1. ENHANCING PROFITS BY NURTURING PEOPLE AND PLANET
NHRDN ANNUAL CONFERENCE- MUMBAI
NHRDN RESEARCH COMMITTEE:
Prof. Dr. Uday Salunkhe, Chairperson, (Group Director- We School)
Mr. Vijayan Pankajakshan, co- chair (Director-HR-CHEP India Pvt. Ltd)
Mr. Mohandas Nair (Educator)
Mr. Vivek Sharma (Training Director, Max HealthCare)
ACADEMIC PARTNER: WeSchool:
Dr. Ketna L Mehta (Editor and Associate Dean, Research)
Prof. Rimmi Joneja (Associate Dean, HR)
Prof. Savitri Kulkarni (Associate Dean & Academic Head, HR)
Prof Anuradha Mahesh (Associate Professor, Retail)
Prof. Swar Kranti (Faculty, HR)
Prof. Paridnya Soman (Faculty, Research)
Prof. Rohan Athalye (Faculty, HR)
Mr. Suyash Deshpande (Alumnus)
Student Team
Devanshi Vaishnav
Merup Kapadia
Anish Sohoni
Neha Velani
Anuja Misra
Darpan Parsekar
Neha Gupta
Jyotsna Gujral
Chintan Shah
Adwait Atre
1

2. INDEX
SERIAL
NUMBER TOPIC PAGE NUMBER
1 Preface 3
2 Abstract 9
3 Executive Summary 10
4 Triple Bottom Line- The Concept 12
5 TBL Reporting: Global Overview 13
6 Role of HR and Triple Bottom Line 14
7 GRI Reporting Framework 17
8 Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative 18
(GRLI)
9 CSR vs. TBL 20
10 TBL and Ethics 21
11 Literature on Sustainability 22
12 Profit, Planet, People 25
13 The Research 31
14 Methodology 31
15 Findings 32
16 Discussion 40
17 Conclusion 41
18 References 42
19 Appendix 45
2

3. PREFACE
“A stool is stable only if it has three legs”.
In Indian philosophy, the triad concept of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (preserver) and Mahesh
(destroyer) is the foundation of all life, and represents wholesomeness across generations and
centuries. The forces of land, wind, fire, water and have always been as an ecosystem in harmony.
All of the above represent the eternal and timeless value of balance and alignment. It means
phenomena-living or otherwise- and systems search for that elusive 'perfect or optimum balance'.
The imbalance, over successive generations, was persisted due to the dominant model
of development through industrialization and the relentless search for economic profits and surpluses.
The test of a first rate business organization was/is almost entirely attributed to the financial numbers
that it can deliver on the balance sheet and to the stock market.
The dimension of people, to a lesser extent, and the planet to a ravaging extent, has been ignored. We
have now come to a momentous period in our lives, when the planet and its people have raised their
loud voices - individually and collectively-against the inequities, misery and not so good outcomes of
rampant single track industrialization.
This ‘close to breakdown’ reality has been accelerated by the demise of the big and the small- in the
last many months. All ‘strategies of success’ and indicators of excellence have taken a knock on their
head like never before. Seemingly, even working in the interest of the shareholders could not save
many Humpty’s from falling over in a big heap.
3

4. Beyond the economic disaster, is the rapid deterioration in faith of the ordinary citizen-anywhere in
the world- with his/her leaders, their employers and even the ‘so called regulators? In fact, the surge
towards rapid globalization and hence market dominance in any sphere of living, made many
governance and regulator institutions defunct or toothless. The psyche of nations, societies, young
and old have been severely tested, coping with rapid and widespread job losses, compression in
demand, scarcity of capital, weather and other natural catastrophes etc.
Trust has been at an all time low. When trust break down, relationships do not get sustained and
strengthened. Sans trust between lenders and users, no value can be added. Trust is the only
sustainable lubricant for greater human to human and human to systems interfaces. This alone can
lead to generation of greater and better value and raising the quality of outcomes for the eco system
of stakeholders.
Business organizations in India and elsewhere have most often chosen- as a default mechanism- the
models of business success, leadership, from the West. Decades of education and training of those
who are current business leaders and, now, the emerging business professionals have learnt how Wall
Street is the supreme arbiter of success. This education, training has ingrained values/beliefs that
propagate that it is smartness and intelligence that gets you ahead. Doing the right thing and doing it
well, relying on wisdom and core values have been ignored, derided and if followed, more in lip
service.
We have come to an important point in history. What is the definition of success for a business? Is
success a reflection in the mirror of economic well being? Is economic well being a super set of all
other measures of success? There has never been a greater dichotomy in the list of the so called
‘economically developed countries’, ‘the fast developing countries in economic terms’ and the list of
countries in the Human Development Index (UN).The UN listing for 2009 is a wake up call that
economic powerhouses do not necessarily lead to citizen wellbeing and better quality of life.
India is ranked as low as 134 in a list of 182 countries. In fact, it seems to suggest that those countries
with lower intensity of focus on rapid economic growth have turned in higher scores as far as
wellbeing is concerned. For example, in the 2009 listing, the top five spots have been occupied by
Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada and Ireland.( In 2000, the top spots were occupied by Norway,
Australia, Canada and Sweden.
4

5. Readers must be aware of Bhutan having developed a 13 attribute driven Happiness Index for its
citizens, and economic well being is only one of them.
In 2007, India’s overall ranking in HDI was a dismal 114 out of 128 countries surveyed. In economic
participation and opportunities for women, it is 122; in educational attainment it is 116 (41 per cent
of Indian women in the 15-49 age group have never been to school); in health and survival rate is 126
(maternal mortality rate is 301 per 100,000 live births) with only Azerbaijan and Armenia lower.
Only in political empowerment does it score higher at 21- million and more women elected to
Panchayati Raj institutions.
In India, the role played by industrial activity is central to facilitating large numbers of poor people to
cross above the poverty line. Our dependence of large number of its citizens on agriculture cannot
carry one for ever – for three reasons. Firstly, due to advances in productivity, lesser hands are
required to feed the country. Secondly, many of our citizens in villages hold very small tracts of land
(not very amenable to automation) and thirdly, agriculture sector is highly vulnerable to lack of rain/
too much of rain/ too little rain too late or too much rain too early.
Hence, leaders who influence industrial activity today and into the future will play a very important
role in shaping the development and progress indicators, towards releasing a large proportion of our
fellow citizens from the bondage of abject poverty.
The political class has also begun to understand- in no uncertain terms- that good governance is the
key and differentiating factor for the voters to select a particular candidate or not. The message is that
divisive and emotive subjects are not going to sway their rational thinking. Hence, it is not surprising
that the language of the political class, in some quarters at least, is refocusing the agenda. We are
hearing louder noises on arresting conspicuous consumption, limiting obscene levels of Executive
compensation, pressure to diversity the workforce in companies in a ‘real sense’- beyond quotas and
other window dressing. The meta-environment, even beyond our national borders, are also
reinforcing the above messages- in some cases, the reality in many of their countries is even starker.
We opine, that, now is the time to focus thinking and thought leadership on how should businesses
operate into the future and what would the tomorrow’s company look like? What would be the
contours of its design? What will be given more importance than what is being given now? Would
5

6. relationships between employees and employers, suppliers and companies be increasingly based on
mutually shared values based on trust?
Would the means to the end become important? Would new means become more important to
current ends? Or would the means remain the same and the end would redefine? The list of
possibilities and probabilities are long.
In this context, we are proud and gratified to submit this report, as a contribution to the conference
theme. The theme is based on the Triple Bottom Line concept, articulated first by John Elkington.
We are fascinated by this frame for a number of reasons:
a) The concept of three, to provide optimum balance -
b) The realization that planet is as central to our well being, as is profit and people
c) It emphasizes, in a dynamic sense, the interdependence of means and ends
d) There are organizations that have/are utilizing this frame and have/are experienced/ experiencing
better and wholesome results.
e) It provides a new lens to aid reframing any of the roles in a Business- be it the Board, CEO or HR
Head or for that matter any functional manager or even a shop-floor worker.
We believe that if the Promoters, Board and the CEO redraft their vision/’mental models’ of success,
it provides a new wave of ‘unexplored space’ for the organization, its people including the HR
profession. It is quite clear that the HR profession has come to an inflexion point, where it should
play a more a pivotal role in determining the future of the business or risk being marginalized and
confined to the peripheries.
It is not that the above thought processes have come out of the blue. Many distinguished voices in
India have alluded to the need for course corrections. However, these voices, hitherto have been
outshouted by the louder voices. However, increasingly many more people are listening to these ‘low
share of voice but strong signals’.
For e.g., Business World magazine and FICCI have instituted an award, way back in 1999, for
companies who have done ‘stellar work and to commend the spirit of using corporate resources, core
competencies and funds for the benefit of people and the environment.’
6

7. Our distinguished PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh articulating a 10 point social charter, way back , in May
2007 said , “in a modern society , business must realize its social responsibility. The time has come
to ask what we can give back to India.’(BW, 26th may 2008). In 2008, the following quote appeared-
‘Today- nimbler CEO’s and promoters assess the consequences of their decisions and actions on
various stakeholders.’(BW, May 26th 2008).
‘Social responsibility is a privilege- not a portal for publicity’ said Mr. Keshub Mahindra (Chairman-
Mahindra & Mahindra) on why his Group maintains a deliberate low profile of its CSR activity
(Business World).
Even voices from outside of India have been alluding to a different configuration of thought
leadership to shape businesses of tomorrow. e.g.: an article in the HBR talks of four justifications for
CSR- moral obligation, sustainability, license to operate and the quest for enhanced reputation.
(Harvard Business Review, 2006)
The Centre for Tomorrow’s Company reports, “40% of businesses now believe that a company
cannot succeed unless it has accountability wider than shareholders.’(‘Business Ethics- Facing up to
the issues’- published by The Economist)
“Hubris , born of success: undisciplined pursuit of more, denial of risk and peril, grasping for
salvation with a quick big solution and capitulation to irrelevance and death- offer kind of autopsy
for an economy on a stretcher’. Says Jim Collins (Leadership Guru) (article- DNA newspaper)
There is now increasing evidence-quantitative and qualitative – and from multi sources, that those
business organizations which have focused on a more holistic and balanced approach have done well
over time –financially and otherwise. Hence, there is no doubt that holistic thinking would not lead to
superior performance- irrespective of the ‘lens’ used.
For example, Tom Peters and Waterman, in their ground breaking research, published in the best
seller, ‘In Search of Excellence” identified a set of companies, who have used excellence as their
overarching theme. These companies had outperformed competition on almost all financial metrics.
That list includes many well known names like: 3M, Boeing, Caterpillar, Walt Disney, Intel, Merck,
J&J, Pepsi, IBM, Du Pont, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and P&G. Most of these companies have
7

8. continued to remain relevant to date and still feature in similar lists- post 25 years of the above
research.
In Jim Collins and J Porass’s list of ‘Built to Last- 18 visionary companies- the common names from
the Peter & Waterman list are 3M, Boeing, P&G, Wal-Mart, Merck, IBM and J&J. This study was
researched competitor performance, in the comparator class and came to the conclusion that the ‘built
to last’ companies outperformed the competitor in all financial measurements- even though both
were operating in the same business environment and had similar access to threats and opportunities.
In Jim Collins’ earlier research- “Good to Great-‘more than 1435 companies, over a 40 year period,
were researched and a list of 11 great companies developed. Many names in this list are not as
familiar as global brands example: Abbot Laboratories, Fannie Mae, Kimberly Clark, Nucor, Wells
Fargo and Kroger.
According to Covalence Research (headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland), for the first time, IBM
reached the top position in its ethical ranking (quarter ending September 2009). It was followed by
Intel and HSBC, among 541 multinationals within 18 sectors. IBM benefited from continuous
improvement over the last 3 years as well as from its recent green supply chain logistics
announcements and new water-cooled supercomputer.
Green initiatives, on the positive side, and working conditions and downsizing, on the negative,
generated high volumes of news during the last quarter.
The most active criteria during Q2 2009 have been: Environmental Impact of Production, Social
Sponsorship, Downsizing, International Presence, Eco-Innovative Product, and Information to
Consumers.
In each of these dramatic, remarkable, good-to-great corporate transformations, we found the same
thing: There were no miracle moments. Instead, a down-to-earth, pragmatic, committed-to-
excellence process -- a framework -- kept each company, its leaders, and its people on track for the
long haul.
In each case, it was the triumph of the Flywheel Effect over the Doom Loop, the victory of steadfast
discipline over the quick fix. And the real kicker: The comparison companies in our study -- firms
with virtually identical opportunities during the pivotal years -- did buy into the change myths
8

9. described above -- and failed to make the leap from good to great”.(extracts from “Good to Great ‘by
Jim Collins).
ABSTRACT
This research attempts to study the correlation between financial profits and the planet and people
practices of companies which actively practice Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Accounting. It attempts to
examine the business sensibility of the sustainability philosophy and its relevance in the long-term
for organizations that are practicing it and/or would be practicing it in the near future.
9

10. ENHANCING PROFITS BY NURTURING PEOPLE AND PLANET
A RESEARCH STUDY on TRIPLE BOTTOMLINE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“The business of business is growth and profits or else it will die, but if only based on growth and
profits then also it will die, for it no longer has a reason for its existence.”
-- Anonymous
Employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, community, knowledge workers, team – all are
different words used to describe one entity –human being. In today’s’ scenario ‘being human’ is
more important than just a human being; not just towards one’s organization but also towards the
environment and the society as a whole.
Humans are social animals. A society is just not made of people, but the environment that we live in;
and to thrive and lead a meaningful life, resources are essential. Resources can be classified as those
that are attained from nature, resources that generate monetary benefits and human resources around
us; all of which are interdependent.
TBL is an acronym for Triple Bottom Line and is gradually becoming an integral part of our life.
10

11. TBL as we now know is an accounting practice and standard (John Elkington). TBL will soon
become the raison d'etre (reason for existence) for companies.
The objectives of the study were:
* A perception study of TBL practices and their impact on profits in organization
* To conduct a baseline study of sustainable best practices in organization
* To identify role of CEO/HR Professionals in the TBL activities
* To do an exploratory study of TBL practices in organization
This research, under the backdrop of “Reinventing the economy of tomorrow” is a maiden attempt to
understand the what, who and how of TBL, and the three Ps –Planet, People and Profits.
This research study was carried out by WeSchool team and the research committee at NHRD
network. The aim has been to conduct a quantitative study of the TBL practices followed by
organizations and correlate a relationship between Profits and nurturing people and planet. 94
companies were researched and the study found that many innovative people and planet practices
exist realizing that both actions and inactions have consequences.
Companies from across all sectors were tapped for this study. The respondent group varied from
CEOs to HR Managers. The study concludes with some workman like practical solutions which can
be implemented by organizations to become sustainable rather than only profitable. In today’s times
corporates cannot narrowly focus on growth and profits for the well being of the organisation. A
sustainable organisation is that which proactively nurtures into their vision, mission and core values
in alignment with the planet and people.
The journey led to the conclusion that TBL actually means – TO BE LOVED; to "cherish" and
"safeguard" what we love, whether it is people, planet and profits.
11

12. INTRODUCTION
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE - THE CONCEPT
Sustainability, specializing in business strategy and sustainable development, introduced a term
called the ‘‘Triple Bottom Line’’ (TBL). TBL is a framework for measuring and reporting corporate
performance against economic, social and environmental parameters.
The TBL is used ‘‘... to capture the whole set of values, issues and processes that companies must
address in order to minimize any harm resulting from their activities and to create economic, social
and environmental value.’’
The three communities of TBL are:
1. Community I: Profits- economic rationality-The three bottom lines are all reported but key
issues and decisions are made when profits are treated as the lead dog.
2. Community II: People-social justice- Organizations are made by and for people, when people
are shown dignity and respect, feel safe and have enough food in their bellies they will take
care of the planet and turn the workplace into a profitable and sustainable enterprise.
3. Community III: Ecological rationality- All is for naught if the planet collapses due to global
warming or severe resource depletion. As a consequence, planet is the lead dog, social justice
follows, and then we must look to profits—without this, we are due short term wins but long
term disaster.
Viewing corporate performance using only economic measures is not regarded as sufficient.
Stakeholders may be concerned about whether a company is following a socially responsible path
12

13. and may not want to invest in companies that employ child labour, purchase from companies that
operate ‘‘sweat shops’’ for labour, or operate in countries that have questionable political
systems/poor human rights records. Similarly, stakeholders are concerned about whether a company
is acting in an environmentally friendly way. Global warming, the potential for ecological accidents,
as well as the hysteria surrounding events such as’ mad cow disease,’’ have in recent years increased
society’s awareness and concern about the quality of the environment, especially the corporation’s
role and responsibility in that regard. Thus, it is emphasized in TBL that corporate performance must
be measured against not only economic but also social and environmental criteria. In addition, while
traditional financial statements primarily focus on profitability and other financial performance, the
economic dimension of TBL is intended to capture and present a comprehensive view of corporate
economic interactions with all stakeholders including share-holders, customers, employees,
governments, the community, and the general public. The scope of the economic interactions with
and impacts of the corporation on the stakeholders go beyond those of the traditional financial reports
in that issues such as intangible assets gain more weight in TBL reporting.
There is a growing awareness of the necessity for a company to disclose information about its social
and environmental performance. Many companies, particularly major multinationals, are working
toward a balance between their financial/economic, environmental, and social performance, and are
starting to report in all three areas. For example, General Electric recently announced that it would be
implementing a major initiative to address environmental issues – particularly global warming and
the shortage of water resources. JP Morgan Chase, a leading commercial bank in the United States,
announced that it would join a group of other banks to adopt the ‘‘Equator Principles’’ – a set of
guidelines for banks to follow when considering loaning money for development when
environmentally sensitive issues are involved. Nike published a report outlining working conditions
at hundreds of factories where its products are manufactured in an attempt to address criticism about
working conditions at the factories.
TBL REPORTING: GLOBAL OVERVIEW
World over, TBL reporting is also known as corporate responsibility or sustainability reporting
(KPMG, 2005).
13

14. Adams et al. (1998) examined corporate social reporting practices for a sample of 150 annual reports
from six European countries. They split social disclosures into three categories: environmental
reporting, reporting on employee issues, and ethical reporting.
Using content analysis and three measures (total number of items disclosed, the number of items for
which either quantified or financial information is disclosed, and the length of the narrative
disclosures), their findings indicated that the amount and nature of social disclosure varied
significantly across Europe. In particular, the German firms disclosed the most information across all
three categories. The UK firms were ranked either second or third behind the Swedish companies
with respect to environmental or employee disclosures. In addition, the Swedish firms tended to
disclose more quantified information. The Netherlands had the lowest disclosure level in terms of
environmental information, and Switzerland disclosed the least across three measures of employee
disclosures. Lastly, the results show that firm size and industry membership are important
determinants of the level of social disclosures in all six European countries.
Countries with a high social conscience and/or developed capital markets voluntarily disclosed more
environmental information. In particular, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom had the
highest disclosure level. Regarding the disclosure forms, the United Kingdom firms were major users
of short qualitative discussion (SQD, which is not in the footnotes and less than a page in the annual
report), Canadian firms were more likely to use extended qualitative discussion (EQD, which is not
in footnotes but includes a page or more), and US firms were the major users of other disclosure
forms such as footnote discussion or journal entries recorded in financial statements.
Hackston and Milne (1996) investigate the social and environmental disclosure practices of a sample
of New Zealand firms. Their findings indicate that, consistent with prior research for US, UK, and
Australian firms, New Zealand firms made most social disclosures on human resources. The
environment and community issues also received significant attention. On an average, the amount of
social disclosure made by New Zealand firms was about three-quarters of an annual report page, and
the majority of the disclosure was declarative and good news in nature. Also, their results showed
that both firm size and industry membership were significantly associated with the amount of
disclosure, while profitability was not. Craig and Diga (1998) analyzed annual report disclosure
practices in five Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries:
Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. Their results indicated that, overall,
ASEAN companies appeared reluctant to disclose information that was perceived to be politically or
14

15. socially sensitive such as information regarding labour and employment activities, environmental
programs, and government subsidies. They concluded that corporate reporting in ASEAN was
‘‘oriented strongly towards the information needs of capital providers, rather than the needs of a
broader set of stakeholders (including employees, government agencies, and the general
community)’’ (p. 257).
ROLE OF HR & TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE
Leaders recognize that business and markets don’t operate in isolation, but are influenced by and
have an influence on the environment, communities and society at large. These leaders see their
companies as part of an “enterprise” – a rich, growing and continually evolving network of
interdependent relationships. And they value the role that their organizations can and should play in
enriching that enterprise. This is the essence of cross-enterprise leadership.
Most recently, Professor Klassen examined the reverse supply chain practices of more than 100
Canadian firms. Through a reverse supply chain, firms retrieve used products and materials from
customers to recover their value – through recycling, remanufacturing or reselling. The study results
demonstrate that when companies leverage their reverse supply chains in this way, they not only
reduce the negative environmental impact of waste disposal, they also lower their production costs.
In essence, “being green” saves money.
Professor Tima Bansal, who has focused much of her 20 years of research on triple-bottom-line
issues, explored how corporate sustainability and social responsibility affected both a firm’s
reputation and its profitability. Overall, she believes that “Business leaders who chose to ignore
pressing social, economic and environmental issues did so at their own considerable peril - and their
organizations.” This just isn’t simply a matter of staying in business or safeguarding corporate
reputation. It’s about gaining competitive advantage and managing risk by being proactive and
responsible. Over the long run, she believes that “it is the pursuit of both societal and economic value
that yields long term and stable profits” for companies.
Taryn Vian, et al., provide a fascinating look at how Pfizer partners with global NGOs to create the
Pfizer Global Health Fellows, a voluntary initiative that links Pfizer employees with organizations in
several parts of the world to do grass-root work on health problems such as HIV-AIDS. The positive
15

16. benefits for Pfizer employees are noted. This article emphasizes the fact that TBL projects are
inherently collaborative and require creation of partnerships, networks, and alliances to maximize
benefits. Whether labour unions, NGOs, or supply chain partners, the organization must learn how to
work with others to achieve shared ends.
There are many proven examples that the TBL concept is viable and critically important for
organizations to understand and adopt. The linkages between initiatives and better performance are
already established. A clear effort-performance linkage is enhanced when HR assumes an active
leadership role in creating formal, sanctioned, and supported mechanisms, practices, and processes.
Doing so requires conceptual clarity and sustained commitment by senior leadership.
There is a key role for the HR function to play in Triple bottom line sustainability i.e. helping
generate dialogue, building consensus on the sustainability intent and building alignment capabilities
to help realize that intent. Aligning sustainability with the business strategically is extremely crucial
since the objective of sustainability is to leverage inclusive stake-holder view to create value for
organization and broad global society. In the process, what is sustained is organization as an
economic entity, corporate brand & global human welfare. Any sustainable framework utilised in
such circumstances acts like a strategically provocative frame to re-orient business growth by
broadening conceptions of context and capability. The primary role of leaders in such organizations
is to identify opportunities and build organizational commitment. In parallel, organizational values
act as a compass to set strategic direction. HR’s dialogue with all stakeholders broaden strategic
reference frame and enrol stakeholders in a new direction of an improved way of doing business.
Implications for key HR processes:
• Organization effectiveness/change management: HR needs to drive dialogue on triple bottom
line sustainability among senior executives and levels of managers to build consensus on
conception of sustainability. Secondly it must develop communication processes to link
functional work of all divisions toward key sustainability intent.
• Strategic human resource planning: Focussing HR strategy content to support business
directions under sustainability intent. Substantively aligning human and organizational
capital to the sustainability vision and the business strategies.
16

17. • Thirdly, developing HR staffing plans to support divestiture and acquisition of new
businesses.
• Talent management/staffing: Meaningfully integrating sustainability intent and objectives
into recruitment and selection processes to seek fit and building commitment in new hires.
Identifying critical talent families to support current sustainability intent objectives. Thirdly,
building a pool of human capital (knowledge, skills) toward sustainability-framed strategies
to help create new business opportunities from the inside out.
• Training & Development: Developing leadership capacity toward sustainability alignment
objectives—"role of leaders"—under relevant conception. Infusing development processes
(mentoring, career development) with sustainability intent to give context to future capability
building. Focus skill-building to support sustainability-framed business objectives.
GRI REPORTING FRAMEWORK
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a voluntary, dynamic multi-stakeholder process to “develop
and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.”
GRI provides a template of “sustainability report” for use by various organizations regardless of
size, sector, location and experience in preparing sustainability reporting. It is important to note that
GRI does not prescribe standards example: Emission targets/similar targets for any single industry/
sector.
It is structured in such a way so as to serve as a toolkit for reporting company and external auditors to
measure progress towards sustainable development viz. economic, environmental and social
performance. In addition to “sustainability report”, GRI recommends organizations to adopt 11
principles, which are already being used in many organizations; these include such “intangible
assets” as reputation, human capital, audibility and capacity to innovate.
An outstanding feature of GRI among other CSR related guidelines and regulations, is
a quantitative approach, wherever possible, for measurement of the organization’s direct and indirect
impacts (both positive and negative) and commitments. Quantification of a company’s sustainability
is made possible through using various performance indicators: i. Economic, ii. Environmental and
17

18. iii. Social. Economic performance is measured through examining company’s indirect impacts on
customers, employees, suppliers, public organizations, etc. In particular, the extent to which a
community might benefit or lose from certain activities or the contribution to GDP is counted as
economic externality. Environmental profile is weighted against such categories as products and
services, biodiversity, emissions and energy consumption. Social indicator covers such aspects as
human rights, labour relations, diversity and security. This quantitative approach enables report
users to assess the relationship of each organization to the economic, environmental and social
systems within which it operates.
The updated version of GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines known as G3 guidelines were
published in March 2006. There is no organization governing GRI so far- it is a dynamic process
driven by various organizations. The Board of GRI includes 14 members from various stakeholder
groups. I includes various Working Groups which track and modify GRI reporting example:
gathering inputs and feedbacks, developing recommendations on performance indicators, guide
GRI members, etc. As of now more than 2000 companies are reporting using GRI guidelines. Some
companies moved from just issuing sustainability reports to publishing a single annual report
including environmental and social information. Moreover, GRI became a sole reference point on
sustainability reporting for organizations with global presence and impact, such as the OECD, the EU
Council of Ministers, the European Commission, WTO and even stock exchanges. GRI is likely to
become a “license to operate” for businesses across the globe in the foreseeable future.
GLOBALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
Business and Business education for a better world
The challenges facing humankind are large, undeniable and global. Economic, social, environmental
inequalities abound and are increasing. Businesses are among the most influential institutions
worldwide. They have a tremendous opportunity to shape a better world for existing and future
generations. Business schools and centers for leadership learning can play a pivotal role, alongside
business, in developing the present and future leaders required to ensure that business is a force for
good.
The Leadership Challenges
Globally responsible leaders’ at all organizational levels face four key challenges. First, they should
think and act in a global context. Second, they should broaden their corporate purpose to reflect
18

19. accountability to society around the globe. Third, they should put ethics at the centre of their
thoughts, words and deeds. Fourth, they – and all business schools and centre for leadership learning
– should transform their business education to give corporate global responsibility the centrality it
deserves.
Re-defining the purpose of business
The new global business context requires a definition of business that encompasses corporate
aspirations, responsibilities and activities in realistic and contemporary terms that go beyond purely
financially focused explanations.
Globally responsible leadership
The leadership required now and in the future can be described as globally responsible leadership.
This is the global exercise of ethical, values-based leadership in the pursuit of economic and societal
progress and sustainable development. It is based on a fundamental understanding of the
interconnectedness of the world and recognition of the need for economic and societal and
environmental advancement. It also requires the vision and courage to place decision making and
management practice in a global context.
Ethical principles
Decisions made by globally responsible leaders rely both on their awareness of principles and
regulations and on the development of their inner dimension and their personal conscience. These
characteristics can be informed and developed through dialogue and debate. Guiding principles that
establish a starting point for globally responsible leadership include fairness; freedom; honesty;
humanity; tolerance; transparency; responsibility and solidarity; and sustainability. These are not
fixed ethical points but need to be constantly refined and developed.
Transforming the business
Key action areas through which corporate global responsibility can be nurtured and developed
include:
• tuning into the societal and environmental business context;
• overcoming key organizational, regulatory and societal barriers to change;
• developing stakeholder engagement skills such as careful listening and the ability to engage
in dialogue
• transforming the culture of the firm by changing attitudes and behaviors;
19

20. • understanding the purpose of change;
• designing change management processes; and,
• rewarding globally responsible behavior through improved performance measures and
systems.
Transforming business education
All learning institutions need to make corporate global responsibility their responsibility. Change
can be driven by inspiring, involving, influencing and interconnecting with internal and external
stakeholders. Globally responsible behavior must be internalized within the conduct and activities of
the organization. Business education should also be broadened to reflect the global business
environment and the knowledge, skills and attributes required of the globally responsible business
leader. Corporate global responsibility issues need to be integrated across the business school
curriculum, not just in stand-alone courses.
Curricula for both degree and executive programs need to be enriched by topics like:
• analysis of political, social, intellectual, technological and environmental trends;
• analysis of existing ethical codes and study of successful implementation of organizational
ethical codes and principles;
• the development of globally responsible leader-linked attributes and behaviors (such as
integrity, empathy, compassion, dialogue and self-awareness);
• cross cultural understanding and language skills;
• social and environmental accounting and reporting; and,
• Sustainable business practices.
Last but not least, a range of innovative approaches to pedagogy and learning needs to be tested and
utilized which engage more of the whole person in the learning experience.
A call for engagement
Our vision of the future is of a world where leaders contribute to the creation of economic and
societal progress in a globally responsible and sustainable way. Our goal is to develop the current and
future generation of globally responsible leaders through a global network of companies and learning
institutions. Coordinated through the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD)
and with the support of the UN Global Compact, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative will
20

21. reach its goal by taking action throughout the world on issues of new business practices and learning
approaches, advocacy and concept development. Membership of the Initiative offers an opportunity
to participate in creating a new generation of globally responsible business leaders and to be a
catalyst for changed values and practices regarding corporate global responsibility.
CSR vs. TBL
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), also known as corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship,
responsible business, sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate social performance, is a
form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model.
Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would
monitor and ensure its adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business would
embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees,
communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, business would
proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and
voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality.
Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the
honoring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, and Profit. Therefore CSR is a subset of TBL.
The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong
business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective
broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts
from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than
superficial window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as
a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.
TBL & ETHICS
TBL benefits are unlikely to ensue in an environment where board members and Top Management
regard ethics as a soft issue on the periphery of their organization’s main business concerns. If boards
are to begin seeing the real significance and value of codes of conduct, a paradigm shift of sorts is
required, a shift that eliminates the distinction between core business interests and ethical concerns.
Only when business organizations begin to appreciate that ethical concerns are intimately interwoven
21

22. with all business decisions and actions will their codes of conduct become ‘living documents’. The
parallelism holds special reference to application of the triple bottom line measurement of business
and aligning with the GRI.
An analysis of some of the objections that are typically raised against the employment of codes of
conduct will reveal how a failure to acknowledge the crucial interdependency of business and society
is instrumental in stripping codes of their potential significance and value. It will also demonstrate
how fragmentation in the way that an organization manages its various business relationships, as well
as a lack of congruence between its code statements and actual business practice, diminish the ability
of its code to affect business decision-making. It will be argued that the success of codes of conduct
relies on a social grammar that emphasizes interrelatedness, interdependency and integrity in all
business operations. In a business environment saturated with the logic of self-interest, individualism
and fragmentation, codes will become essentially meaningless. What is needed to transform such a
radically atomized and ruthlessly competitive environment is a change of mindset. Of course, it is
never a simple affair to alter the entrenched habits of the mind.
The introduction of the triple bottom-line reporting in various parts of the world is a promising
indicator that business practitioners around the world are beginning to invest more in the restoration
of a social grammar that articulates the proper role and position of business in society. Triple bottom-
line reporting addresses some of the main issues and concerns around global codes of conduct. Its
main thrust is to emphasize the importance of contextual relevance, stakeholder relationships and
integrity in all business operations. Three concepts that are central to triple bottom-line reporting
include stake-holder engagement, organizational integrity and stakeholder activism which could be
used to reconstruct a ‘social grammar’ that would place business in a more sustainable relationship
with society.
LITERATURE ON SUSTAINABILITY
In his book called Cannibals with Forks, John Elkington (Elkington, 1997) looks at sustainability as
the three forks: economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice. He identified seven
revolutions which are already beginning to transform the world of business and drive major
corporations and leading economies towards these goals.
22

23. Revolution 1: Market - Revolution 1 will be driven by competition, largely through markets.
Domestic and international will blend to bring out major economic challenges for products and
services that organizations will provide.
Revolution 2: Values - Business will have to adjust from the transition from “hard” commercial
values to “softer” triple bottom line values. Focus shall be more from changing the engineering of
manufacture to attitudes and behavior of people
Revolution 3: Transparency - Revolution 3 will be fueled by growing international transparency
and will accelerate. As a result, business will find its thinking, priorities and commitments and
activities under increasing scrutiny worldwide. The transparency revolution now will be “out of
control”.
Revolution 4: Life-cycle technology - Revolution 4 will be driven by and will be in turn driving the
transparency revolution. We are seeing a shift from companies focusing on the acceptability of their
products at the point of sale to their performance from cradle to the grave, i.e. from the extraction of
raw materials right through to recycling or disposal.
23

24. Revolution 5: Partnerships - Revolution 5 will dramatically accelerate the rate at which new forms
of partnership springing up between companies, including leading campaigning groups.
Revolution 6: Time - Revolution 6 will promote a profound shift in the way we understand and
manage time. An incident occurring at one point on the globe is reported almost instantaneously
across the globe. We find more and more happenings every minute of every day. The current time is
becoming “wider”. However, the sustainability agenda is pushing us in the other direction, towards
“long” time, i.e. needing to think across decades, generations and in some instances, centuries.
Revolution 7: Corporate Governance - Ultimately, whatever the drivers, the triple bottom line
agenda is the responsibility of the corporate board. Revolution 7 is being driven by each of the other
revolutions. It was observed that better the system of corporate governance, the greater the chance
that we build towards genuinely sustainable capitalism.
In their book on Triple Bottom Line, Savitz and Weber prefer the word sustainability to the word
responsibility emphasizing that the latter speaks more about benefit to the society instead of benefit
to the company. The need to be pragmatic and not just altruistic seems to be the need of the day
(Jossey & Bass, 2006). The book also talks about how sustainability is only a transitory phase and
gradually would lead to planet and people being seamlessly integrated in the company’s strategy. The
need to measure the environmental and social factors quantitatively is also mentioned in the book
(Chennel, 2006).
Richard Stengel in the TIME magazine (Stengel, 2009) observes that in American companies and
American markets as its base. It looks at redefining sustainability by asking companies to respond to
financial incentives and not do it because it is just a nice thing to do.
From a consumer point of view, it divides Americans into 3 varieties –
• Responsibles – Constitute 38 % of Americans. They are well off but not wealthy. They are
concerned about the environment but more so about federal taxes for social causes. They are
the youngest and the most diverse of the lot.
• Toe-Dippers – The belief in the principles of responsible consuming but do not act on many
of them.
• Skeptics – They are the oldest of the lot and believe that the purpose of business is only to do
business.
24

25. The article thus tries to convey that whether or not you are philanthropic, sustainable business is the
way of the future as the markets and the consumers would also respond to it.
PROFIT
The word profit comes from Latin meaning ‘to make progresses. It is normally defined in two ways –
accounting and economic profit. While the former is the difference between the price and the costs,
the latter is the difference between the revenue and the opportunity costs.
Optimum profit refers to just the right amount of profit a business can achieve. Any profit below it
would follow the theory of exploitation where in profits would be pocketed just by an elite section of
the society and the creation of capital for a socio-economic augmentation would cease to happen.
(Guevara, 1964)
Thus, the need for sustainable profit not just as a philanthropic notion but as a way of sustaining the
socio-economic factors becomes critical. One school of thought states that sustainable business with
a TBL-like investment will reduce the uncertainty. Another school of thought states that brand value
will be associated with sustainability. Thus, just like brand value is included in the company’s
evaluation, so can be done with sustainability. Another point of view is that with the increasing
shortage of resources in the near future, sustainability and conservation will become financially
viable. (Heskett, 2008)
Profits thus seem to share some relationship to sustainable business practices. A point of view
(Cullinane, 2008) stated that sustainability is a method of harvesting in a resource so that the resource
is not depleted and in the long-term helps sustain business.
A recent McKinsey report listed that there are 250 reduction opportunities in 5 different
categories of greenhouse gas abatement. Out of these, 50 % had negative cost associated
with them. Negative costs can generate cash and thus a little alignment to sustainability can
help one generate economic profits.
25

26. The article (Heskett, 2008) continually reinstates the fact that sustainability and maximum profits are
not mutually exclusive especially if the sustainability aspect is integrated right at the beginning in the
way we do business.
Moving to the concept of profitability, it is a relative index with profit as the numerator and assets as
its denominator. A sustainable strategic path might increase the denominator in the short-term but
will increase the numerator in the long-term thus maintaining the balance between income and
expenditure. In some scenarios, a sustainable initiative can actually help reduce the denominator
directly as one goes for more cost-effective assets.
Let us understand 2 cases – that of Exxon Mobile with profits of $ 40 billion which are
comparatively huge if compared to the company’s environmental record. On the other hand,
Interface Inc., a truly visionary company when it comes to sustainable development is
profitable but not quoted on the stock markets so often.
Thus, with profitability as the common end goal, companies clearly have a choice of integrating
sustainable growth. But the future will decide whether the choice remains.
PLANET
“Planet” also referred to as Natural Capital, deals with sustainable environmental practices. It is an
extension of the economic notion of capital to environment and the products that emerge out of the
natural ecosystem.
The term was most closely identified with Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, the Biosphere 2 project,
and the Natural Capitalism economic model of Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins.
"Cradle to grave" is uppermost in the thoughts of TBL manufacturing businesses which typically
conduct a life cycle assessment of products to determine what the true environmental cost is from the
growth and harvesting of raw materials to manufacture to distribution to eventual disposal by the end
user.
It is a well accepted fact that environmental sustainability is the more profitable course for a business
in the long run. Arguments that it costs more to be environmentally sound are often invalid when the
26

27. course of the business is analyzed over a period of time. Generally, sustainability reporting metrics
are better quantified and standardized for environmental issues than for social ones. A number of
respected reporting institutes and registries exist including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI),
CERES, Institute 4 Sustainability and others.
A concept of Ecological footprint is essential when studying the Planet aspect of TBL. It is a measure
of human demand on Earths ecosystem. The ecological footprint concept and methodology was
developed by Mathis Wackernagel under Prof. William E.Rees at the University of British Columbia,
Canada (1990-1994). Originally the concept was termed as “Appropriated carrying capacity”.
Ecological footprint analysis compares human requirement with planets need to regenerate and thus
support resource demand. This is done by assessing the biologically productive Land and Marine
area that is required to produce resources that the population consumes and absorb the corresponding
waste generated as a result of the day to day technological operations.
For example: manufacturing of a product will result in consumption of certain raw materials which
would in turn result in generation of a finished product and waste. If the waste generated is toxic in
nature, it will have an adverse impact on the environment. Measuring this impact is the core essence
of ecological footprint and hence it has fast become a popular accounting standard in Planet aspect of
TBL.
A Company which undertakes TBL accounting into consideration ensures that its operations benefit
or at the most create no harm to the Planet. A TBL enterprise reduces its ecological footprint by
carefully measuring and managing its consumption of energy and reducing wastage and disposing it
in safe and legal manner. To set the context a little more, the authors behind the Ecological
Footprints concept have come up with the notion of the “Earthshare”, which is the bio-productive
area of the world divided by its total population (it amounts to around 1.92 “area units” or ha,
currently). Ideally, any institution attempting sustainability needs to manage its processes so that,
over time, it can demonstrate that it is living well within the Earthshare, and thus living sustainably.
When embarking on sustainability through Planet initiatives, Ecological Footprint offers a
quantitative instrumental analysis of an Organization. Once this is done the enterprise needs to focus
on human side of engaging people and accepting that there may be disparities in views about what
should actually happen in practice. In this context, the use of facilitators to draw together the best
possible solutions, no matter where they originate from within the organization is important (Kaner et
27

28. al., 1996, Shivakoti et al., 1997; Warburton, 1996) though it is accepted that this will need doing with
both wisdom and care (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
This is where the role of Human Resource professionals will play a crucial role in understanding the
perceived challenges and institutional barriers However, perhaps the most important may be at
personal, psychological level, where people are trying to understand Planet sustainability against an
almost continual background of anti-sustainability rhetoric (e.g. see Jucker, 2002).
PEOPLE
Gary Becker, the Noble prize winning economist quotes that in today’s modern industrialized
economy, around 75-80 % of a person’s output comes from human capital as opposed to land or
machinery. The increased usage of the term ‘capital’ appended to human beings is indicative of not
just the importance but also the measurability of the ‘people factor’ in and around organizations
today.
In sectors like I.T. and Telecom, it is knowledge workers who are employed. In that case, human
capital remains not just a part of capital but also the critical component that forms the basis of all
other forms of capital.
In the I.T. sector, research (Mahalingam, 2001) classified human capital into five broad areas:
domain expertise, technology, project management, initiative and leadership. This was a skill-based
division to measure the breadth of human capital. To measure the depth of experience, four levels of
expertise were established: exposed experienced, expert and excellent (Mahalingam, 2001).
He further hinted towards measurability indicating that be it a skill or experience, the capital value
can be calculated by measuring the returns on it over a period of time.
For example – measuring the revenue per person (for a job profile)
Lev & Schwartz advocated the estimation of future earnings during the remaining life of the employee
and then arriving at the present value by discounting the estimated earnings at the employee's cost of
capital. Many Indian companies like Infosys and BHEL use it to benchmark the efficiency of their
human resources with other companies.
28

29. Capital can also be forecasted by valuing each relevant competency at a point of time. Every person
possessing some/all of these competencies forms the sum measure of the value perceived of these
competencies at that point of time.
The human capital theory (Sakamota & Powers, 1995; Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1997) states that
formal education is highly instrumental and even necessary to improve the production capacity of a
population. Economists (Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1997) also assert that human resources are the
ultimate wealth of nations and that they are active agencies which accumulate capital, exploit natural
resources, build social, economic and political organization, and carry forward national development.
This clearly indicates that to enjoy long-term benefit, organizations would not just have to look at
developing the internal human capital (Mahalingam, 2001) but they would also have to look at
broader bases like human resource development of the nation and community education (Sakamota
& Powers, 1995) for their own sustainability.
The increased impetus on sustainability initiatives in the last few years is noteworthy. Organizations
today are emphasizing societal values in their values, marketing strategies, structures and functions.
(Karna et al., 2003). Kopperi (Kopperi, 1999) points out that people who work in business should
consider how their economical decisions affect other people, the environment and the society. The
concept of societal marketing (Kotler & Keller, 2006) reiterates that companies will be differentiated
from their competitors based on how they preserve or enhance not just the customer’s but also the
society’s wellbeing.
Research (Oliveira, 2006) established a lot of areas of convergence where in societal marketing and
strategic marketing meet.
• Both of them rise above being mere functions and are suggestive as a way of doing business.
• Both are long-term in nature with the impetus on preparing the organization and its
environment in regards to forthcoming events.
• Both work in favor of stakeholders; a concept broader than customers. Stakeholders include
the community and the society around the organization.
29

30. Aditya Birla Corporation has targeted rural and tribal areas for development with a focus on -
healthcare, sustainable livelihood, education, infrastructure and espousing social causes. Each project
has a 1 yr and 3 yr rolling plan. They have crossed 3700 villages and have reached to 7 million people
annually.
Rural marketing and rural entrepreneurship (Markley et al.) also opens up big avenues for merging
people practices into the strategy of a company. All of this is suggestive of a wider definition of
human capital and social sustainability which is not restricted to corporate social responsibility.
Strategic initiatives harmonizing, developing and utilizing the human capital in and around the
organization ends up being mutually beneficiary for the organization. From being a voluntary
participatory mode, today sustainability initiatives demand continuous employee participation to
avoid it fromthe world's largest activity.
E-Choupal, being a one-time rural digital infrastructure empowers 4 million farmers, Social and
Farm Forestry programs that have cumulatively generated 40 million man-days of employment for
poor tribals and marginal farmers, and Watershed Development programmes that irrigate nearly
44,000 hectares. The Company’s community engagement projects encompass Rural Supplementary
Education reaching out to over 1,80,000 children, Women Empowerment programmes that have
created over 20,000 rural women entrepreneurs and Integrated Livestock Development services
provided to over 2,70,000 milch animals.
Houdre (Houdre, 2009) has suggested four means of engaging the employees more in sustainability
initiatives. It starts from communicating to the employees the intent of the sustainability with it
having a more strategic perspective. This is followed by the accountability part which speaks about
assigning committees and process-owners to do the job. The third step talks about setting roadmaps
and frequent measurability which would help one know where one’s heading. The fourth talks about
recognition to employees who actively are aligned to the sustainability strategy.
A unique kind of ESOPs (Employee Social Options) was launched to enable Mahindra & Mahindra
employees to enroll themselves into social activities of their choice.
From a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) point of view, it is clear that the people aspect of it has more to
do with integrating societal growth and human capital development with strategy and making it a
way of doing things and not just random initiatives of philanthropy.
30

31. It would be interesting to look at the measurability of these people practices and examine their
linkages with financial profits post their integration with the organization’s strategy.
THE RESEARCH
Title – Enhancing profits by nurturing people and planet.
Hypothesis
Ho: Organizations perceive a relationship amongst people, planet and profit practices.
Ha: Organizations do not perceive a relationship amongst people, planet and profit practices.
Purpose – To find practical (application-oriented) ways of building sustainable Indian organizations
and societies.
Deliverables:
a) A perception study of Triple Bottom Line practices (people and planet) and their impact on profits
in organizations
b) To document, based on baseline study, sustainable best practices in organizations.
c) To identify the role of CEO/Company Board/Parent Company/HR Professional in the Triple
Bottom Line activities
d) To do an exploratory study of Triple Bottom Line practices in organizations.
METHODOLOGY
The research methodology used in this study was survey research.
The research instrument used was a questionnaire. The questionnaire developed was both web hosted
and circulated in hard copy format among the respondents. Few face to face interviews were also
conducted. The questionnaire format was quantitative which used Likert Scale and qualitative (open-
ended) as well.
The survey was web hosted on www.surveymonkey.com to ensure wide reach over large
geographically dispersed respondents and being as paper free as possible.
31

32. Respondent mix:
This included all India NHRD databases of approximately 13,000 members, We School database,
and the research team’s personal contacts.
Mainly respondents above general manager level designation were approached in order to gauge the
understanding and existence of strategic TBL amongst senior management members since strategic
decision making in businesses usually follows a top down approach.
Almost all respondents are Indian companies. Rest are Indian subsidiaries of foreign multinational
companies. The sample size was 94 and 56.2 % of the questionnaires were fully complete.
FINDINGS
1. Respondent profile:
Response
Answer Options
Percent
CEO 6.4%
President 6.4%
MD 10.6%
Head-HR 70.2%
CXO 6.4%
Other: includes Associate, analyst, Director, Dean, DGM,
Manager, GM, Deputy CEO, VP.
2. Key Initiatives taken in the last 5 years to increase profits, include:
COST SRATEGIC MARKETING H.R/QUALITY OTHERS
REDUCTION INITIATIVES/ INITIATIVES
INNOVATIONS
Video Investment in Brand building downsizing Employing a
conferencing technology exercise consultant
Operational Research focus Expand into Focus on quality Automation
efficiency different initiatives
verticals
Move up the Improvement in End to end Reorganization M&A
value chain SCM solutions of structure
Cost control Global delivery Strategic Talent factory Inv in technology
models accounts and
brand equity
War on waste Launching New markets Investing in
32

33. innovative talent
solutions
Management of Sustainability New products Organisational
overheads driven business and services effectiveness and
and strategic reorganization
adoption
Resource Strategic shift in Co promotion New leadership
rationalization biz model initiatives structure/team
Process Process Greater customer Employee
improvement reengineering focus and empowerment
customer
centricity
Eco friendly Identification of Employee
products and run customer pain connect, value
on alternate fuels points, cascade, review
eliminating loss skill sets for
making clients, future, change
hiving off management
divisions, expand xxxxxxx, Q3C,
into new freeze on
geographical recruitment,
markets succession
planning,
capacity building
in people,
international
exposure.
Sectors included in the survey: Logistics & Shipping, Hospitality, Telecom, Banking & Financial
services, Pharma, Manufacturing and heavy industry, Consulting, Information technology, Media &
advertising, educational institutions, Telecom etc.
3. Perceived definition of ‘people’ to respondents:
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Employee 62.8%
Customer 41.5%
Shareholders 36.2%
Government 21.3%
Community 43.6%
Knowledge Resources (Professional bodies,
29.8%
educational institutes etc)
Others 18.1%
Other (please specify):
33

34. What does the word "People" mean to your organization? Please
select.
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Employee
Community
Others
Shareholders
4. Perceived definition of ‘planet’ to respondents:
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Energy resources 68.1%
Air supply 34.0%
Water resources 47.9%
Noise 18.1%
Flora & Fauna 41.5%
Climatic conditions 50.0%
Others 25.5%
Other (please specify)
34

35. What does the word "PLANET" mean to your organization? Please
select.
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Energy Air supply Water Noise Flora & Climatic Others
resources resources Fauna conditions
5. People & planet practices undertaken in organizations sampled:
Popular people practices for employees like work life balance, succession planning, employee
satisfaction annual survey, leadership building, diversity measures, integrated online performance
management system coupled with reward management scheme, improved talent management
programs, supplier selection & development ensuring that significant share of inputs sourced from
those located close to the company's operation/unit.
Employee engagement, community building practices in the vicinity of the organization. Group
medical insurance, interest free loans for social upliftment, extra long maternity and paternity leave,
flexi hours on request, company annual day get together for better interpersonal communication at
work.
Popular planet practices included reduced energy and water consumption, effective waste
management, planting trees, streamlining with ISO 14000, UL, CSA, VDE, SEMKO, TUV and CE
certification norms, reducing physical travel as much as possible, partnering with NGO’s. Employee
Social Obligation Plans, using CFL bulbs, infra red sensors on all water taps, recycling paper and
printing only when necessary, OHSAS 18001 & SA 8000 certification & their maintenance, effective
interaction with SPCB & CPCB, incineration of global warming chemicals, monitoring and reducing
effluent discharge.
6. List of people and planet practices that ARE PERCEIVED TO have had a significant impact
on profits:
PLANET
Cutting down energy
Sustainable biz solutions
Community awareness
35

36. Tech for waste/water
Cost rationalization
Go green initiative
Carbon footprints
Waste management
Recycling
PEOPLE
Investment in technology and development
Leadership development
CSR, non profit organization
Employee welfare programme
Customer workshop
Employee engagement practices
Supplier solution and development
Incentives based compensation
Rewarding innovative ideas
Inclusive development
7. Perception of the importance given to various practices in their organizations:
Not Somewhat Very Rating
Practices Important N/A
important important important Average
Practices in enhancing economic value generated &
1.3% 12.0% 34.7% 52.0% 0.0% 3.37
equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders.
Practices in integrating environmental impact while
5.3% 6.7% 26.7% 54.7% 6.7% 3.40
designing products/services, including packaging.
Practices in promoting organizational learning
through R&D, improvement initiatives, involving
2.7% 9.3% 24.0% 62.7% 1.3% 3.49
stakeholders for ideas and inputs, best practice
sharing and benchmarking.
Practices in Supplier selection & Development
including ensuring significant share of inputs sourced
5.3% 14.7% 38.7% 34.7% 6.7% 3.10
from those located close to the company's
operation/unit.
Practices in providing infrastructural investments &
5.3% 20.0% 36.0% 30.7% 8.0% 3.00
services, primarily for community/larger public good.
Practices in contributing to charitable causes. 9.5% 16.2% 39.2% 29.7% 5.4% 2.94
Practices in upgrading the learning of all stakeholders
4.1% 5.5% 24.7% 64.4% 1.4% 3.51
through training, education, development.
Workforce & customer community Diversity-
race/religion/color/gender/nationality/disability/sexual
8.0% 9.3% 33.3% 46.7% 2.7% 3.22
preferences/age/geographic origin/skills/different
ideas, thinking, academic disciplines & perspectives.
Human rights & labour law practices towards all
2.7% 6.7% 33.3% 53.3% 4.0% 3.43
stakeholders.
Practices on co-operative initiatives in Technology,
1.3% 9.3% 45.3% 42.7% 1.3% 3.31
Operating standards, developing visions-scenarios.
Practices on relations with legislators & regulators-
6.7% 21.3% 44.0% 24.0% 4.0% 2.89
including political parties & government regulators.
Practices related to stakeholder engagement
including customer satisfaction measurement,
5.3% 5.3% 22.7% 60.0% 6.7% 3.47
promoting customer retention & loyalty & customer
advocacy to recommend your brand/product
36

37. offerings.
8. Perception of the implementation of the above practices in their organizations:
No Good Significant Benchmark Rating
Answer Options
progress start progress in industry Average
Practices in enhancing economic value generated &
2.7% 53.3% 40.0% 4.0% 2.45
equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders.
Practices in integrating environmental impact while
9.5% 41.9% 39.2% 9.5% 2.49
designing products/services, including packaging.
Practices in promoting organizational learning through R&D,
improvement initiatives, involving stakeholders for ideas 8.0% 33.3% 52.0% 6.7% 2.57
and inputs , best practice sharing and benchmarking.
Practices in Supplier Selection& development, including
ensuring significant share of inputs sourced from those 13.3% 54.7% 28.0% 4.0% 2.23
located close to the company’s operation/unit.
Practices in providing infrastructural investments &
23.0% 33.8% 37.8% 5.4% 2.26
services, primarily, for community/larger public good.
Practices in contributing to charitable causes. 14.9% 44.6% 33.8% 6.8% 2.32
Practices in upgrading the learning of your workforce(
includes all stakeholders) through training, education and 5.3% 37.3% 49.3% 8.0% 2.60
development opportunities.
Practices in valuing and benefiting from “Diversity” in
workforce hiring and serving customer communities -
variables including
race/religion/color/gender/nationality/Disability/sexual 8.0% 54.7% 30.7% 6.7% 2.36
preferences/age/geographic origin/skill
characteristics/difference in ideas, thinking, academic
disciplines & perspectives.
Practices towards Associates (includes suppliers,
outsourcers, contractors) engagement, to ensure they
11.0% 42.5% 42.5% 4.1% 2.40
follow letter and spirit of the law, including labor laws and
Human Rights.
Practices on cooperative initiatives in Technology,
2.7% 54.0% 39.2% 4.1% 2.45
Operating standards, developing visions-scenarios.
Practices on relations with legislators & regulators-
including political parties & government regulators. The
20.0% 37.3% 33.3% 9.3% 2.32
organization works against corruption in all forms, including
extortion and bribery.
Practices related to stakeholder engagement-including
customer satisfaction measurement, promoting customer
8.0% 34.7% 49.3% 8.0% 2.57
retention &loyalty & customer advocacy to recommend
your brand/product offerings etc.
9. Perception of the importance given to various practices in their organizations:
Not Somewhat Very Rating
Answer Options Important N/A
important important important Average
Practices -Reducing noise created by
12.9% 11.4% 17.1% 25.7% 32.9% 2.83
operations/manufacturing.
Practices-reducing air emissions in
8.5% 12.7% 14.1% 33.8% 31.0% 3.06
production/related processes.
Practices-minimizing the quantity of key
4.3% 4.3% 36.2% 31.9% 23.2% 3.25
input materials used and reduction of
37

38. waste in output.
Practices -reuse/recycling –including
2.9% 12.9% 30.0% 40.0% 14.3% 3.25
Percentage and major inputs used.
Practices-reducing the consumption of key
energy source in 2.9% 11.4% 22.9% 42.9% 20.0% 3.32
manufacturing/operations.
Practices-reducing the consumption of
4.3% 12.9% 28.6% 38.6% 15.7% 3.20
water and the quantity of effluents.
Practices-minimizing the contamination of
land, arising from operations of the 8.5% 9.9% 18.3% 33.8% 29.6% 3.10
company and remedification.
Practices -to protect/restore-endangered
immediate environment- 7.0% 11.3% 25.4% 29.6% 26.8% 3.06
Plant/Animal/Cultural/Historical.
Practices-minimizing the transportation of
5.6% 18.3% 33.8% 23.9% 18.3% 2.93
materials and goods.
Practice on collecting back sold products-
after its life- for reuse and/or 9.9% 21.1% 21.1% 19.7% 28.2% 2.71
environmentally sound disposal.
Practices – environment spending,
5.7% 5.7% 45.7% 28.6% 14.3% 3.13
accounting.
10. Perception of the implementation of the above practices in their organizations:
No Good Significant Benchmark Rating
Answer Options
progress start process in industry Average
Practices -Reducing noise created by
35.3% 26.5% 32.4% 5.9% 2.09
operations/manufacturing.
Practices-reducing air emissions in
30.9% 32.4% 32.4% 4.4% 2.10
production/related processes.
Practices-minimizing the quantity of key input
materials used and reduction of waste in 20.6% 33.8% 39.7% 5.9% 2.31
output.
Practices -reuse/recycling –including
21.7% 43.5% 29.0% 5.8% 2.19
Percentage and major inputs used.
Practices-reducing the consumption of key
22.4% 37.3% 32.8% 7.5% 2.25
energy source in manufacturing/operations.
Practices-reducing the consumption of water
20.3% 37.7% 36.2% 5.8% 2.28
and the quantity of effluents.
Practices-minimizing the contamination of
land, arising from operations of the company 30.3% 33.3% 31.8% 4.5% 2.11
and remedification.
Practices -to protect/restore-endangered
immediate environment- 30.3% 39.4% 24.2% 6.1% 2.06
Plant/Animal/Cultural/Historical.
Practices-minimizing the transportation of
29.4% 45.6% 20.6% 4.4% 2.00
materials and goods.
Practice on collecting back sold products- after
its life- for reuse and/or environmentally sound 36.2% 39.1% 21.7% 2.9% 1.91
disposal.
Practices – environment spending, accounting. 23.2% 39.1% 33.3% 4.3% 2.19
38

39. 11. Does your organization evaluate Best Practices for people & planet initiatives in terms of
cost-benefit?
Yes: 50% No: 50%
12. Organization's experience with respect to evaluating Best Practices for people and planet
initiatives in terms of cost-benefit?
Answer No Only adds No gain Highly
Successful
Options benefit to costs no loss successful
People
2.9% 2.9% 38.2%
initiatives 17.6% 8.0%
Planet
2.9% 8.8% 17.6% 14.7%
initiatives 38.2%
No concrete figures of how implementing any of the benchmark practices have impacted the bottom
line. The respondents mention few of the practices being imbibed by their organization to make a
difference/from a CSR perspective however the absolute quantification of the same in terms of their
impact on the company’s bottom line is not stated.
13. Functional responsibility for TBL in respondent companies:
HR FIN MKTG OPS OTHERS
26% 9.25% 12.96% 9.25% 44%
14. Designations as perceived by respondents handling TBL activities in their respective
companies:
CEO FH VP MD ED DIR CFO GM CLO NA OTHERS
9.25% 11.1% 12.96% 5.5% 3.7% 5.5% 1.8% 3.7% 1.8% 35% 9.69%
FH: Functional head
CLO: Chief legal officer
15. Does your organization currently have any major Triple Bottom Line initiative in the
pipeline?
-Yes: 40.7%, No: 59.3%
65.7% of these 40% feel some major TBL initiative would be implemented within the next 5 years.
75.9% respondents believe that their organization does not have any reporting mechanism with a
national or international body specifically for triple bottom line initiatives.
Of the 24.1% respondents who do believe such reporting exists, they stated reporting of the likes of
Tatas Business Excellence Model, Global Compact, Global Reporting Index, World Economic
Forum, G3 Guidelines of USEPA.
39

40. 16. Does your company have any reporting mechanism with a national or international body,
specifically for triple bottom line initiatives?
Yes: 24.9 % No: 75.1 %
DISCUSSION
To begin, it is evidently clear that today companies do not just look at cost reduction when it comes
to maintaining profitability. The impetus is clearly on income generation as the various initiatives
focus on making new business developments, marketing and HR interventions and quality
enhancements. Process improvements, recycling of products and a more holistic understanding of
business seems to be the popular practices for profitability maintenance in these economic times. The
findings reinstate that this is perhaps a good time to introspect on the way we function and integrate
changes which bring in greater internal stability.
The fact that the majority of the employees handling sustainability initiatives are HR indicates that
the sustainability drive is still in the corporate social responsibility mould and a minority with the top
management is indicative of the fact that the perception of sustainability is still social and not
strategic. TBL would account for greater top management interest in the integration and each
function spearheading it in the implementation.
Social responsibility is further reinstated in the perception of ‘people’ being viewed as employees
followed by community. With a move towards TBL, we can look at changing this perception to
stakeholders being viewed as ‘people’. Perceptions of what ‘planet’ is are more inclusive. However,
the nature of planet initiatives focused more on how to not waste resources and on going green.
Greater effort should be taken on ‘doing things’ in a planet friendly way instead of it being restricted
to a waste reduction, planting trees. The same needs to be made more measurable by getting in
quality systems and auditory measures. ‘People practices’ were well-implemented with
developmental activities being carried out for the employees as well as for the community. However,
while this is done for employees with due diligence and measurability, we need to ask whether the
same is done for the community as a social initiative or as a strategic initiative to actually develop
and build human capital.
People and planet practices in organizations were perceived high on a relative scale of importance.
However, there were gaps seen almost everywhere when it came to the implementation part of it. The
40

41. gap between the perceived importance of certain people practices and their actual implementation is
25.71 %. The gap between the perceived importance of planet practices and their actual
implementation is 30.54 %. This means there is a consistent perceived reduction in that which is
ideally perceived and that which is actually implemented though the intent of sustainability is
genuine. This is clearly indicative of a fact that the initiatives might have individual agreement but
not an organization-wide implementation. The second dimension to this agreement is the lack of
measurability which makes it difficult for people to capture the extent of implementation. This was
reinstated by the 50 % response to the cost-benefit analysis which is important from a TBL
perspective. Out of the 50 % who do, around 48 % (average) felt that the proposition was actually
beneficial while around 34 % were neutral in their comments. This is fairly good as in most cases;
TBL initiatives are long-term and would take some time to actually manifest the benefits. The fact
that only 40 % of the sample size have a TBL mechanism in place opens the window of opportunity
for other companies to check how aligned are they to doing business in line with sustainability. If
they are not, it is a good time to start reconsidering the strategy and getting a reporting mechanisms
like GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) in place. The level of pro-activity and time will decide
whether companies imbibe sustainability as a smart strategic move or as a means for survival.
CONCLUSION
The research focused on the perceptual measures of people and planet practices and the impact they
make to profits. While there was a plethora of people and planet practices in organizations, the need
to strategically align it to increase profits was missing. Besides this, the need to use global reporting
mechanisms to give measurability to ones sustainability efforts also came out strongly.
However, the perceptual relationship between profits, people and planet being positive points
towards exploring TBL more seriously in Indian organizations. Further research can be undertaken
through exploratory research on how organizations can take TBL forward not just as a philosophy
but as a strategic implementation tool in line with their business and the Indian context.
41

42. REFERENCES
Alberta, C. Moving towards Sustainability – Rural Entrepreneurship and Triple Bottom Line. Pp. 1-
3.
Adams, C., Frost, C. and Webber, W. (2004), “Triple bottom line: a review of the literature”, in
Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds), The Triple Bottom Line – Does it all Add Up?, Earthscan,
London, pp. 17-25.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing good: when, why and how consumers
respond to corporate social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Beckette Robert & Jonker Jane ,”Accountability 1000: a new social standard for building
sustainability”, Managerial Auditing Journal 17/1/2 [2002] 36-42
Berthelot, S., D. Cormier and M. Magnan, ‘‘Environmental Disclosure Research: Review
and Synthesis,’’ Journal of Accounting Literature 22 (2003), pp. 1–44.
Carol Stephenson, C. (2008). “Boosting the Triple Bottom Line,” Ivey Business Journal.
CERES – The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, USA
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Global Profile. Institute for Financial Management and Research
Centre for Development Finance.
Craig Deegan, Barry J. Cooper and Marita Shelly,” An investigation of TBL report assurance
statements: UK and European evidence” Managerial Auditing Journal Vol. 21 No. 4, 2006 pp. 329-
371
Craig, R. and J. Diga, ‘‘Corporate Accounting Disclosure in ASEAN,’’ Journal of
International Financial Management and Accounting 9(3) (1998), pp. 246–274.
D. Jamali,” Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective”
Business Process Management Journal Vol. 12 No. 6, 2006 pp. 809-821
42