/5 Inefficient Banks or Inefficient Assets?

Emili Tortosa-Ausina

01/1 Collaboration Strategies and Technological Innovation: A Contractual Perspective of

the Relationship Between Firms and Technological Centers
Alex Rialp, Josep Rialp, Lluís Santamaria

01/2 Modelo para la Identificación de Grupos Estratégicos Basado en el Análisis

Envolvente de Datos: Aplicación al Sector Bancario Español
Diego Prior, Jordi Surroca

01/3 Seniority-Based Pay: Is It Used As a Motivation Device?

Alberto Bayo-Moriones

01/4 Calidad de Servicio en la Enseñanza Universitaria: Desarrollo y Validación de una

Escala de Medida.
Joan-Lluís Capelleras, José M.ª Veciana
01/5 Enfoque estructural vs. recursos y capacidades: un estudio empírico de los
factores clave de éxito de las agencias de viajes en España.
Fabiola López-Marín, José M.ª Veciana

01/6 Opción de Responsabilidad Limitada y Opción de Abandonar: Una Integración para

el Análisis del Coste de Capita.
Neus Orgaz

01/7 Un Modelo de Predicción de la Insolvencia Empresarial Aplicado al Sector Textil y

Confección de Barcelona (1994-1997).
Antonio Somoza López

01/8 La Gestión del Conocimiento en Pequeñas Empresas de Tecnología de la

Información: Una Investigación Exploratoria.
Laura E. Zapata Cantú

01/9 Marco Institucional Formal de Creación de Empresas en Catalunya: Oferta y

Demanda de Servicios de Apoyo
David Urbano y José María Veciana.

02/1 Access as a Motivational Device: Implications for Human Resource Management.

Pablo Arocena, Mikel Villanueva

02/2 Efficiency and Quality in Local Government. The Case of Spanish Local Authorities
M.T. Balaguer, D. Prior, J.M. Vela

02/3 Single Period Markowitz Portfolio Selection, Performance Gauging and Duality: A
variation on Luenberger’s Shortage Function
Walter Briec, Kristiaan Kerstens, Jean Baptiste Lesourd

02/4 Innovación tecnológica y resultado exportador: un análisis empírico aplicado al

sector textil-confección español
Rossano Eusebio, Àlex Rialp Criado

02/5 Caracterización de las empresas que colaboran con centros tecnológicos

Lluís Santamaria, Miguel Ángel García Cestona, Josep Rialp

02/6 Restricción de crédito bancario en economías emergentes: el caso de la PYME en

México
Esteban van Hemmen Almazor

02/7 La revelación de información obligatoria y voluntaria (activos intangibles) en las

entidades de crédito. Factores determinantes.
Gonzalo Rodríguez Pérez

02/8 Measuring Sustained Superior Performance at the Firm Level

Emili Grifell - Tatjé, Pilar Marquès - Gou

02/9 Governance Mechanisms in Spanish Financial Intermediaries

Rafel Crespi, Miguel A. García-Cestona, Vicente Salas

02/10 Endeudamiento y ciclos políticos presupuestarios: el caso de los ayuntamientos

catalanes
Pedro Escudero Fernández, Diego Prior Jiménez
02/11 The phenomenon of international new ventures, global start-ups, and born-
globals:what do we know after a decade (1993-2002) of exhaustive scientific inquiry?
Àlex Rialp-Criado, Josep Rialp-Criado, Gary A. Knight

03/1 A methodology to measure shareholder value orientation and shareholder value

creation aimed at providing a research basis to investigate the link between both
magnitudes
Stephan Hecking

03/2 Assessing the structural change of strategic mobility. Determinants under

hypercompetitive environments
José Ángel Zúñiga Vicente, José David Vicente Lorente

03/3 Internal promotion versus external recruitment: evidence in industrial plants

Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Pedro Ortín-Ángel

03/4 El empresario digital como determinante del éxito de las empresas puramente
digitales: un estudio empírico
Christian Serarols, José M.ª Veciana

03/5 La solvencia financiera del asegurador de vida y su relación con el coste de capital
Jordi Celma Sanz

03/6 Proceso del desarrollo exportador de las empresas industriales españolas que
participan en un consorcio de exportación: un estudio de caso
Piedad Cristina Martínez Carazo

03/7 Utilidad de una Medida de la Eficiencia en la Generación de Ventas para la

Predicción del Resultado
María Cristina Abad Navarro

03/8 Evaluación de fondos de inversión garantizados por medio de portfolio insurance

Sílvia Bou Ysàs

03/9 Aplicación del DEA en el Análisis de Beneficios en un Sistema Integrado

Verticalmente Hacia Adelante
Héctor Ruiz Soria

04/1 Regulación de la Distribución Eléctrica en España: Análisis Económico de una

Década, 1987-1997
Leticia Blázquez Gómez; Emili Grifell-Tatjé

04/2 The Barcelonnettes: an Example of Network-Entrepreneurs in XIX Century Mexico.

An Explanation Based on a Theory of Bounded Rational Choice with Social
Embeddedness.
Gonzalo Castañeda

04/3 Estructura de propiedad en las grandes sociedades anónimas por acciones.

Evidencia empírica española en el contexto internacional
Rabel Crespí; Eva Jansson

05/1 IFRS Adoption in Europe: The Case of Germany.

Soledad Moya, Jordi Perramon, Anselm Constans
 05/2 Efficiency and environmental regulation: a ‘complex situation’
Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, Diego Prior

05/3 Financial Development, Labor and Market Regulations and Growth

Raquel Fonseca, Natalia Utrero

06/1 Entrepreneurship, Management Services and Economic Growth

Vicente Salas Fumás, J. Javier Sánchez Asín

06/2 Triple Bottom Line: A business metaphor for a social construct

Darrel Brown, Jesse Dillard, R. Scott Marshall

View publication stats