Triple bottom line
Triple bottom line approach introduces a new method of measuring the company’s performance, which “has become increasingly fashionable in management, consulting, investing, and NGO circles over the last few years” (Norman & MacDonald, 2004, p. 243). This is opposed to the traditional approach of using economic benefits as the only determinant. It introduces two more parameters to the financial gains namely social and environmental parameters. These parameters are interrelated, and, therefore, hard to separate them from each other. The importance of these parameters is that they have been in use for a long time hence, are tested and proven to be effective. It is wrong to use the financial benefits as a measure of sustainability only. Therefore, the triple bottom line talks about people, profit and the planet [3Ps] has been hard to reflect on the 3 Ps because people do not look at the social impact of projects of their projects due to dishonesty and unprincipled behavior of the employees.
Success and sustainability of the project is a key factor to the realization of the set project, both to the department and the project implementers. To make this a reality, there should be no political influence. This calls for political neutrality to ensure that the political elites do not dictate to the project implementers on what to do. The laid down procedures must be followed to the letter, especially when tendering the projects (Knights & O’Leary, 2005). Therefore, the triple bottom line approach emphasizes on ethics of the people involved in decision making.
In order to ensure maximum utilization of the available resources for the project, the project manager should maintain high standard of principles (Carroll, 1979). This will enable them to make the right decisions. If the project managers view this with a high ethical approach, the procedure will be effortless and thus the required results will be achieved.
The project should be conscious of the social and environmental issues at hand. This helps the project implementers avoid hurting the environment, as well as colliding with the community. Therefore, the procurement process should be transparent enough to eliminate chances of corruption and favoritism in tendering and recruitment of workforce. The unethical issues force poor countries to accept unreasonable terms so as to have MNC’s located in their countries (Falkenberg 2004).
Three-dimensional conceptual models of corporate perfomance
The models explain the concepts of social responsibility, which are the obligations the companies have to the society. They are divided into different categories: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary.
The social responsibility concept means that that the company implementing the project has a responsibility that transcends economic and legal concerns [Carrol, 1979]. It will have to undertake other responsibilities, such as voluntary and charitable activities.
The four categories related to the project in the following ways (Carroll & Meeks, 1999).
Economic Responsibility entails the company’s objective to make a profit from the project to be undertaken. However, this must be in line with the needs of the community.
Legal responsibility requires the company to follow rules and regulations laid down by the society and the relevant authority (Dando & Werner 2006).
Ethical responsibility calls for the project implementation to be focused on the societal needs (Bodwell, Graves & Waddock 2005).
Discretionary responsibilities are the expectations that the society has outside the ones which are laid down. They are voluntary in nature.
The project in question adhered to the principles and approaches discussed above, they are aimed at enhancing the success of the project.
Figure 1: Social responsibility categories
Social responsibility categories [Carrol, 1979]
The four categories of the social responsibility as reflected in the figure is only to suggest what is expected from companies by the society. This means that the that the company first emphasizes on economic and legal responsibilities and later extends to ethical and discretionary responsibilities.
Figure 2: Economic and Legal components of social responsibility figure
Economic and Legal components of social responsibility [Carrol, 1991]
The figure outlines the expectation of the society to the business community with regards to economic and legal responsibilities (Carroll, 1991).
Figure 3: Ethical and discretionary components of social responsibility
Ethical and discretionary components of social responsibility [Carrol, 1991]
Therefore, in the BER school project all these components were overlooked which is a great threat to achieving the expected returns and fulfilling society’s expectations.
References
- Bodwell, C., Graves, B. & Waddock, A. (2002). “Responsibility: The New Business Imperative.” Academic Management Executive, 16 (2):135.
- Carroll, A. & Meeks, M. (1999) ‘Models of management morality: European applications and implications’, Business Ethics: A European Review, 8 (2):108-116.
- Carroll, A. (1979). “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance.” Academy of Management, 4:110-111.
- Carroll, A. (1991).”The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders.” Business Horizons, 4:227-233.
- Carrrol, A. & Meeks, D. (1999). “Models of Management Morality’: European Application and Implications.” A European Review, 8 (2):110-111.
- Dando, N. & Werner, A. (2006) “Procurement and Business Ethics”. Business Ethics Briefing.Web.
- Falkenberg, A. (2004) “When in Rome … Moral Maturity and Ethics for International Economic Organizations.”Journal of Business Ethics, 2 (54):17-32.
- Knight, D. & O’Leary, M. (2005). “Reflection on Corporate Scandals: the Failure of Ethical Leadership.” A European Review, 14(4):364.
- Norman, W. & MacDonald, C. (2004) “Getting to the bottom of Triple Bottom Line.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14 (2): 243-262