Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.

TRI PLE BOTTOM LINE MEASUREMENT AND RE PORTI NG IN AUSTRALIA
TRI PLE BOTTOM LINE

MEASUREMEN T AND
REPORTI NG IN AUSTRALIA
M a k i ng i t Ta n g i b l e
Dahle Suggett and Ben Goodsir
This study was funded by:
Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership
Environment Australia
Suite 2, Level 12
John Gorton Building
3 Spring Street
King Edward Terrace
Sydney NSW 2000
Parkes ACT 2600
Website: www.partnership.zip.com.au
Website: www.ea.gov.au
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources
Cisco Systems
20 Allara Street
80 Pacific Highway
Canberra ACT 2601
North Sydney, NSW 2060
Website: www.industry.gov.au
Website: www.cisco.com.au
This study was prepared by:
The Allen Consulting Group

Level 4, 128 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Website: www.allenconsult.com.au
ISBN: 0-9578337-2-5
Design and printing by DPA Document Printing Australia www.dpa.com.au
Commonwealth of Australia 2002

Information presented in this document may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes or to provide wider dissemination for public
response, subject to inclusion of acknowledgment of the source and provided no commercial usage or sale of the material occurs. Reproduction for purposes
other than those given above requires written permission from Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, Environment Australia, and Department of
Industry, Tourism and Resources.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the
use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Reference to any company, product or service in this booklet should not be taken as Commonwealth endorsement of that company, product or service.
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
Foreword
his project was funded and supported by a range of public-sector departments

and private-sector organisations, with the Prime Ministers Community
Business Partnership as the main sponsor. Its purpose was to explore current
strands of thought and action in Australian companies about triple bottom line
measurement and reporting, and to document existing and emerging practices.
An international perspective was also included with input from companies in the
United Kingdom.
The project sought to draw on the everyday experience of companies and
record their sense of priorities, benefits and challenges. We did not necessarily
want the study to mount a case for adopting triple bottom line reporting, rather to
portray companies thinking and experiences so more companies could develop a
critical understanding of the questions to be considered and the business benefits
to be gained.
The Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, in particular, has an
objective to encourage strong and active collaboration between the community
and business sectors to achieve mutual goals, develop creative solutions to regional and local problems, and to strengthen community ties. In exploring business
practices in triple bottom line measurement and reporting we were able to take a
further step towards that goal.
The project partners were:
The Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, Commonwealth

Government: Geraldine Skinner and Amanda Steele;
Environment Australia, Commonwealth Government: Judith Kendrick; David

Saywell; Alex Fearnside; and Anne Close;
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Commonwealth Government:

Bob Bennett; Andrew Harvey; and Jo Arnold;
Cisco Systems: Kip Cole and Katherine Baddeley;
The Business Council of Australia: Steven Munchenberg;
Shell Australia: John Simpson;
The Body Shop: Chris Childs;
Westpac Investment Management: Shaun Mays.

The Allen Consulting Group undertook the research led by Dahle Suggett, with
Ben Goodsir, Dr Steve Hadfield Dodds, Troy Hey and Dr Sasha Courville.
On behalf of the project partners, I wish to thank the many executives from
Australian and British companies and organisations who contributed their
thoughts, time and resources to assisting in this project.
Geraldine Skinner
Chief Executive Officer
Community Business Partnership
iii
Table of Contents
Foreword iii
Index of Companies vii
Executive Summary viii
Chapter One
Definitions, Context and Drivers 1

Introduction
Triple bottom line defined
How triple bottom line works
Reshaping business priorities: Drivers of change

Conclusion
16
Chapter Two
Triple Bottom Line: A Work in Progress 17

Introduction
18
The current foundations

Taking the next steps
19
Evolution of reporting
Wait and see
18
21
22
Packaging information for community right to know

Stakeholder alignment as the starting point
Guided by sustainability principles
30
37
Culturally and philosophically driven operations

Conclusion
26
45
48
Chapter Three
Indicators and Assessment 51

Introduction
52
Performance indicators
Environmental indicators
Social indicators
52
54
63
Economic indicators
79
Partnering with third parties and disclosure

Conclusion
82
84
Table of Contents (continued)
Chapter Four
Determining The Value 85

Introduction
86
Benefits: Looking for the value added

Measuring benefits
86
91
Challenges to implementation
93
Management improvement versus external accountability
93
Off-the-shelf indicators versus company- or sector-owned indicators

Global or national versus local reporting
Benchmarks versus snapshots
Conclusion
96
97
100
101
Chapter Five
Conclusion: Strategies for Achieving Greater Clarity 103

Introduction
104
Role of government
104
Meeting interest group and consumer needs
105
Relationship with industry associations and codes of practice

Conclusion
106
107
Appendix A
Research Methodology 108

Consultation List 110
Other Organisations Cited in the Document 112
Forums Where Triple Bottom Line Issues
Have Been Explored 112
Appendix B
Standards, Guidelines and Other Useful

Resource Material 113
vi
Index of Companies
Chapter Two
AMP Ltd
Qantas Airways Ltd
ANZ Banking Group Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
AXA Asia Pacific
Shell International Ltd
British Airports Corporation
Telstra Corporation Ltd
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
The Body Shop
Co-operative Bank UK
Unilever plc
Fosters Brewing Group Ltd
Visy Industries
Leighton Holdings Ltd
Wesfarmers Ltd
Medibank Private Ltd
WestpacBanking Corporation
MIM Holding Ltd
WMC Resources Limited
Orica Ltd
Woolworths Ltd
Chapter Three
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
Telstra Corporation Ltd
BP Australia Ltd
The Body Shop
Unilever plc
Diageo
Visy Industries
Wesfarmers Ltd
Normandy Mining Ltd
Orica Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
Chapter Four
AMP Ltd
Normandy Mining Ltd
BHP Billiton Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
British Airports Corporation
Shell Australia Ltd
Cable and Wireless Optus
Unilever plc
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Visy Industries
Wesfarmers Ltd
Henry Walker Eltin Group Ltd
Incitec Ltd
vii
Executive Summary
Groundswell of interest
but few public reports
to date
ransparency and accountability for economic, environmental and social corporate performance are the core notions embedded in the triple bottom line.
While relatively few companies formally issue triple bottom line reports in
Australia, a groundswell of interest is now evident across Australian business. The
next few years will see a increase in business planning and reporting to take
account of this new sense of accountability although practices will vary widely
according to the sector and context of the company.
Study portrays the

business logic that
underpins companies
approaches to triple
bottom line
This research examined the views and practices of 29 Australian companies

and seven overseas companies, as well as consulted with a range of industry bodies
and non-government organisations. An important objective was to look behind
the big ideas to illustrate current practices for measuring and reporting corporate
performance and to explain the benefits and challenges that companies identify.
Care was taken to avoid a didactic approach to how corporations should or should
not behave. Instead, the focus has been on understanding the business logic for
companies practices. This enables other companies to benchmark their experience and identify tangible options for adoption. It also enables government and
other interested corporate stakeholders to better understand the business rationale and see where they might work with companies.
Three major dimensions

of sustainability
Triple bottom line has clearly caught the imagination of many companies
and others in the community. Triple bottom line, a phrase coined in the 1980s,
encapsulates the three major dimensions of sustainability economic, social and
environmental and proposes that a companys performance and impact can and
should be measured and communicated to stakeholders. Many companies are
searching for ways to understand the boundaries of their non-market accountabilities and responsibilities and to engage with those stakeholders that matter to their
business. Triple bottom line presents one approach for companies to consider.
Core characteristics
Characteristics:
accountability,
transparency, integrated
planning and operations,
stakeholder engagement,
multi-dimensional
measurement
and reporting
he core characteristics that companies display when embracing triple bottom

line are: accepting accountability and being transparent probably the most
powerful ideas embodied in the triple bottom line and fundemental to good governance; integrated planning and operations where a companys contributions
to economic prosperity, environmental quality and social well-being are reflected
in strategic planning and management systems; a commitment to stakeholder
engagement; and multi-dimensional measurement and reporting.
No right way: not a

precise measurement
technology
In practice, companies indicate that there is no right way to identify, measure

and report on non-financial inputs or outcomes. Moreover, businesses prefer
approaches that grow out of their own priorities and commercial logic. Some
companies incorporate elements of internationally recognised reporting frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative, The Institute of Social and Ethical
Accountabilitys standard and others listed in Appendix B.
viii
Unprecedented challenges
in a globally competitive
environment
The motivation for greater company transparency and accountability is considerable. Companies throughout the world are experiencing unprecedented
challenges. Forces are reshaping the context for business success as companies
face increased global competition and the imperative of adapting to technological
change. The pursuit of sustainable development meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs is endorsed by the Business Council of Australia as an important, legitimate and fundamental aspect of business responsibilities. As business structures
and activities in the post-industrial era will barely resemble those of earlier periods, so too will business responsibilities and accountabilities be transformed.
Choices for
Australian companies:
resist community
pressure or benefit
from transparency
Against this background, there are more immediate pressures that focus attention on the nature and quality of the relationship between business and society at
large. Simply put, companies are now asked by many more stakeholders for information about their impacts on the environment, the economy and the society, and
to attest to the ethical conduct and sound governance of their business.
Companies are faced with deciding whether to resist these questions, or respond
with available data, or whether to seize the opportunity to gain deeper insight into
the impact of their own practices, as well as to become truly transparent and
accountable.
Triple bottom line measuring and reporting:

a work in progress
ive broad categories capture the current diverse state of play in performance
measurement and reporting in Australia. (Some British companies were also
included to illustrate the additional dimensions that will probably develop in

Australian companies over the next few years.) All these practices are valid and the
categories are not judgemental. The five categories are more to show the varied
business rationales and interpretation of community expectations for triple
Five main categories of
companies: wait and see,
packaging information
for community right
to know, stakeholder
alignment, endorsing core
principles and a holistic
cultural perspective
bottom line measuring and reporting.

1. Wait and see is the category where companies are satisfied with their
present approaches to communication and accountability, such as Fosters and
Woolworths. Either a change is not a business priority and not on the radar,
or there is a sense of potential benefit, but it is far too early to proceed without
understanding more about the context and the directions for the rest of business.
2. Other companies make a commitment to their stakeholders to be open and
transparent, observing the community right to know principle and endorsing
the notion of greater accountability to the community for their performance.
To meet this commitment they assemble and package internal information for
an external audience. This information reveals the standards they seek to meet,
how well they perform against those standards and a description of their activities. Some companies in this area are international leaders in environmental
reporting such as Wesfarmers and Orica. They continue to develop their data
collection, reporting and verification approaches, but do not see that a change
in approach to embrace social or economic dimensions to the same extent
would necessarily yield additional business benefits.
ix
3. A few companies have started from scratch and systematically seek alignment
between stakeholders expectations and corporate strategy. This approach
requires establishing new management systems and is a long and often
resource-intensive approach. WMC is an example of a company that seeks to
continue to develop in this direction and a number of other companies have
embarked on the first steps, such as Westpac, and others are poised to go down
this track, such as ANZ.
4. A few companies, mostly international, such as Rio Tinto and Shell, shape their
response to stakeholder expectations into principles that guide their business
activity: sustainability principles or partnership principles for example. This
approach is directed at embedding these principles into management practices
again an intense and, for some, a problematic journey. AMP has recently initiated processes to proceed in this direction.
5. Finally, some companies, mostly in private ownership, define their business
purpose and their commitment to sustainability values and accountability as
fully integrated their business success depends on this cultural perspective.
The Body Shop is the often-quoted example and the Cooperative Bank in the
United Kingdom, but also Visy Industries in Australia embraces this holistic
approach.
Developing indicators and assessment

Designing indicators
to inform strategic
management
eveloping high-quality indicators is an enormous challenge, and there is no

one easy or correct way to develop and report them. While some companies
are successfully adopting the Global Reporting Initiative and other frameworks,
others take a more eclectic approach where they review indicators used by other
companies and adopt the most appropriate from various sources.
In general, companies develop indicators that are most relevant to the issues
they face and the concerns of key stakeholders, but, perhaps more importantly,
they are choosing indicators that are useful for informing strategic decisions within the business the extent to which environmental and social factors are
integrated into management decisions does however vary. Within this context, several indicators are comparable within and across industry sectors: the common
environmental ones tend to be the amount of energy consumed and its origin,
resource and material usage, emissions, and effluents and waste management; the
common social indicators relate to health and safety and community involvement;
and economic indicators beyond financial results are, for example, taxation paid
and estimates of wealth created by the company.
While companies have adopted a variety of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to measure their performance, there are several common main features
such as: the mix of input, output and outcome measures; the use of performance
targets; and benchmarking practices and verification processes (see Box E.1).
BOX E.1
MAIN FEATURES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Main features of performance measures adopted by companies include:
input measures are the least difficult to develop and hence are the most common, whereas outcomes measures are rare;
performance targets are used to varying degrees. Most do not set targets but compare incremental performance improvements
over time, and set short to medium-term targets (objectives) and assess performance against these. A few companies set
aspirational targets and measure performance against these over the long term;
few companies explicitly link performance measures with the social, environmental or economic impact of the measured processes
or events;
while there are few opportunities for companies to benchmark performance against key competitors (except in the resource sector)
some companies are benchmarking against legal licence limits (that is, emissions and so on);
indicators are verified in a variety of ways, the most common are external verification and systems incorporating external input.
There are several leading companies verifying indicators based on feedback from readers and program recipients. While
environmental indicators are increasingly externally verified, this is more difficult for social indicators; and
leading companies enable data to be disaggregated to the local level and customised through web-based reporting. A few
companies are going live with their data, which challenges the status of the more static traditional paper based reporting.
Source: The Allen Consulting Group
Creating value
Soft benefits through
useful data, licence to
operate and reputation.
Extent of financial benefits
not agreed
ncovering the value creation of triple bottom line or making the business
case operates at two levels. There is a soft but nevertheless compelling busi-
ness case that concerns management and performance improvement through the
use of data, reputation enhancement, market differentiation and greater social
legitimacy or the securing of the licence to operate. Companies are adamant
about the value of these benefits, especially when triple bottom line is part of
a more holistic view of corporate citizenship and sustainability. Identifying more
tangible financial benefits shareholder value, revenue, access to capital and
market growth is not yet settled. Positive links between sustainable development
and financial results are being identified in research so, again, if triple bottom line
reporting is truly reflective of a companys adherence to sustainable development
practices, more tangible financial benefits should become apparent.
Not a precise
measurement technology
In the minds of Australian businesses, triple bottom line measurement and

reporting is not a precise measurement technology; it is more a clever concept for
establishing a new vision for a range of corporate responsibilities.
Companies need to
own the process to
reap the benefits
Adopting more transparent and accountable practices must be built on a business case that is widely discussed and understood in the company. To achieve
enduring benefits companies need to own their own approach, one that is built
on well-conducted research and rigorous execution. Changes of this sort need to
be well integrated into core management systems including planning, operations,
employee relations, and management appraisal and reward systems.
Government and
industry bodies have
a role in facilitation
In looking forward, many companies believe there is a role for government that
includes facilitating discussion, especially around the characteristics of an environmental, social and economic vision for Australia what are the communitys
environmental, social and economic goals that should inform business objectives?
There are many current regulatory and administrative instruments that already
include public consultation and reporting (such as the National Pollutant
Inventory). As a first step, the impact of these should be considered in the light of
triple bottom line expectations.
xi
Industry groups have an important role in taking triple bottom-line thinking

further. There is no one-size-fits-all approach but most industry sectors are well
placed to develop approaches that suit groups of like-minded companies such
as occurred with the chemical and minerals industries in developing codes of
practice in the 1990s.
The findings of this review are reported as follows:
Chapter 1 provides definitions of the terms used in this field of discussion, an

overview of the main forces or drivers for companies paying attention to triple
bottom line considerations and a visual map to aid a conceptual understanding of the varied elements.
Chapter 2 portrays the highly diverse state of play by presenting 20 case

studies (16 Australian and four British) of companies thinking and practices
grouped into five broad developmental categories. This essentially addresses
the why and how dimensions.
Chapter 3 analyses the environmental, social and economic measurement and

reporting techniques employed by companies in their current practices.
Chapter 4 discusses the business case and the implementation challenges that
companies face in determining their triple bottom line activity and the benefits
that they anticipate.
Chapter 5 raises some strategies that may be employed in further clarifying the
way that companies could best meet the new community expectations.
xii
CHAPTER 1
Definitions, Context
and Drivers
S N A P S H O T
Characteristics
Context and drivers: Reshaping
Triple bottom line is a clever term for highlight-
business priorities
ing the non-market and non-financial areas
Community and employee expectations: the
of corporate performance and responsibility:
traditional relationship between business
environmental, social and economic. The core
and society is being reshaped and this is
characteristics of triple bottom line include:
altering our common understanding of
business responsibilities.
accepting accountability: triple bottom

line is founded on the assumption that
shareholders for generating returns but also
responsible investment in the United
to stakeholders;
Kingdom is indicative of what companies
being transparent: companies have an
might experience in Australia over the next
obligation, within commercial limits, to be
few years.
Reputation-ranking industry: there is considerable public interest in more generalised
integrated planning and operations: for
reputation-ranking and this is also driving
a company to contribute to economic
many companies to collect the data for the
prosperity (including returns to sharehold-
reports they are being asked to produce.
Changing voice of the not-for-profit sector:
well-being it is necessary that these dimen-
the not-for-profit sector is attracting interest
sions be reflected in strategic planning;
worldwide and, in particular, the Australian
committed to stakeholder engagement:
sector is changing its interface with govern-
interacting with internal and external stake-
ment, the community and industry.
holders is a process that informs business
impacts beyond financial performance;
ers), environmental quality and social
Scrutiny related to socially responsible

investment: the recent growth of socially
transparent about their activities and
companies are accountable not only to
Regulation and certification: there are few
objectives and is developed from a base of
regulatory requirements in Australia that
rigorous research and dialogue; and
aim to increase or improve corporate disclo-
multi-dimensional measurement and report-
sure on their social and environmental
ing: systematic analysis and verification
behaviour. The more dominant influence on
of economic, environmental and social
corporate behaviour, particularly for social
performance, together with structured com-
issues, is self-regulation and third-party
munication on the results, is most often the
regulation (certification).
main mechanism for making concrete what

a company stands for, how it behaves and
how it delivers on its promises.
Introduction
The focus on how
and why
riple bottom line is a clever term for highlighting the importance of nonmarket and non-financial areas of corporate performance and responsibility.
This chapter explains the characteristics, drivers and benefits of triple bottom line
measurement and reporting, and its relationship to other key concepts in the
expanding lexicon for describing wider corporate responsibilities.
Triple bottom line defined

One concept among
many describing
the balance between
shareholder value added
and societal value added
ll companies consulted for this study are searching for ways to understand the
boundaries of their non-market role and the non-financial outcomes for
which they are accountable. However, there is no single or correct response.

Variations among companies occur according to industry sector whether there
is exposure through a brand, a service or operations company structure, size,
corporate philosophy or even management disposition. A few actively use the term
triple bottom line to delineate those boundaries, while others prefer to describe
their approaches in terms of corporate citizenship, or being a good neighbour, or
they refer to their sustainability principles or commitments to the community.
Triple bottom line measurement and reporting represents one important
process to assist companies in this search; just one part of the mosaic of corporate
change strategies for embracing more than traditional market signals. The triple
bottom line, as discussed in this study, is also a relatively concrete and observable
process. As a result, drawing on the practices that are observable in companies is
a pragmatic way to define triple bottom line and to assist others in developing a
better understanding of the processes and benefits.
Triple bottom line
The term was coined by John Elkington in the early 1980s:
The triple bottom line focuses corporations not just on the economic value
they add, but also on the environmental and social value they add and
destroy. At its narrowest, the term triple bottom line is used as a framework
for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic,
social and environmental parameters.
Elkington, J. (1980). The Ecology of Tomorrows World
Economic performance encompasses issues conventionally reported in a companys annual financial report, but also considers matters such as: the ratio of market
capitalisation to book value, investments in human capital and research and
development, wages and benefits paid, community development initiatives, and
the value and location of outsourced goods and services.
Environmental performance includes factors such as: the amount of energy
consumed and its origin, resource and material usage, emissions, effluents and
waste management, land use and management of habitats.
Social performance addresses interactions between an organisation and its
community. It includes such issues as: employee relations, health and safety, ratio
of wages to cost of living, non-discrimination, Indigenous rights, impact of community involvement and customer satisfaction.
The contribution of the term is in conveying a strategic idea in a simple way: a

company enhances short and long term value through successfully managing its
economic, environmental and social performance and impact so as to create
greater opportunities and reduce risks. Not only does the company derive value
but the companys wider influence also delivers community benefits. The three
spheres of activity are measurable and their contribution to organisational and
community value should be communicated to internal and external audiences
who have a stake in the results.
An approach to
management and
performance assessment;
a metaphor rather than
a new accounting metric
A caution is that the financial accounting image of the bottom line should not
be taken literally. A triple bottom line is not a quest for a new bottom-line metric
but rather an approach to management and performance assessment that stresses
the importance and interdependence of economic, environmental and social performance. However, the relevant dimensions of corporate performance are not
always neatly divided into these three categories, with some companies already
A fourth pillar: governance

and ethics
talking about a fourth pillar in corporate governance and ethics. Triple bottom line
is therefore best seen as a metaphor that encapsulates the task of managing, measuring and publicly reporting multi-dimensional corporate performance.
Triple bottom line also needs to be understood in relation to other related concepts about the role and responsibilities of the corporation and its performance.
While there are many conceptual frameworks that seek to redefine the role and
responsibilities of business, three related concepts that regularly arise in discussion with companies are: sustainable development, corporate social responsibility
and good corporate citizenship, and stakeholder engagement.
Sustainable development
Sustainable development;
corporate social
responsibility and
corporate citizenship; and
stakeholder engagement
are complementary not
competing concepts
Economic development, social development and environmental protection are

interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development adopted by the Bruntland
Commission is:
Development seeking to meet the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future, 1987.
This definition has been widely accepted and incorporated into the commitments
of most major business organisations around the world. The Business Council of
Australia endorses this definition and commits to excellence in the management
of the financial, environmental and social dimensions of all activities, products
and services.
The World Business Council for Sustainability (WBSCD) regards eco-efficiency
which combines environmental and economic performance and corporate
social responsibility as the core business contributions to sustainability.
Adopting a way of measuring and reporting progress towards sustainability
through a triple bottom line approach is clearly of benefit to the business itself and
to those audiences who are seeking to evaluate progress.
Corporate social responsibility and good corporate citizenship

According to the WBCSD, corporate social responsibility concerns the continuing
commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families, as well as
the local community and society at large.1 Being socially responsible means going
beyond compliance with legal expectations to investing in better management of
environmental impact, employee well-being and community benefits. A major
mechanism in achieving this is identifying and responding to stakeholders expectations and incorporating this understanding into corporate values, business
strategies and measurement of the outcomes of company performance.
Importantly, this calls for an integrated approach to management; one where
wider social, environmental and economic responsibilities impact on the strategic
planning of the company and not only serve as add-ons in a defensive strategy.
Stakeholder engagement
The WBCSD provides a long list of stakeholders for business to take into account
including: trade unions, churches, Indigenous peoples, interest groups, not-for-profit
organisations, government and non-government organisations, and academics.
Another way of defining stakeholders is to see some as primary stakeholders
Primary and
secondary stakeholders:
understanding and
meeting their
expectations;
measuring and
reporting on outcomes
(those who exert a direct economic influence on the company and, in turn, are
directly influenced by the companys performance) and secondary stakeholders
(those who have a less direct relationship with the economic base of the company,
but have significant expectations).2 Primary stakeholders would be customers,
suppliers, employees, creditors, investors and shareholders. Secondary stakeholders would include media, government, local communities, interest groups,
not-for-profit organisations and the general public. In some companies, input
from their primary and secondary stakeholders is the basis for: planning to deliver
on the triple bottom line; understanding stakeholders expectations and how to
meet them; and how to measure and report on performance outcomes.
The idea of stakeholder engagement is not about exposure to narrow interest
groups as some businesses fear. Rather, stakeholder engagement can become a
core management strategy for enhancing and sustaining the shareholder and societal wealth-creating capacity of the enterprise.3
Not an either or
The core role of business is generating and distributing wealth. The expanding size
and impact of corporations in the globalised economy has, however, reconfigured
their role and responsibilities to embrace additional environmental and social
visions. The new paradigm for delivering on these wider responsibilities that are
embedded in concepts such as sustainable development or good corporate citizenship is not an either or of financial performance or environmental excellence
or social responsibility. Rather, the new paradigm is about and also.
1
2
3
Watts, P. and Lord Holme (1998). Meeting Changing Expectations: Corporate Social Responsibility,
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.
Post, J. (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Global Corporate Citizenship, Boston College for Corporate
Community Relations, Boston College, MA.
Post J., Preston, L., and Sachs S. (Forthcoming). Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management
and Organisational Wealth, Stanford University Press.
As BP Australia said:
In the oil industry, concern for the environment and societal development
does not mean that people have become tired of demanding cheap, reliable
and safe energy. No, it means they want all that and energy, which is clean,
has a creditable provenance and delivers a positive legacy.
Fliedner, I. (2000) 4
Commercially competitive
as well as socially and
environmentally
responsible
The considerable challenge that this presents for business is to deliver equally well
on all dimensions: to remain globally competitive and to be environmentally and
socially responsible and accountable.
Triple bottom line: Core characteristics
What are the observable characteristics of triple bottom line? In its widest sense,
triple bottom line is a philosophy that guides overall corporate performance. In a
narrower sense and the one that applies in this study it refers to the approaches
adopted for measuring and reporting on business performance beyond the financial dimension and towards an integrated view of business processes and impacts
in environmental, social and economic (including financial) domains. While strategy and management practices feature to some extent in this study, the focus
concerns why companies might consider publicly reporting on non-financial
matters and how that is being achieved.
The following points represent the essential behaviours and attitudes that are
manifest in those companies that seek to manage and report according to the idea
of the triple bottom line.
Core characteristics:
Accepting accountability: triple bottom line is founded on the assumption that
accountability;
companies are accountable not only to shareholders for generating returns but
being transparent;
also to stakeholders for contributing, within their context and capabilities, to
integrated planning
and operations;
sustainable development. Endorsing this notion of accountability most often
stakeholder
engagement; and
Being transparent: companies also have an obligation, within commercial lim-
features in the vision or core beliefs of a company.
its, to be transparent about their activities and impacts beyond financial
multi-dimensional
measurement and
reporting.
performance. Recognising the legitimacy of stakeholders right to know and

disclosing multi-dimensional results and impacts is a powerful idea embodied
in the triple bottom line and is most often reflected in the core beliefs of a
company, its dialogue practices with stakeholders and in the actual content of
its public reporting. Transparency is essential for sound governance.
Integrated planning and operations: for a company to contribute to economic
prosperity (including returns to shareholders), environmental quality and
social well-being requires all these dimensions to be reflected in strategic
planning, the range of operational management systems and reward schemes.
In other words, building these economic, environmental and social considerations into the core processes that drive a company is a precondition for
measuring and reporting according to the triple bottom line.
Fliedner, I., Stakeholder Reporting in BP: In Search of the Triple Bottom Line, Presentation, Centre for
Corporate Public Affairs, Melbourne 16th August 2001.
Committed to stakeholder engagement: interacting with internal and external

stakeholders is a process that informs business objectives and is developed
from a base of rigorous research and dialogue. A commitment to considering
stakeholders perspectives and to developing strategies for engagement is
embraced as a core business strategy that adds value.
Multi-dimensional measurement and reporting: systematic analysis and verification of economic, environmental and social performance, together with
structured communication on the results, is most often the main mechanism
for making concrete what a company stands for, how it behaves and how it
delivers on its promises.
A triple bottom line report: The content
The focus on
accountability
and transparency
is a powerful driver
of the content
As well as the rich variety of new and traditional communication methods that
companies already have at their disposal (for example, community advisory
panels, stakeholder dialogue, performance disclosure on a website and pamphlets),
the role of a triple bottom line report is to focus on greater transparency and
accountability across all major aspects of company performance and impact.
The content of those reports typically comprises:
multi-dimensional performance and outcomes information: economic,

environmental and social;
descriptions of corporate management principles and practices: including

values, vision and strategy; stakeholder identification; governance and
ethical dimensions;
systematic assessment or measurement of the impacts of company performance;
a basis for identifying benchmarks and assessing trends; and
third-party input, verification or assurance.
How triple bottom line works
here are many entry points to a triple bottom line approach to measurement
and reporting company performance. Figure 1.1 provides a visual framework
of triple bottom line to illustrate how business decisions are sequenced, where
tools for assisting business processes might be applicable and where information
flows could occur.
Great variation among
companies, but also a
typical planning sequence
Subsequent chapters describe the drivers for change in a number of companies, their business case for embracing triple bottom line, and the strategies and
techniques employed for measurement and reporting. While there is great variation among companies, it is possible to show a theoretical sequence of planning
and implementing triple bottom line. The framework below offers a way to understand where a company may currently be focusing attention and where it wishes to
be in the future.
The stem and centre circles of the framework illustrates a simple linear
sequence in decision-making. The outer circles provide examples of the tools or
content that may be applied to those decision-making stages. The outer downward-pointing arrows are illustrative of the many possible feedback loops for
communication and engagement.
It is also possible with Figure 1.1 to consider points of interaction or intervention by specific stakeholders such as investors, business groups, government,
interest groups and the not-for-profit sector. Their influence could be seen
laterally: industry bodies for example, frequently take a role in developing codes
of conduct and defining issues companies face, whereas they do not advise on
management systems.
FIGURE 1.1
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE VISUAL FRAMEWORK
A visual framework
In order to improve economic, environmental and social performance, and to
communicate this to internal and external stakeholders, there are a number of
steps that a company would go through, represented in the centre column of inner
circles. This is shown in a linear format to ensure simplicity but, in reality, moving
between the different stages is an iterative process.
Strategy and values in an
environmental, economic
and social context
Company business strategy is located in an environmental, economic and social

(and political) context. It signals the strategic direction a business adopts, the values it upholds, the medium and long term objectives, and is supplemented by the
business plan for the short term. A fully developed triple bottom line approach
would have objectives that range over all the dimensions, as well as the core financial and commercial goals. It would have tools and systematic processes to
determine the values and specific expectations of shareholders.
Triple bottom line

reporting arises from
and feeds back into
management systems
Management systems are often proprietary to individual companies, as they are

a source of competitive advantage, and vary in the degree of formality and detail.
Irrespective of the nature of the management systems, a triple bottom line measurement and reporting process arises from and feeds back into the management
or business systems of the company: strategic planning, human resource management, information management, environmental management and community
involvement are some key areas.
Indicators simply
communicate complex
information on outcomes
Indicators function as a measuring stick, by which companies can evaluate

how they are accomplishing explicit goals. Indicators also need to be placed within
a wider context of key economic, environmental and social issues and objectives.
Indicators should simply communicate complex information about performance
to an audience who wants to understand more about the company or make decisions on the basis of that information.
Sectoral issues,
often translated into
codes, are a further
performance parameter
Key contextual issues, relevant to individual companies or wider industry

sectors, are often identified and formalised through the development of codes of
conduct or sets of principles. These are sets of issues that are considered important
to address in the context of that industry sector, such as in the case of the
Australian Minerals Industry Environmental Code of Conduct, the gaming industrys Responsible Gaming Code or the Australian Bankers Associations Banking
Code. This could also comprise a network of international associations representing business, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and the United
Nations, such as in the case of the Global Compact. Issues faced by companies
that are not formally translated into codes are also highly relevant, such as agricultural production techniques and salinity.
Assessment technologies
are in-house or
externally set
There are a number of possibilities for assessment. Where the company

has developed its own set of issues and indicators, the assessment process is
performed in-house. To ensure greater transparency, independent verification of
the results could be obtained. Furthermore, if a widely accepted set of issues or a
code were available and relevant, the company could be audited or inspected
against these criteria through an independent third-party system. Systems such as
Social Accountability Internationals SA 8000 standard based on ILO labour conventions or eco-labelling function in this way. Some triple bottom line tools, such
as ISO 14001 or the Building Greenhouse Rating Scheme, can either be used simply
as internal tools for improving performance and management systems or as tools
for external communication to stakeholders through an optional independent
verification and certification process.
Certification systems will become increasingly popular as market-based regulatory tools. Questions then arise of who will monitor the monitors. The most
sophisticated certification systems also have accreditation systems, whereby the
certification body is accredited to a higher level organisation that oversees the
integrity of its operations (for example, JASANZ is a body in Australia that accredits many certification bodies).
Reporting is aligned
between stakeholders and
business decision-makers
Reporting can be directed to external stakeholders and regulators, to internal

audiences, and serve in management improvement. While the reporting process
will vary depending on the target audience, a main goal is to move towards closer
alignment of values between external and internal stakeholders and decisionmakers. This engagement is most appropriate during the stages of identifying core
issues to address and at the assessment stage to ensure that the results are credible
and transparent. With respect to the internal feedback loop (as outlined in Figure 1),
this integrates the results into the companys management system with the goal of
improving performance against economic, environmental and social benchmarks.
This is also important as a lever for cultural change within the company.
Reshaping business priorities:

Drivers of change
Business success redefined
ompanies throughout the world are facing unprecedented challenges. Forces

are reshaping the context for business success in Australia, as elsewhere, with
companies facing more global competition and the imperative of adapting to

technological change. The knowledge economy highlights the importance of tacit
knowledge or the know-how of employees so that the intellectual capital of a
company is increasingly a key competitive factor. As well, the pursuit of sustainable development meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs is a principle endorsed by
all major business organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, as an
important and legitimate aspect of business responsibility.
Against the background of the global business environment, there are additional features of the business context that are directed more at the nature and
quality of the relationship between business and society: heightened community
(and employees) expectations of business performance and responsibility in
Australia, scrutiny arising from the growth of socially responsible investment, the
rise in importance of corporate reputation and the growth of a reputation-ranking
industry, the changing voice of the not-for-profit sector, and the shifting role of
regulation and certification. These are themes raised in consultations for this
review that may explain the growing interest in the triple bottom line.
Community and employee expectations
Australian business more
visible and accountable
The traditional relationship between business and society is being reshaped and
this is altering our common understanding of business responsibilities. This is particularly the case in Australia where changes in government functions have altered
the position of Australian industry from being highly protected and regulated to
one that is called on to be a partner with government and the community in serving a wider range of areas for the public good. Many areas of service provision and
economic activity are now privatised, and public companies and the not-for-profit
sector are active in areas of the economy previously reserved for government.
Business in Australia, unlike the United States, is not use to this level of visibility
and accountability.5
Employees bring their

values to the workplace
Also, intense global competition has refocused business strategy and relations
with employees. Most companies report that improving relationships with
employees and meeting their expectations is a strong for some the most powerful
driver for changing corporate activity to better serve a social role. A study of the
benefits of greater corporate community involvement revealed that meeting
employee expectations was one of the most important and new drivers of change.6
5
6
See a discussion with business and community leaders in Dilemmas in Competitiveness, Citizenship
and Community (2000).The Cranlana Programme, the Myer Foundation, Melbourne.
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia (2000)
Corporate Community Involvement: Establishing the Business Case.
Consultations with companies in this review support this conclusion. Companies

tie the need for culture change and for competing as the employer of choice, to
being seen by employees as meeting community expectations. Younger employees,
in particular, are seeking a workplace environment that brings community and
personal values to the foreground.
Young employees are championing the cause of a triple bottom line
approach bottom up from a variety of disciplines: marketing; investor
relations; human relations; and product development.
Industry body, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Community standards have lifted for environmental and consumer protection,
and economic growth is challenged with creating gaps between the haves and the
have-nots. There is a rising concern for ethics and values and ethical hypernorms
such as transparency, disclosure and responsibility for managing risk, which now
impinge on all business activity.7
Data consistently demonstrate growing community expectations for socially
responsible company performance. For example:
The majority want
Australian business to go
beyond making profits
a recent survey found that the majority of Australians (90 per cent) want large
companies to go beyond a one-dimensional role of making profits, and contribute more broadly to social and environmental goals. A worldwide survey of
over 25,000 average citizens in 23 countries showed that Australians had the
highest expectations of companies.8 Environmental concerns for 71 per cent of
Australians related to both global as well as domestic environmental problems;
citizens are expressing their views about corporate behaviour in many different
forms, including as investors, consumers, employees and community advocates. A recent British study demonstrated the impact of company reputation
on consumer purchasing, with good companies being rewarded and poor companies being penalised 17 per cent of the population boycotted a companys
product on ethical grounds, 19 per cent had chosen a product/service because
of a companys ethical reputation and 28 per cent had done both;9
similarly, a study in 2000 for the inaugural conference of the Ethical Investment
Association found that 7585 per cent of people had purchased products on the
basis of social and environmental attributes in the previous year;10 and
other Australian studies have found that around 60 per cent of all consumer
decisions are made with an awareness of environmental impacts, and 73 per
cent of consumers state that they would change brands, given equivalent quality, to support a product associated with a good cause.11
Business is at times sceptical of the strength of these sorts of findings regarding
The taken-for-granted
link between financial
success and reputation
has been broken
everyday actions such as purchasing decisions flowing from corporate reputation.

Irrespective, companies do realise that their social context has altered and that
the taken-for-granted link between business success and perceived community
Post, James, (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Global Corporate Citizenship, Boston College, Centre
for Corporate Community Relations, Boston, MA.
8 Environics International Ltd, The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, Executive
Briefing, 1999. Website: www.environics.net/eil/millennium/MPExecBrief.pdf
9 MORI, www.mori.com/consumer/index.shtml
10 Presentation by KPMG, Ethical Investment Association Conference, Sydney Stock Exchange, May 2000.
11 State Chamber of Commerce NSW (2001) Taking the First Steps: An Overview of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Australia, The Common Good Program.
10
benefit has been broken for many in the community. Being a financially successful
company is no longer a guarantee of community (or government) support.
The search for legitimacy and a good reputation is occupying the minds of
many company leaders. Business is uncertain about what negative community
pressure might lead to greater regulation is a concern for some sectors such as
banking or gaming, consumer backlash for the service sector, or constraints on
development for the resource sector or the telecommunications sector.
Scrutiny related to socially responsible investment
While socially responsible investment (SRI) is still a very small part of the market in
Australia, there has been considerable growth in the United Kingdom and Canada
over the past 18 months. This growth will most likely be replicated in Australia.
Major firms such as Challenger, Westpac, Rothschild and AMP have been releasing
new investment products and developing instruments for analysis of company
performance. On the demand side, some superannuation trusts, in particular,
have entered the SRI market and others are exploring their options.
A recent baseline study issued by the federal government concluded that there
are $10.5 billion in socially responsible assets in Australia.12 SRI managed funds
grew by 86 per cent between 2000 and 2001, 12 times that of managed funds as a
whole. Since 1996, SRI managed funds assets in this country have achieved a
growth rate of over 500 per cent.
The mature US market
is mainly due to the
exclusion of sin stocks
The international experience in SRI is important in understanding its potential

impact on companies in Australia. The market is mature in the United States, but
Australian developments in SRI do not appear to be moving in the same direction.13
Although the dollars in the United States that are reported to be invested according
to ethical criteria is high one in every eight dollars under professional management anecdotal evidence does suggest minimal influence on companies. There
is a longstanding emphasis on exclusions for gambling, alcohol and tobacco.
While criteria such as the environment are well represented, others such as women
in management are very new and only included in relatively boutique vehicles. The
Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index is expanding and evidence of performance
demonstrates an equal if not better outcome than for conventional investment.
The recent growth of socially responsible investment in the United Kingdom is,
UK growth is indicative
of the future of socially
responsible investment
in Australia
however, more indicative of what companies might experience in Australia over

the next few years. Screened investment in the United Kingdom grew by almost
380 per cent from $A1.9 billion to $A7.2 billion between 1994 and 2000.14
In the United Kingdom, contemporary values feature more significantly; for
example, human rights, the environment, employment practices and community
involvement. In particular, the government is a strong advocate for socially
responsible investment as part of its program to promote corporate social responsibility, and an infrastructure for screening companies is rapidly building to service
this form of investment. SRI is newsworthy and companies are subject to a vastly
12 Ethical Investment Association (2001) Socially Responsible Investment in Australia 2001:

Benchmarking Survey (http://www.ea.gov.au).
13 For a discussion of the nature of the market in Australia, see The Allen Consulting Group (2000).
Socially Responsible Investment in Australia.
14 Greene, D. (2001). A Capital Idea. Realising Value from Environmental and Social Performance,
Commonwealth Government, Australia.
11
increased number of surveys and the like wanting to access data on companys
environmental and social performance. Indeed, the impact of the screening
devices seems of greater importance in companies minds than the potential flow
of capital:
I used to spend 5 per cent of my time answering questions, now it is
50 per cent.
Resource company, United Kingdom.
The Allen Consulting Group Consultation
I can show you 20 surveys that I have received in the past few months all
from organisations serving socially responsible investment. Its an explosion.
Consumer goods company, United Kingdom.
The Allen Consulting Group Consultation
In Australia, recent amendments to the Australian Financial Services Reform
Additional scrutiny of
companies performance
and reputation is the
current major impact
of socially responsible
investment
Act will increase the disclosure of the extent to which superannuation funds and
investment managers incorporate environmental and social issues in their investment decisions, and this will inevitably increase discussion of the parameters of
socially responsible performance. Under the Socially Responsible Investment
disclosure requirements of the Financial Services Reform Act 2001, the Product
Disclosure Statement for financial products that have an investment component
will be required to state the extent to which labour standards, environmental,
social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention
or realisation of the investment. As occurred in the United Kingdom under a similar requirement, this will produce a ripple effect not only in the investment
community but also throughout listed companies as organisations classify and
record their socially responsible activities.
Shareholder democracy is also becoming more prominent in Australia. As more
Pressure from
shareholder democracy
and more Australians become shareowners (Australians are reputedly the highest
direct and indirect owner of shares), they are beginning to look more closely at the
actions of the companies they invest in.15 Interest groups are also recognising that
introducing shareholder resolutions at company annual general meetings is a
mechanism to call management attention to issue. The Corporations Law 249D
was amended in 1998 to allow at least 100 registered shareholders to call a general
meeting of the company. The union campaign against Rio Tintos labour relations
practices was reputedly the first to be conducted through shareholders at their
Annual General Meeting.
Environmental and social risk assessment
Increasing pressure from

lender and insurers
Also, more generally, there are reports of increasing pressure from lenders, insurers
and investors on companies to improve their performance, although the current
influence appears to be low. Banks and insurance companies increasingly recognise the importance of good environmental management to reduce their future
risks and some banks overseas have begun to look more closely at environmental
management when considering business loans. Most have implemented
environmental risk criteria as part of their corporate and project lending activities.
15 Address Richard Humphry, CEO and MD, Australian Stock Exchange, Annual Oration, Australian
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Melbourne July, 2001.
12
Currently though, environmental assessments tend to be once only and are not
monitored for the duration of the loan period, although this is expected to change
over time.16
Overall, the extent of detailed investment analyst scrutiny of companies environmental and social performance (other than for socially responsible investment
purposes) is thought to be very low in Australia especially in a climate of economic and corporate instability. For example, a recent survey of 25 Australian
stockbrokers found that their key concern when analysing and recommending
a company to clients was its financial performance. Some did indicate that they
provide an ethical analysis if a client requests or if the company actively markets
itself as an ethical company.17 Even in the United Kingdom, where the profile of
the issues is much higher, the trend is similar. One survey found 9 per cent of
analysts saw environmental and social issues as important non-financial indicators, compared with 20 per cent of investors and 23 per cent of journalists.18
Those companies advocating a higher standard of environmental and social
performance hope that the investment market learns to differentiate between
companies on these criteria.
Reputation-ranking industry
There is considerable public interest in more generalised reputation ranking and
Data are needed for
surveys that rank
corporate reputations
this is also driving many companies to collect the data for the reports they are
being asked to produce. Many large Australian companies endorse the notion of
stakeholder scrutiny and the obligation of the company to make information freely
available in a transparent and accessible form, endorsing the notion of community right to know. Rio Tinto, WMC, Telstra, Shell and National Australia Bank are
examples of companies with external stakeholder forums. Many large companies
also see that surveys by external parties are a new and legitimate technique for
assessing companies.
The more recent surveys such as the Good Reputation Index appearing for the
second time in 2001 in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald raises a number of
important issues for companies. While more traditional conventions for ranking
each companies reputation, such as by the global business press Fortune 500 in
the United States, the Most Admired Companies for Asian Business or Business
Review Weeklys polls draw on business to business reviews, the second wave of
reputation assessment draws on community or stakeholder attitudes across a new
set of criteria. Often, the sources for advice are stakeholder groups that are not
supportive of industry and the relationship can be oppositional and combative.
Whereas earlier reputation reviews were structured around conventional busi-
First-wave reviews were

conventional business
success indicators;
second-wave reviews are
more combative and focus
on stakeholder interests
ness indicators such as leadership, product quality, service standards, investment

strategy and community relations, the newer features of a good reputation have
a different focus. Second-wave reviews might include items such as employee
relations, respect for diversity, community involvement, and environmental
programs and ethics, thus reflecting the changing profile of corporate reputation
as an intangible resource (see Box 1.1).
16 PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001). The Role of Australias Financial Sector in Sustainability.

17 The Allen Consulting Group Stockbroker Survey (2000). This involved a national survey of
25 mainstream stockbrokers, the results were based on a 40 per cent response rate.
18 Data from Investing in the Future quoted in press release for Business in the Community, London,
24 May 2001.
13
Westpac refers to the emerging concept of corporate reputation as:

The net perceptual representation of our past actions and future prospects;
it represents our appeal to all our stakeholders.
Purcell, N. (2001) 19
The media clearly believe that there is public interest in corporate reputations,
and companies are increasingly sensitive about appearing in the front pages of
newspapers rather than only in the business pages. Companies anticipate that the
number of second-wave reputation surveys will increase, and are confronting the
requests for data and the implications of this on their reputations.
BOX 1.1
EXAMPLES OF REPUTATION CRITERIA
1st WAVE REVIEWERS: BUSINESS TO BUSINESS PEERS

Quality of management
Quality of products and services
Financial soundness
Attraction of talent
Use of corporate assets
Business acumen
Community responsibility
2nd WAVE REVIEWERS: SUPPORTIVE AND OPPOSITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS

Corporate governance
Corporate citizenship
Disclosure and reporting
Environmental performance
Ethics
Sustainability
Employee relations
Stakeholder involvement
The changing voice of the notforprofit sector

The not- for-profit sector
is well versed in the
new dimensions of
the corporate sector
The not-for-profit sector is attracting interest worldwide and, in particular, the

Australian sector is changing its interface with government, the community and
industry.20 It is now the recipient of considerable funds to deliver services to the
community on behalf of government. The sector is in partnership with many
Australian companies to assist them in their community involvement endeavours,
and it continues to recruit people who have a strong sense for serving the public
good and pursuing a sustainable and cohesive Australian society.
Not surprisingly, the voice of this sector is growing in its profile in the
Australian community. Moreover, the language of the triple bottom line is increasingly being used across the sector to describe companies social responsibilities. As
companies come to this sector to strike partnerships and alliances and seek assistance in developing sustainable environmental and social activities, they will find
many organisations, like The Smith Family or the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence,
well versed in the varied dimensions of corporate performance.
19 Purcell, N. Managing New Accountabilities, Corporate Public Affairs, vol. 11, no. 2, 2001, Centre For
Corporate Public Affairs, p. 26.
20 Lyons, M. (2001). The Third Sector: The Contribution of Non-profit and Cooperative Enterprises in
Australia , Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
14
The experience and concern of some major not-for-profit organisations is that

companies do not understand what the key social concerns are for Australian people:
Australian companies want to be socially responsible but many do not
know how to go about it because they do not know what the key concerns
are of the Australian public. In this context it is hard to develop a structured
sustainable approach.
The Smith Family, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Dialogue is needed to
build trust between sectors
through accountability
and transparency
Many interest groups and organisations are interested in having deep dialogue
with companies to assist them in identifying public concerns:
We are interested in having conversations with business to, amongst other
things, build trust between the two parties so that we can work productively together and address shared problems.
The St James Ethics Centre, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
When asked what they would expect from companies who seek to measure and
report on the social dimensions of their performance, the Australian Council of
Social Services (ACOSS) similarly sees an opportunity for building trust and twoway relationships:
Triple bottom line reporting and stakeholder relationship building should
be genuinely reflective. Reporting needs to be based on evidence and there
needs to be assurance that the results will be acted on; reporting needs to be
part of an ongoing two-way relationship.
ACOSS, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Certification: peer and customer pressure

Certification provides
an incentive and
a framework for
measurement
and verification
An important influence on corporate behaviour and public reporting, particularly

for social issues, is self-regulation and third-party regulation through certification.
Certification systems (for example, ISO 14001, Greenhouse Certification Program,
Forest Stewardship Council and Social Accountability International) routinely
comprise a set of rules, principles or guidelines, and a monitoring and reporting
mechanism. In that sense, they are logically linked to triple bottom line reporting,
providing important substantive information and verification.
Certification schemes can create incentives for companies to improve their
social and/or environmental performance by rewarding successful companies
with a mechanism for differentiation in the market or, alternatively, through peer
pressure to conform to commonly accepted and explicit standards. They can also
provide consumers or industrial customers with a mechanism for making
informed purchasing decisions.
Certification has appeared in almost every major international industry targeted by environmentalists and human rights activists, including the chemical,
coffee, forest products, oil, mining, nuclear power and transportation sectors.
Certification is also increasingly prevalent in the apparel, diamond, footwear, and
toy industries, to name a few. A recent inventory by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) listed 246 codes of corporate conduct.
15
Conclusion
A way of thinking about
integrated planning
and performance
riple bottom line is not a precise measurement or accounting technology but

a way of thinking about the integrated nature of business planning and perfor-
mance across environmental, social and economic dimensions. The focus in this
study is on the measurement and reporting practices of triple bottom line rather
than the underpinning business philosophy. The intention is to provide insight
into current practices, particularly in Australian companies, and practical advice
for those wishing to go forward. The current environment for Australian business
is complex, with strong commercial pressures as well as social drivers for change.
While each company perceives these pressures in their own way according to sector,
location or size, there are increasingly common understandings emerging, propelled by the interest from government, community and the not-for profit sectors.
The drivers of change for corporate communication and reporting discussed
here were drawn from consultations and there would, of course, be others that
could be mentioned. The intention has been to illustrate those pressures that are
currently top of mind for Australian business in setting a context for understanding triple bottom line measurement and reporting.
16
CHAPTER 2
Triple Bottom Line Reporting:

A Work in Progress
S N A P S H O T
Understanding the real world for companies
without understanding more about the
context and the directions for the rest
Beyond the annual report, other popular
of business.
mechanisms for communicating with stake
holders include: community or stakeholder
Other companies make a commitment to
consultation panels, local letterbox drops of
their community to be open and transparent
flyers on environmental initiatives, regular
observing the community right to know
newsletters to employees and their families, and
principle and endorsing the notion of
regular communication with politicians and
greater accountability to the community for
non-government organisations on matters of
their performance. To meet this commitment
interest to them.
they assemble and package internal

information for an external audience.
The challenge for companies is in establishing
what would be gained by extending these
A few companies start from scratch and
options to include more structured, targeted
systematically ask stakeholders what they
and reflective information in a triple bottom
want to know about the company. The
line report.
information they then generate is driven by

the goal of aligning with stakeholders
expectations.
Very few Australian companies have produced
A few companies, mostly international,
stand-alone or substantial environment and/or
shape
social reports. Of the top 50 companies listed in
expectations into principles that guide their
Australia ten have produced environmental
business activity sustainability principles
reports half of these companies are in the
or partnership principles for example.
resource sector. Six of the top 50 companies
their
response
to
stakeholder
Finally, some companies, often in private

ownership, define their business purpose
have produced social reports.
and their commitment to sustainability

Rationales and approaches differ
values and accountability as fully integrated
In general, there appear to be five broad
their business success depends on this
categories that capture the evolution of triple
cultural perspective.
bottom line management, reporting and information distribution. While these distinctions are
Conclusion
not mutually exclusive they are indicative of the
Reporting that is oriented to triple bottom line
primary approach of enterprises and provide a
characteristics has a range of seemingly
useful way to illustrate the different rationales
common features including: the scope and
and emphases.
presentation of information; reference to
Wait and see is where companies are mostly
management systems and commitments; the
satisfied with their present approaches to
extent to which stakeholders are identified and
communication and accountability. Either a
social, economic and environmental impacts
change is not a business priority and not on
and benchmarks are identified; and the
the radar or, there is a sense of potential
engagement of third parties to develop and
benefits, but it is far too early to proceed
monitor reports.
17
Introduction
his chapter seeks to portray the current thinking and experiences of a range of
Australian and British companies that are grappling with the idea or practice
of triple bottom line measurement and reporting. There is wide variation and each
case study tells a different story due to sector, size, location or simply management
culture. The common thread is that they recognise the changing status of business
and the new challenges that this presents.
Many companies are quick to point out that the range of communication channels they have available for discussing company performance is already wide and
they prefer to exercise their choice of medium to fit the purpose and audience. On
the other hand, many companies are looking for something additional that facilitates a deeper engagement with stakeholders and the issues that matter to them.
The current foundations

Environmental and
social descriptions are
familiar content for
annual reports
he vast majority of company annual reports in Australia routinely include

short descriptive coverage of environment and safety, our people, and sup-
porting our community. These themes supplement coverage of corporate strategy,

business achievements and corporate governance that, in turn, support the directors report, financial report, governance accountabilities and stock exchange and
shareholder information. The values or broad aspirations of a company are usually covered in the managing directors or chairmans report. Many global companies
operating in Australia also issue a version of an annual report without the directors and financial reports.
A rich set of
communication media
used by companies
Beyond the annual report, other popular mechanisms for communicating with
stakeholders include: occasional publications on social, employee or environmental activities; community or stakeholder consultation panels; local letterbox drops
of flyers on environmental initiatives; regular newsletters to employees and their
families; regular communication with politicians and non-government organisations on matters of interest to them; and so on. Some of these approaches are
specifically geared to achieving transparency and accountability goals, while others lean towards one-way communication and managing stakeholders
expectations rather than dialogue and engagement.
Evidence of a lack of
confidence in reporting or
promoting environmental
initiatives
Companies are not always confident in their approach to communication. The

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has found that the majority of
Australias top 100 companies have introduced environmental initiatives such as
recycling programs and energy saving initiatives, but many have not taken this
process a step further to report on their broader environmental performance and
impacts.21 Companies that do not report publicly indicate they are unaware of the
potential audience that would be interested in such behaviour and furthermore
they are unsure of the most effective way of reporting it as much of it is not considered appropriate in the annual report.
21 Australian Conservation Foundation (2000). A Different Look at the Performance of Australias Top
100 Companies (www.acfonline.org.au/campaigns/corporate/briefings/perfresults.htm).
18
Community involvement
reported on websites
Many companies do, however, report internally and externally on major single
issues or programs that are important to them. As an example, a high proportion of
Australian companies choose to describe and display their commitment to social
responsibility or community involvement programs on their websites. This often
comprises a list of sponsorship initiatives, charities receiving donations and other
community involvement activities. The information is normally descriptive and
does not intend to provide measures that could be compared over time, except
perhaps for resource allocation.
For more than a decade many companies have issued one-off environmental
policy commitments, often distributed as a pamphlet or brochure. Many are signatories to codes of practice and voluntary agreements, such as for Greenhouse
Challenge or National Packaging Covenant, and report against results. Periodic
voluntary targets for environmental improvement and descriptions of achievements might supplement this.
Mixing dialogue with

web- and paper-based
communication: what
more is there to gain?
Most companies readily point out that this rich set of communication techniques is their real world for reporting to stakeholders. They mix interpersonal
dialogue with web-based and paper-based information. The question is in establishing what would be gained by extending these options to include more
structured, targeted and reflective information in line with the triple bottom line
reporting concept.
The following section draws on the experience of companies in Australia and
the United Kingdom to portray the state of play in triple bottom line reporting. The
discussion explores the motivation, approaches and challenges identified by a
range of companies at varying stages of development. The subsequent chapter
examines the measurement and reporting techniques.
ery few Australian companies have produced stand-alone environment

and/or social reports Environment Australia has identified 80 Australian
companies and government business enterprises, across a range of sectors that

have produced environmental reports. A stand-alone report is not inherently
superior to an integrated report but Australian company experience has been that
a closer examination of environmental or social performance initially requires
more space and a separate report; often a supplement to a conventional annual
report is practical and focuses stakeholders attention. A number of international
companies are moving further ahead by reconfiguring their annual report around
triple bottom line considerations, bringing the same level of accountability and
trend analysis to non-financial aspects as well as financial.
Of the top 50 companies listed in Australia ten have produced environmental
reports: Wesfarmers, Cable and Wireless Optus, Telstra, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto,
WMC, Woodside Petroleum, MIM Holdings, Normandy Mining and Orica. Half of
these companies are in the resource sector (see Figure 2.1).
Six of the top 50 companies have produced social reports (BHP Billiton, Rio
Tinto, WMC, MIM Holdings, Normandy Mining, and Westpac).
19
FIGURE 2.1
NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE

TOP 50 COMPANIES IN AUSTRALIA BY INDUSTRY SECTOR
BUILDING/FOREST
Proportion in industry sector (in top 50) with social reports
ENERGY/METALS/PHARMACY
Proportion of top 50 companies
INDUSTRY SECTOR
FINANCIAL
Proportion in industry sector (in top 50) with environmental reports
LEISURE & GAMING

MANUFACTURING/FOOD
PROPERTY & ENGINEERING
RESOURCES
RETAIL & WHOLESALE
TELCO/MEDIA/IT
TRADING/DIVERSIFIED
TRANSPORT
0
20
40
60
80
100
PER CENT
As more companies beyond the resource sector consider their reporting

options there seems to be a gradual expansion of the content of annual reports to
capture the general triple bottom line themes rather than an immediate progression to more rigorous reporting. The annual report by Westpac 2001 is a leading
example of an expanded and reshaped annual report that better reflects the needs
of customers and community to understand the wider impact of the company on
society. Leighton Holdings is another example where the triple bottom line structure has shaped its 2001 annual report.
It is interesting to compare industry sectors in Australia to the leading sectors
internationally. A recent international benchmark study of the top 50 company
triple bottom line or sustainability reports concluded that companies in the
pharmaceutical sector produced on average the best reports. (See Box 2.1 for the
assessment criteria.) The performance of the other sectors, in order, was:
resources, financial services, information technology and telecommunications,
utilities, consumer and office products, automotive, and chemicals. Two Australian
companies were in the top 50: WMC and The Body Shop Australia and New
Zealand. Their top five reports were issued by companies in the United Kingdom.
They hypothesised that this was due to the strong development of sustainability
language and concepts, as well as standards and guidelines in Britain.22
BOX 2.1
BENCHMARK CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS
A recent international benchmarking study used the following criteria to assess and rank triple bottom line reports:
context and commitments regarding sustainable development;
management quality for internal and external alignment;
economic performance assessment;
social and ethical performance assessment;
environmental performance assessment;
multi-dimensional performance assessment (for example, supply chain impact); and
accessibility to stakeholders and assurance of accuracy.
Source: The Global Reporters: International Benchmark Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting (2000), SustainAbility and the United Nations
Environment Programme, London
22 SustainAbility and the United Nations Environment Programme (2001). The Global Reporters:
International Benchmark Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, London.
20
The Australian Conservation Foundation has found that Australian companies

are not necessarily slow in adopting environmental and social programs, but tend
to retain more traditional reporting methods rather than take the next step in
reporting. They also concluded that some companies failed to translate what on
paper appears to be best practice environmental strategies to their on-ground
environmental performance. The Australian Conservation Foundation identified a
further inhibitor to development in Australia as being a reluctance by several
multinational companies to bring to Australia the same standard of environmental
strategies and community development initiatives as those used by their overseas
parent companies.
Evolution of reporting
Capturing the evolution
in thinking. Companies
seem to fall in to the
following categories:
wait and see
gories. These distinctions are not mutually exclusive and the development is not
packaging information
linear, but they do provide a useful way to illustrate the different rationales and
stakeholder alignment
emphases of companies. It should be said at the outset that these categories are
principle driven
not judgemental; companies have their own internal logic for their decisions and
philosophically driven
make changes within an integrated framework. As one executive said:
ive broad categories capture the evolution of triple bottom line management,
reporting and information distribution. The discussion that follows describes
the practices of Australian and some British companies according to these cate-
It is very unlikely that this area (triple bottom line) will look the same in five
years; who knows the best way to proceed at this early stage and in this economic climate. I dont want to get ahead of the pack but I dont want us to be
left behind.
Company Executive retail sector, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Wait and see: benefits do
not appear to outweigh
the costs
Wait and see is where companies are mostly satisfied with their present
approaches to communication and accountability. Either a change is not a business priority and not on the radar, or there is a sense of potential benefits, but it is
far too early to proceed without understanding more about the context and the
directions for the rest of business.
Other companies make a commitment to their community to be open and
transparent observing the community right to know principle and endorsing
the notion of greater accountability to the community for their performance. To
meet this commitment they assemble and package internal information for an
external audience. This information reveals the standards they seek to meet, how
well they perform against those standards and a description of their activities.
A few companies start from scratch and systematically ask stakeholders what
they want to know about the company. The information they generate is driven by
the goal of aligning with stakeholders expectations. This often requires establishing new management tools for capturing the information and is a long and often
resource-intensive approach.
A few companies, shape their response to stakeholder expectations into principles that guide their business activity sustainability principles or partnership
principles, for example. This approach is directed at embedding these principles
into management practices again an intense and, for some, a problematic journey.
21
Finally, some companies, often in private ownership, define their business purpose and their commitment to sustainability values and accountability as fully
integrated their business success depends on this cultural perspective.
Wait and see

The majority of
companies are not
yet producing triple
bottom line reports
y far the majority of companies are not as yet producing triple bottom line
reports. These companies fall into a number of camps. Six companies views
are discussed below. There are those who understand the concepts, but they are
not on the radar of business priorities. There are also those that understand the
concepts, are committed to open communication with stakeholders and may be
conducting community programs and environmental improvement activities, but
they do not believe that the benefits of formal reporting would outweigh the costs.
Many in this group are interested in learning more about the concept and
are waiting to see where the whole agenda goes, before they commit to enhanced
social and environmental reporting. Others are very interested but are progressing
slowly, conducting the research to better understand their capabilities and what
is required.
Fosters: No demonstrable business case
Stakeholders are not

demanding triple
bottom line
Fosters has carefully considered the variety of measurement and reporting

arrangements (for example, CERES principles and the Global Reporting Initiative)
and the practices of other businesses. The company subsequently decided that the
substantial investment in triple bottom line measurement and reporting would
not be the best use of company resources at this stage; that is, increased expenditure in identifying performance indicators, establishing data-collection systems
and the like would be better invested in improving actual environmental and social
performance than reporting it. Moreover, there is no strong demand from their
stakeholders and consequently there do not appear to be strong business drivers.
This sort of approach would mean diverting resources from doing meaningful things to writing largely useless reports.
Company Executive, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Environmental and social policies have been built into core business management and the company is a signatory to the National Packaging Covenant and a
number of codes of practice. Nevertheless, the lack of strong drivers or clear benefits has meant no translation as yet to wider measurement or reporting.
We have been a leader in environmental practices and have taken an early
and proactive stance on key social issues. Our key stakeholders are aware of
that and are not calling for greater reporting.
22
BOX 2.2
FOSTERS
Rationale for Fosters wait and see approach:
no demonstrable business case or benefit that would warrant the additional expenditure;
stakeholders not demanding more information;
environmental and social concerns already built into the business strategy; and
will wait until expectations and processes are clearer.
In conclusion, Fosters is unconvinced of the benefits, but will wait and see
how this develops among their key stakeholders, in other companies and in the
wider community.
There is considerable confusion and poor understanding of the costs and
benefits of the triple bottom line; the jury is still out and will be for a while.
Woolworths: Need to see relevance to retail sector

Not a priority for
retail sector
Woolworths is one of the largest employers in Australia and has a presence in most
Australian communities. It seeks to be an active member of those communities
and to build local relationships. Its approach to community involvement and communication is derived more from understanding the particular context of the retail
sector than from emulating the activity of other sectors such as minerals.
Woolworths, as with other retail companies, operates with relatively tight margins,
a large number of shareholders, and rarely encounters community opposition to
its business. The scope for changing its relationship with the wider community is
therefore relatively minor. Nevertheless, a major corporate entity such as
Woolworths is well aware of changes that are under way in other companies and
will gradually make similar adjustments to its reporting to shareholders and the
wider community.
Woolworths annual report and website are in the traditional format, where
financial results are provided in detail and social and environmental initiatives are
described mainly in terms of policies or program initiatives. Its social or community involvement program is extensive and the website enables a reader to look in
some detail at the nature of the activities and resources allocated.
BOX 2.3
WOOLWORTHS
Rationale for Woolworths wait and see approach:
not a priority for the retail sector and no obvious benefits;
already active in local communities and enjoys community support;
current communication outlets are working well; and
could gradually expand the scope of information.
The company is currently considering ways that it might extend the environmental and social content in subsequent reports. It does not envisage moving to a
triple bottom line approach, but recognises that there may be additional information and data that could be included.
23
AXA: Inclusive values but triple bottom line is not a business priority
Every week we deal with issues or respond to stakeholders concerns that
could be labelled as triple bottom line accountability. However, at this stage,
the management and the board do not see developing measurement and
reporting as a priority.
For AXA, community activities and the approach of the company to external stakeholders are based on the philosophies of its French parent, which tends to adopt
an inclusive approach to business and the community. The reporting side of this
has not been seen as a key component to date. It produces a traditional style of
annual report and is interested in learning more about a triple bottom line
approach to assess what it should or could be doing.
BOX 2.4
AXA
Rationale for AXAs wait and see approach:
expanding measurement and reporting not a current business priority; and
in marketing and community relations it sees relevance in building its reputation by adopting an inclusive approach to business
and the community.
Parts of the organisation are increasingly interested in triple bottom line issues
for different reasons. For example, the marketing area is considering the implications
for branding and product development issues, and the community relations area is
interested in developing a comprehensive framework for consultation. As with
other companies in the financial sector, the key driver for considering this area
would be to improve reputation and image. At this stage, however, the company
does not see any significant pressure being exerted from its external stakeholders.
Qantas: Existing communication channels meet current needs
Qantas is advancing slowly on this front and considering what the next development might be. As with many companies, Qantas believes it is conveying its values
to employees, relating well to the airlines sponsorship partners and it feels the
message is effectively conveyed to external audiences through existing channels.
Qantas was publicly listed in July 1995 and has extensively developed its website to
show current press releases and detailed information for investor relations purposes, for example.
BOX 2.5
QANTAS
Qantas approach to triple bottom line:
advancing slowly;
already conveys values to employees;
planning more transparency for environmental performance; and
website used to show community contributions.
24
The environmental area is also expanding, and the company is seeking to go

beyond compliance, acknowledging the full extent of its responsibilities to the
community. It will be using its website and other mechanisms to bring more transparency to the issue and to show progress. Qantas is very active in the community
and the companys annual report lists contributions made to sporting events,
charities, environmental organisations and cultural events in the airlines commitment to make a positive contribution to the Australian and international
community. Qantas public reporting is essentially financial.
Medibank Private: Building on corporate community involvement
Medibank Private is currently considering the shape its reporting might take.
A focus on wider measurement and reporting is part of a broader repositioning of
the company. Based on broad-ranging consultations with staff and key community
stakeholders, Medibank is developing an enhanced and more strategic community involvement plan tied into its existing balanced scorecard reporting framework.
BOX 2.6
MEDIBANK PRIVATE
Medibank Privates approach to triple bottom line:
strategy under consideration but at an early stage;
broad-ranging consultations with staff and community stakeholders has been conducted; and
intends to leverage off-balanced scorecard framework.
Medibank may consider a triple bottom line management and reporting framework but it is still at an early stage in the process:
Some just see the triple bottom line process as demonstration of being a
good corporate citizen but others see that it could be much more.
Developing better ways to demonstrate the extent of the organisations
activity and capability in interacting with the community is backed by a strong
business objective.
Leighton Holdings: Prefer natural evolution
Reputation and good
environmental records are
a competitive advantage
Leighton Holdings is actively considering its options but waiting to better understand what is possible. Leighton Holdings is planning to produce a consolidated
external report on environmental and community issues within the next 12
months, and has embraced the concept of triple bottom line in this years annual
report. It has no doubt that reputation and good environmental records are a competitive advantage to the Groups operations in both Australia and Asia.
The core issue for Leighton is to determine what the triple bottom line
accountabilities are for a holding company. Thiess is an integrated engineering
and service provider heavily involved in triple bottom line reporting and there is a
strong business logic as they are a BHP-Billiton customer. On the other hand, John
Holland is a low-cost contractor with minimal overheads. They have a good safety
record but do not feel the pressure to produce additional reports on those matters.
25
BOX 2.7
LEIGHTON HOLDINGS
Leighton Holdings rationale and approach to triple bottom line:
believes a good reputation is a competitive advantage;
pursuit of ethical business practices is a fundamental attribute;
triple bottom line report to be issued in near future;
the first step is to review current indicators produced across the company; and
natural evolution in identifying dimensions and relevance.
Leighton has internal measurements around occupational health and safety,

environment and regulatory requirements. It is also developing internal reporting
processes for ethical practices across the business, arising out of the building
industry commission that challenged the industrys ethical standards. Its ethical
dimensions reporting is one area where Leighton Holdings is developing a unique
management system that addresses a particular business pressure in that sector.
The data in these areas is not as yet externally available.
The key questions for Leighton are similar to many companies: how much
reporting should be factual, quantitative and verified, as opposed to qualitative;
are there common measurements as in safety; to what extent is the Global
Reporting Initiative and similar approaches relevant to all companies? Leighton
also wants to assess what is relevant to its customers and determine the needs of
line areas and those parts of the business that operate as contractors.
The more fundamental question concerns whether Leighton Holdings would
reach a point were it would not embark on socially or environmentally controversial developments. That is, are there ways to use measurement and reporting in
risk management to highlight issues and concerns, and make commercial decisions with a full understanding of community expectations?
It would prefer to adopt a process of natural evolution on these questions.
Packaging information for community right

to know
A group of companies are
unconvinced of the gains
of wider triple bottom line
reporting beyond their
current communication
strategies
nother group of experienced companies are more or less comfortable with

their current practices, understand the pressures to develop more measures
along the social and economic dimensions but are unconvinced of what they
would gain. The practices of three companies are discussed. Essentially, they are
committed to being open with the community, are pragmatically using information that they collect for management purposes on environmental, health and
safety issues and community involvement and are packaging it into a triple bottom
line framework.
While these companies have developed some additional information and management systems, the majority of this is packaged for communication purposes.
These companies have well-developed reports some have led the way in the past.
Some are unsure about the types of measures to report and are sceptical about
whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.
26
Wesfarmers: A well-established record in environmental reporting

The CEO has stated that the more public focus we put on our performance
in these areas the more pressure we put on ourselves to improve and thats
one of the main reasons for publishing the document.
Planning and reporting

Wesfarmers is mature relative to the majority of Australian companies in that it is
producing its fourth environment report in 2001. From a modest start the report
has progressively been extended to include all the business units. The process has
been evolutionary where the content, format and external verification processes
have been gradually developed from experience. A more uniform approach across
the business units has depended on the capacity of those units to collect and
assess comparable data.
External verification of results is a key feature of the measurement process. The
recommendation was for five-year improvement plans to consolidate the structure
of reporting. Where the previous themes were environment, safety and health, the
new categories are more oriented to business activities such as business management, training, and management systems along with more tightly specified areas
of environmental and safety performance.
BOX 2.8
WESFARMERS
Key features of Wesfarmers approach to triple bottom line:
committed to transparency: welcomes public scrutiny;
pursuing a consistent approach across a rapidly growing company although this is a challenge as employees are most interested
in their own business units;
external verification of results is a core activity;
unsure about use by stakeholders; and
mature process: fourth environment report in 2001.
Challenges
Committed to
transparency but
unsure about use
by stakeholders
As a diversified industrial company, Wesfarmers has a complex mix of businesses,

including joint ventures, a large number of shareholders and varied stakeholder
relationships. Moreover, the company is growing rapidly and facing the challenge
of integrating acquisitions such as IAMA and Howard Smith Ltd. The business
units operate autonomously and have varied levels of resources for extensive data
collection and reporting.
While the company is committed to continuing the evolutionary process of
reporting, to deliver on the commitment to be open and transparent, questions are
being asked about the forms of engagement and communication that give the
most benefit to the company and its stakeholders. While employee awareness of
the reports is expanding, there is a sense that they are most interested in insights
into their own business units, as opposed to wanting access to information about
the whole company. Also, the company is unclear about the impact the report has
on other stakeholders. While they seek feedback, it has been hard to determine its
value to those who receive it.
27
The challenge is therefore to continue to report widely and support the

evolution of reporting across all business units, but at the same time to have a
manageable process and one that is useful to stakeholders.
Orica: A mature process and still evolving
Orica has been publishing a safety, health and environmental report for six years,
site-specific reports for ten years, and is well regarded for quality and consistency
in this area. Orica see this as consistent with its commitment to the sustainability
of our business and the world we live in.
No strong business case
for expansion beyond
current practice
Orica, like Wesfarmers, operates complex process and engineering-based operations and, where possible, has established comprehensive internal data-gathering
mechanisms as part of quality management. It is also committed to openness with
the community, conducting community consultation panels and the like, and
welcoming engagement with stakeholders.
The reports have combined both qualitative and quantitative information.
Oricas reporting has evolved from more descriptive accounts of performance and
the issues it considers important, to focusing on the facts and figures, reports on
achievements against targets and identifying targets for the future. Consistent with
the origins of its reporting to the community, over 50 per cent of its sites produce
additional reports for their local communities and this proportion will increase.
Letters of assurance, drawn from internal and independent audits, are part of the
due diligence approach in confirming the standards of management and operating
procedures for health, safety and the environment.
Oricas main emphasis has been on providing results on health, safety and
environmental performance drawn from the information generated by its comprehensive management systems and information, which is reported to government
bodies as part of the regulation of this industry sector. A change in the type and
depth of information is largely due to the fact that it now has more robust data for
those areas of performance.
It is a mature operator when reporting in areas beyond financial performance
and has received awards for the quality of its reporting. However, it does not
see additional benefits in acting differently, other than continuing to improve its
current processes.
BOX 2.9
ORICA
Key features of Oricas triple bottom line approach:
committed to community right to know;
produced health, safety and environment reports for six years;
produced site reports for local communities for 10 years;
establishing real-time reports on their website; and
no strong business case to support the expansion into other areas.
28
Its recent report has retained the traditional measures but has also introduced
some different aspects that go a little further into social and economic dimensions.
The new aspects:
relate to the future of our company and its role in society: material efficiency, reduction in greenhouse emissions, product life-cycle assessment,
and social responsibility.
Oricas website also provides information on health, safety and environmental
performance nearer to real time than is possible in a paper-based report.
Challenges
Orica is comfortable with gradually improving on these established processes.
There is no apparent business case to radically change or extend these measures
further into the economic or social domains. Nevertheless, it continues to be
watchful of developments. As Orica increases its involvement in new international
markets the company is keen to ensure it is able to adapt its Australian practices
and standards to operations in countries that are less developed than those in
which they have traditionally been established.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Identifying suitable data
For a successful
business what more
would be gained?
The Commonwealth Bank is a large and successful business. Reputational matters

are on the agenda for the top levels of management and there is an understanding
that a sustainable business requires the company reputation to be sound on all
dimensions. With 35,000 employees, the highest number of customers of any
bank, and with a strong position in the share market, the question is what more
could the Bank gain by diverting resources away from its core business to address
other concerns?
The Bank has conducted a shareholder audit that has revealed a very strong call
for transparency shareholders want information and they appreciate being told,
and told soon!
The company is not responding to the various scans and surveys that are arriving; it needs to be far clearer about the possible business gain before putting time
into answering these resource intensive surveys.
Its approach to reporting to shareholders and stakeholders is being built round
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). As the GRI is essentially developed for
resource companies, the Bank has found it has many limitations with respect to
the financial services sector, particularly for a customer service company with
millions of customers.
BOX 2.10
COMMONWEALTH BANK
Key triple bottom line challenges for the Commonwealth Bank:
identifying additional benefits for an already successful company;
meeting shareholders information needs;
the limited application of GRI to finance sector; and
identifying economic, social and environmental data to be reported.
29
Challenges
The main challenge is identifying what is feasible and appropriate to measure and
report to a wider audience. Identifying the dimensions for future reporting has
required a gap analysis of the data required by the GRI against the information that
is already available. This has highlighted additional information that should be
collected to enable more comprehensive reporting according to the general framework of the GRI.
It is anticipated a more comprehensive report in the future will include the
following dimensions:
economic (for example, staff, tax, funds, dividends, staff training);
environment (for example, water and paper use, legal liability); and
social (for example, the number of customers, fees, concessions, contributions

to the community).
Stakeholder alignment as the starting point

Some companies focus
on better aligning
their practices with
stakeholders expectations
small number of companies start from scratch, aiming to better align their
practices with stakeholders expectations. The strategies of five companies
are described in this general category. They actively engage with a wide range of
stakeholders not only to identify key issues and concerns, but also to partner with
them in managing environmental and social problems. Stakeholders expectations
are a major driving force for corporate direction, and performance measures are
well designed and often developed for specific stakeholder groups.
A range of starting points and practices is illustrated below. One common feature is the clear business benefits that are identified. Engaging more closely with
stakeholders is an imperative for a successful business. Another common feature is
the need to embed the processes into the company if the full benefits are to be
realised. Management improvements are a distinctive advantage that the more
experienced companies identify.
Westpac Banking Corporation: Accountable to more than shareholders
The Managing Director has said:
The future prospect for banks in Australia is not simply about how we
anticipate technological change, competition and globalisation, but
increasingly more about how well we operate in the social and environmental constructs applying across our industry Conventional business
models tend to be short on guidance in this area It would be the interplay
between the financial, social and environmental factors driving our industry that will ultimately determine the future of our industry A company
cannot succeed unless it is accountable to more than just shareholders.
Within this context, Westpac sees the drivers of a more integrated approach
to responding to community demands as twofold: those expectations concerned
with service and product quality (reliability and value); and those derived from
the community norms (ethical practices, accountability, transparency and
acting responsibly).
30
BOX 2.11
WESTPAC
Key features of Westpacs triple bottom line approach:
Guided by: what stakeholders want and the best ways to communicate communication will reflect what we stand for and
what we do.
Benefits: loyal customers, motivated employees; public influence.
Focus will be: governance and ethical conduct, market place practices, human rights employee practices, occupational health and
care for the environment, community involvement, and financial controls and risk management.
Challenges include: selecting indicators, being realistic and staying relevant.

Westpac has a long history in communicating on more parameters than financial
results. In the mid-1990s it issued an environmental policy, was a signatory to environmental protocols and participated in the Greenhouse Challenge. In 1992
Westpac was one of six banks in the world to sign the founding United Nations
statement on financial institutions and the environment. Given that it has a very
long experience in attempting to be open with stakeholders, it is a logical step to
develop a more integrated set of commitments and reporting parameters.
An overriding goal is to make the practices of the bank transparent to stakeholders. The challenge is establishing the form that this might take.
There would be hundreds of key performance indicators established in the
company to drive internal management, but these are obviously not directly relevant in that form for external audiences.
Security of performance
is valued
Westpac believes that scrutiny of performance drives incentives to deal with

those shortfalls it is a good test of our performance and standards. Westpac is
very comfortable being rated by the reputation and performance research agencies; for example, the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index for ethical investment
purposes rate them very highly.
However, Westpac came to the realisation that it should be telling the world
about our performance. The starting point will be a web-based communication,
Being Responsible. It will be a statement of social responsibility practices and an
important step in constructive dialogue with customers, government, communities and staff:
It seeks to put what we do into plain language and to make it widely available.
The policies and practices to be measured and communicated reflect, among
other things, practices that the community expects from companies like us. The
key areas will be governance and ethical conduct, market place practices, human
rights and employee practices, occupational health and care for the environment,
community involvement, and financial controls and risk management.
In developing the framework Westpac examined other companies sustainability reports. It found many were very complex and not sensitive to the audiences
needs. An important driver for designing their approach was to understand what
stakeholders would want of them and then establish how to communicate this in
the most accessible and meaningful way.
31
Challenges
The overriding goal is to develop a process to communicate what we stand for and
what we do. A difficulty is that expectations change so the development process
needs to be dynamic and relevant.
Westpac will attempt to report the information that stakeholders see as of
primary concern but recognise the complexity in selecting relevant indicators.
Credible and recognisable
performance indicators
for all stakeholders
For example, Westpac believes that around 90 per cent of ISO 14001 is not
relevant to the purposes it would wish its reporting to serve. Westpac has therefore
embarked on developing its own performance indicators that are credible and
recognisable to all stakeholders:
There is no central external group that can determine that [relevant indicators] for us we have to look to our own needs and the needs of our
stakeholders Banking is in fact a very difficult industry and essentially no
one has broken the mould on their business models for reporting.
Another caveat on reporting, is you cant get ahead of yourself. Reporting must
be a reflection of real performance and aspirations, and each organisation needs to
establish the needs of opinion leaders and those who can give guidance and confer
credibility. For example, in the disabilities area it might be the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission.
WMC: Well-developed sustainability reporting
WMC is seen as a world leader in triple bottom line reporting.23 The company has
been publishing an environmental report since 1995 and it issued its first community report in 2000. The rationale can be summed up as:
We recognise that people affected by our operations have a right to be
considered in our activities and can have an impact on our ability to
prosper traditional practices and current technology will not always
provide acceptable solutions in the future. We accept the challenge of
adapting to meet changing standards.
Mutual expectations
for openness and
accountability
The Managing Director has stated his commitment to openness and accountability. He expects this of the community agencies, government and others that the
company deals with, and can hardly exempt the company from meeting the same
standards.
WMC has refined the measurement and reporting processes to serve as
motivation for improved performance, as well as a mechanism to reflect performance. This has, in turn, led to establishing information management systems,
data-collection processes and verification techniques to ensure the content is
accurate. The process has become embedded in the companys operations and is
now a routine part of the work it does.
23 SustainAbility and the United Nations Environment Programme (2001). The Global Reporters:
International Benchmark Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, London.
32
BOX 2.12
WMC
Key features of WMCs triple bottom line approach:
Focus: it has a commitment to openness.
Main functions: it signals where a company is, where it wants to be and where it commits itself. (Reporting drives company
performance, as well as reflects it.)
Benefits: risk management, reputation and drives performance.
Challenges: establishing valid measurement and data management, valuing intangibles in a statistically driven environment and
new skills are needed for line areas.
Market position: an early leader in environmental and social reporting.

The strategy has been to bring business performance reports into alignment with
the timing of financial reporting. In 2001 the community report was combined
with an environment report, and a safety and health report was also issued. For
2002 the goal is to produce a sustainable development report with consideration of
a single report in the future. As it is a public document, the ASX standards for accuracy need to be rigorously observed and that has required considerable attention
to the business systems that support the reporting process.
WMC see that this process serves three main functions. First, reporting is a
reflection of where a company is. Second, it can also serve as an aspirational document to motivate and show the forward thinking of the company. Third, it can be
the basis for a more formal public commitment for the future:
If it achieves this it can then serve as an important driver of business
processes which is probably its most important contribution.
WMCs experience is that embedding the commitments into the company
practices can take a long time when the process is being led in a top down way
new processes around environment or community impact compete with the
more established engineering and business based regimes. WMC concedes that a
top-down introduction, rather than early integration into the business line planning, is doing it the hard way. The challenge of building ownership of the initiative
therefore becomes imperative.
In WMC this has been achieved through a number of mechanisms. The sustainability dimensions have been built into line area business plans. Business
systems were also established in fields such as human resource and training, environmental management and safety management. (For environment the system is
built on ISO 14001 although not certified as such.). WMC does not as yet have a
supporting management system for community objectives and there is a sense
that this weakens the data.
Verification is an important part of reporting publicly. WMC use auditors,
rather than community groups or non-government organisations, which apply the
conventional rules of auditing to the verification process. The auditing system has
taken about four years to develop.
33
The auditors have the freedom to pursue any angle they wish and to visit
any site. This is expensive but it provides management with a sense of
assurance that is appropriate in an engineering-based and publicly
listed company.
WMC does have a community panel and it also reports on its views of
the company.
Challenges
Sustainability reporting is, however, a demanding process. The benefits are frequently intangibles, are in a longer time frame and in that grey area that is difficult
to account for. This is especially the case in a business context where managers
prefer to deal with statistical probabilities. Managers also need to be able to communicate well to disseminate the social and environmental reports.
It really requires a new set of skills for mine managers and for them to not
only look at their production results in the next month, but also to consider
the outlook in the forthcoming years.
Budget, accountability
mechanisms and
ownership by the business
managers is crucial
WMC has learned that new initiatives in a company must be accompanied by a

budget, accountability mechanisms and ownership by the business managers
otherwise it will not endure beyond the enthusiasm of the proponents. As yet,
management competencies are not explicitly tied to sustainability characteristics.
Over time, promotional opportunities will come to those managers who
demonstrate the wider management skills required for effectiveness in this area.
Telstra: First steps in sustainability reporting
The drivers for wider reporting differ across a company. Pressure points include
growing community expectations for large companies. Those particular to Telstra
comprise service standards, results from an increasingly sophisticated stakeholder
research program, the need for a co-ordinated response to the growing requirements of reputation and socially responsible investment screening.
Telstras Public Environment Report is drawn from an increasingly comprehensive
data-collection system from across its many businesses and operating divisions.
Public reporting is an integral part of Telstra taking on the challenge of being a
sustainable company. It acknowledges that sustainability integrates the three elements commonly referred to as the triple bottom line: economic, environmental
and social.
There is a groundswell across Telstra supporting the many initiatives that
move us towards enhanced sustainability management and reporting.
34
BOX 2.13
TELSTRA
Key features of Telstras triple bottom line approach:
Its taking on the challenge of being a sustainable company;
is part of a suite of accountability and consultative mechanisms; and
uses stakeholder input to refine the process and content.
Challenges
The identification, measurement and reporting on environmental issues is well
developed, in contrast to economic and social elements. Accordingly, environmental performance serves as the centrepiece of Telstras public report, but
includes discussion of implementation aspects, such as employee training
and stakeholder communication. There is also discussion of how Telstra views
stakeholder interaction and relationship-building and how it manages to meet
external expectations.
While there is room for improvement, we have largely covered economic
and environmental reporting the social aspect is another matter.
Telstra is unsure whether to combine the non-financial and financial reporting
into a single document.
Unilever: Local and global accountability
The Unilever Group chairmen have stated that, to succeed requires the highest
standards of corporate behaviour towards our employees, consumers and the
societies and the world in which we live. A core objective is therefore to turn
commitment into practice and demonstrate performance. Combined with its
commitment to be open and transparent, Unilever has responded by developing
a global and comprehensive environmental and social reporting program that
balances the need for local accountability with global accountability.
However, the parameters for developing an approach to stakeholder engagement and reporting is vastly different in a company such as Unilever, compared to
a resource-based company. Unilever has a decentralised structure, it sells consumer goods under multiple brands in 150 countries, and there are multiple
suppliers and multiple sites. The company had to design an approach that fitted its
values and was suitable to the realities of a consumer goods business.
As in many other companies, a further incentive is having the capacity to
respond to the raft of requests for information the company receives from third
parties. This is a recent phenomenon but it has snowballed and is causing a
rethink on data management.
BOX 2.14
UNILEVER
Key features of Unilevers triple bottom line approach:
Goal: to turn commitment to practice and demonstrate performance.
Parameters: different to a resource-based company: with a decentralised structure, consumer goods brands in 150 countries,
and multiple suppliers and multiple sites.
Challenges: what to report locally versus internationally, how to achieve comparability and maintain relevance, how to identify
meaningful trend data and benchmarks, and how to deal with gaps between principles and achievement.
Next step: is seeing it as a whole.
35

Managing the logistics and processes for wider company engagement and reporting is a complex operation. The company has had to decide: what to report locally
versus internationally, how to achieve comparability and maintain relevance, how
to identify meaningful trend data and benchmarks, and how to deal with gaps
between company principles or aspirations and actual achievement.
Unilever has collected data on environmental performance for the past
ten years, which has yielded substantial trend data. The first environment report
was published in 1996, the second in 1998 and in 2000 it was published online.
(This has its advantages and disadvantages because many people prefer hard
copies but the cost and the distribution logistics are considerable.)
The company adopted the attitude of taking a few risks with the content:
Lets go for it; if it is wrong or not quite right lets not worry too much
because it is better to get under way and communicate and get feedback.
The challenge is deciding how much detail is presented and the best way to
present complex information.
On the economic side, data were readily available: rate of return on equity, distribution of equity and value-added calculations. On the social side the challenge
was to determine how the company could measure social, as well as environmental performance, including ways to take into account the newer social issues as
they came up, such as genetically modified foods.
An initial task was to
understand the companys
social and environmental
practices
To better understand the companys capacity to do this, it conducted a pilot in

nine countries around the world. It sought to understand the way the company
engages in a socially responsible way in the many and varied day-to-day relationships with society. It identified seven particular stakeholder groups: shareholders,
employees, consumers, suppliers and trade customers, government, local communities, and academics and others with whom they do research.
Each country completed a self-assessment manual, which enabled Unilever to
review in depth how it lives out its values in practice and measures and critically
assesses its performance. The report drew on data that are regularly collected and
supplemented by local information and case studies.
Challenges
Triple bottom line reporting is no longer just pigeonholing information into
financial, environment and social.
While data for certain environment parameters are available for example, waste
water the data are not available for measuring the value of supporting local communities through assisting children in education. Unilever therefore acknowledges
that it is still learning and will continue to experiment in measurement.
For Unilever, communication is increasingly integrated as many stakeholders
have interests and questions that range over all three areas of triple bottom line. As
a consequence, the environmental report requires many more linkages drawn to
economic, financial and social aspects. The next phase is seeing it as a whole, but
before making decisions it will seek more feedback from customers and stakeholders on their needs.
36
ANZ: Starting with commitment

ANZ is at the early stages in developing its approach to reporting to the community on a wider set of parameters than financial.
BOX 2.15
ANZ
ANZs initial steps in triple bottom line include:
understanding stakeholder expectations and making commitments;
developing a Customer Service Charter with the aim of evaluating performance against this in the future;
reshaping community relations initiatives; and
progressing slowly to reporting on non-financial indicators.

The process to date has involved setting in place mechanisms to meet customers
most immediate needs. In introducing its first Customer Service Charter in
October 2001, ANZs Managing Director acknowledged, we know we still have a
long way to go in restoring customers faith in us. The Charter is seen as a further
step towards improving the banks value and service to customers. It established
benchmarks for the provision of service to customers in five initial areas: simple
and fast account opening, access to services, privacy, plain language communication, and complaint resolution.
The Customer Service Charter is part of a broader set of initiatives, including a
Customer Advocate and an enhanced community relations program that will
extend the banks improvement strategy to include customer service and community relations, as well as the banks financial and operating base.
ANZ will be reporting publicly, as part of the annual reporting process, on
progress with the Customer Service Charter and other customer and community
initiatives. Measurement will be quantitative and qualitative.
Challenges
Getting the sequence right and achieving the right balance is the main task ahead.
It has started a process to establish a better understanding of the expectations
of the community and customers before determining the strategies that will best
meet those needs and how results would be communicated.
Guided by sustainability principles

Sustainable development
principles that guide
operations and strategic
directions
nother group of companies is developing sustainable development principles

to guide its operations and strategic directions these are often developed in
consultation with stakeholders. The principles provide a focus and the companies
encourage their performance to be judged against these. Triple bottom line is
embedded in their operations and they often seek to create products and services
with characteristics that reflect their principles. Four major companies operating
in this way are discussed.
37
A number of these companies are global and operating in the United Kingdom
where the public policy context is encouraging companies to move in the direction
of the triple bottom line. The case studies illustrate the depth of planning that
underpins their activities. Each strives to consolidate the link between measurement
and reporting, accountability to the community and performance improvement.
Rio Tinto: Stakeholders and sustainability
Rio Tinto globally and in Australia has been a leader in developing a deep
understanding of community and stakeholder expectations. It has generated wideranging strategies to engage with the communitys expectations of its business.
Rio Tinto in Australia has a robust Business in the Communities program that
places direct emphasis on forging active relationships with organisations and
communities. As the Chairman said:
Issues once thought to be remote from the conduct of our business are now
integral to it and others are becoming increasingly important to us: sustainable development, climate change, human rights, biodiversity and product
stewardship among them.
Rio Tinto, Social and Environment Review 2000
Seeking a reciprocal
arrangement with
stakeholders: listening
to each other
Widening the parameters for communicating and reporting on company performance has been an integral part of this process. The company explicitly states
that it is seeking a reciprocal arrangement with those who have a stake in its
affairs, listening to each other and learning.
While the decision to report on more than financial data has been an evolutionary process, there have been a number of matters under company law that
have focused the attention of the board (for example, The Turnbull Report in the
United Kingdom requires directors to sign that they have systems in place for all
aspects of their companys performance). Company law is under further review
and it is expected that there will be more requirements placed on directors. Also,
the Blair government has made a request to the top 350 companies that they
report environmentally and socially. Reporting more widely is not yet mandatory
but it is evident to Rio Tinto that there is a slow increase in the pressure for
accountability in this area.
There is also a shorter term and more pragmatic reason for developing wider
access to information about the company. The company headquarters in London
has observed that around two years ago external requests for information about
social, environmental and other aspects of company performance started to grow.
There is now a flood of requests connected with socially responsible investment
that call for a new level of information.
38
BOX 2.16
RIO TINTO
Key features of Rio Tintos triple bottom line approach;
Development: founded on a commitment to sustainability and stakeholder engagement experience has been an
evolutionary process.
New driver: socially responsible investment surveys are an added and important impetus.
Reporting scope: reports globally with links to local reports on the website.
Key challenge: how far to take measurement any additional measurement must also be of use in management.

For a company, the greatest value is in the process of measuring and comparing, rather than the direct focus on performance outcomes as such.
Five years ago Rio Tinto had very little data. Previously it had to draw its report
from what it could collect.
It has taken three years to get the numbers right. As everyone in measurement knows, the numbers change in the first years as the processes
improves, so the best thing is not to delay reporting but to get started.
Decisions about the content and format of the report are complex. Ideally, the
company wants more detail contained on its website (like a set of library resources),
a sharper executive summary and the document appearing in hard copy.
Local need at the
community level is
primary concern
Multinational (and indeed national) companies face decisions on the scope of

reports. The primary aim is to address the needs at the community level and to
promote dialogue. The report for the global company reflects the group as a whole,
but the reporting system makes provision for affiliates to report according to
their own experience. The process that each affiliate follows is to talk with the
community, to report against last years performance, and establish targets for
the subsequent year.
Deciding whats in commenced with conducting focus groups with stakeholders and community partners on their priorities. In the environmental area there
has been a long process of sorting out the mix of stakeholders expectations.
The preferred focus was that measurement concentrates on the local impact of
Rios operations with global issues being a second-order consideration. The priority is that data collection be directly useful for Rio Tinto in the management of
its business.
In the companys global reporting on social and environmental performance
there are three areas: The World we Live in, which covers sustainability issues;
Engaging with our Neighbours, which reviews community relations and social
and economic impact on the community; and Taking Responsibility for the
Workplace, where aspects of employee relations are covered.
Verification and auditing is vital in this process. A significant question is
whether the large accounting firms have a role to play.
39
Challenges
Difficult to make external
reporting meaningful
and central to internal
management
A major challenge is making external reporting meaningful and central to internal

management. Management style is changing significantly and it is increasingly difficult to find any one trigger that will change behaviour and performance. Social
and environmental reporting is a possible trigger, but if the needs of managers
are not taken into account the opportunity to have an internal impact is lost.
Managers tend to think about company performance in an integrated way that is
focused on their line or functional area. The test for social and environmental
measurement and reporting is to reflect this focus.
The issue of added costs is important. The question is does a company put
resources into the substance of actually improving performance or extending the
collection of data?
British Airports Administration (BAA): Contract with the community
The CEO believes that a company, cannot grow and prosper without the consent
of people and peoples expectations are changing.
Developing an integrated approach of reporting to stakeholders was a journey
that BAA embarked on seven years ago. The company employed a well-known
Greenpeace activist at a senior level to assist it to understand the problems that
aviation faces in relation to meeting community expectations. An early step was to
embark on reporting to the community on environmental performance.
BOX 2.17
BAA (BRITISH AIRPORTS ADMINISTRATION)
Key features of BAA triple bottom line approach:
Priorities and focus: a contract with the community publicly expressed priorities and targets is the foundation of the triple
bottom line approach. It ensures the business grows in a sustainable way.
Reporting: cutting edge; committed to openness (reports both good and bad news stories); embraces community validation; and
based on practical matters.
Benefits: business case proved through community endorsement of airport expansion.

BAA has continued its leadership in reporting to the community and is the first
company in the United Kingdom to issue an environmental and social report on the
same day as the financial report. It is now about to issue a fully integrated report in
one document and also makes this information more widely available through its
website. Importantly, all planning decisions in the company now take into account
environmental and social impact, noise, air, waste and renewable energy.
The annual report is particularly commended by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) review because of the way the reporting process
has developed.24 BAA attempt to report what is not working as well as its successes,
and it also published the environmental consultants audit of the report. UNEP
particularly value BAAs report on the practicalities of how to seek buy-in and to
drive through decisions.
24 British Airports Administration was nominated as a top company in the: SustainAbility and the United
Nations Environment Programme (2001). The Global Reporters: International Benchmark Survey of
Corporate Sustainability Reporting, London.
40
On reporting, BAA regards the environment is easy it is relatively easy to measure. There are lots of rules regarding environmental improvement and
stakeholders are well aware of the general standards required. Data collection for
BAA similarly is not a problem if the requirements increase it simply measures
more aspects of performance.
Social impacts, on the other hand, are very hard to evaluate. For example:
One might measure the volume of volunteers in the community, but that
does not answer the question as to what their contribution is worth.
Similarly, one might measure the resources allocated to education, but
again the degree of impact is not measured.
Believe triple bottom
line reporting will
eventually become
mandatory in the UK
BAA believes that triple bottom line reporting will eventually become mandatory in the United Kingdom, and this will include dimensions such as employment,
contributions to charities and safety.
In summary, the BAA experience is one that inextricably links future growth
with a commitment to sustainability and openness with the community. BAA has
consolidated the sustainability goals in a program called Contract with the community public and uncompromising promises and targets.
Contract with the

community: public
and uncompromising
promises and targets
The capacity of the company to demonstrate its ability to take community

standards into account was a major factor in enabling the expansion of Gatwick
Airport from handling 31 million passengers to 40 million passengers. BAA
believes that this was only possible because it implemented it programs in
response to community expectations. Its huge success commercially is attributed
to open and responsive community relations.
Challenges
A challenge for BAA is how to keep expanding the business with active community
support. This may become increasingly difficult because people and interest
groups are far more watchful and ever more articulate. Global aviation is becoming
increasingly important in the environmental movement and it is very hard for
industry to strike the right balance between growth and meeting all environmental
concerns.
Nevertheless, for BAA to survive as a profitable and responsible company it needs
to be seen as taking the lead in open and trusting relations with the community:
The final challenge is to avoid imposing cosmetic solutions instead of real
management solutions. A short term advantage may be gained, but the
longer term problems will not abate until a company realistically and genuinely embraces community concerns in its business strategy.
Shell: Language and processes for the future

As part of a global company committed to sustainability and engagement with
stakeholders, Shell Australia has embarked on its own process of engagement in
the Australian community. Consistent with the sustainability framework developed to guide the global company, Shell Australia also produces an annual review
and statements on environmental, economic and social performance. The reports
41
cover dimensions of the company behaviour, performance and impact in areas

relevant to local communities and stakeholders in the wider community:
Shell Australias primary role is economic. By creating wealth and transferring skills, we contribute to economic and social development and generate
resources for social and environmental improvement.
Shell, How do we stand? People, Planets and Profits: The Shell Report 2000
BOX 2.18
SHELL AUSTRALIA
Key features of Shells triple bottom line approach:
Focus: centred on redirecting the culture by taking stakeholder engagement into account.
Reporting: macro reporting framework helps articulate what the company aspires to achieve. Operates within well-publicised
global parameters.
Two way communication: new language and reporting opportunities enable dilemmas to be discussed rather than the company
appear all-knowing.
Challenges: must do internally what is said externally and avoid a credibility gap, ensuring relevance for line management, and
sustaining this focus in the highly competitive environment in Australia.

The Global Report has now been through a number of stages. One of the most
significant benefits would be that it has created a macro framework in which to
articulate what the company aspires to achieve:
If you dont have a macro framework you continue to deal with micro
problems. The macro framework enables you to spend less time wading
through small, specific issues.
Outward looking and
stakeholder engagement
drive business principle
development
The origins of the global sustainability framework lay in an extensive internal

and external stakeholder consultation project in 1996 and 1997. The company concluded that it had to be more outward looking and had to engage with stakeholders
with these two elements driving a revision of its business principles to determine if
they are fit for purpose. Some business principles remained the same, such as
operational integrity, but there were a number of additions such as human rights
and sustainable development.
The well-publicised first report issued by Shell, Profits and Principles, is
arguably a democratic piece of work. This report essentially gave an account of the
stakeholders views received through the extensive consultation activity. Shell
found that this exposed far more staff to the fundamental questions facing management, and hence had considerable benefits in organisational development.
The next step for Shell globally will be to integrate the social and environmental
reports into the annual report. This will be a highly significant step for the company and undoubtedly will have implications for other global corporations.
There are many benefits. A core matter for Shell was to understand how it could
use the process of renewal to differentiate its business:
Customers are not just buying a product but are buying into values
therefore there is a commercial gain from understanding your core values.
42
Another significant benefit has been for employees. The stakeholder consultation process and the language embodied in the sustainability framework enabled
the company to openly debate the major dilemmas that it faces rather than the
company being forced into assuming the position of being all-knowing.
Challenges
Must do internally what
you commit to externally
There are a number of major lessons that Shell has learned: you must do internally what you say externally. A company can project an image of concern and
activity in the community, about improved environmental practices and employee
relations, but in reality things may not have changed. Companies that do not
vigorously engage with their own leadership teams on these matters are faced,
usually in a short period of time, with a huge credibility gap between what they say
to the wider community and what the company actually does on the ground:
Our line areas, particularly in the downstream sector, continue to ask what
does it mean for us and this reminds us that we still have a lot of work to do.
Shell reports in the spirit of the Global Reporting Initiative but admits that it is
hard to take something off the shelf. Often the parameters are too restrictive
where the company might want to report more widely. It sees these initiatives are
helpful but only in the early stages of raising awareness.
Shell does not want a product off the shelf, it wants to build its own
understanding of reporting areas and refine the process to suit its own
stakeholders and employees.
Verification is also a complex matter. A major accounting group verifies Shells
health and safety and environment data there are, however, limitations to the
verification process as it is conventionally conducted. Auditing does not address
the question of whether the data have a use value. Shell now seeks to go beyond
verification and publish stakeholder feedback as proof. Stakeholder engagement,
both formal and informal, leads to third-party endorsement. Accounting firms are
struggling with this style of verification.
AMP: Sustainability principles for triple bottom line
AMP recognised that in many ways:
It has a direct and indirect impact on the lives, communities and environments of millions of people they all have a legitimate interest in the way
AMP conducts its business.
Throughout its 153-year history, AMP believes it has adopted a philosophy of
responsible corporate behaviour towards its stakeholders, shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, governments, non-government organisations and
the broader community around the globe. It understands that:
Society is demanding that companies take greater responsibility for their
social and environmental impact.
43
AMP has observed the growth of triple bottom line considerations and reporting practices, and has sought to determine the directions that it might take.
BOX 2.19
AMP
Key features of AMPs triple bottom line approach:
Pursuing fundamental grassroots change for sustainability reasons not publicity.
Creating an organisation that is socially responsible.
Bedding down internal management process for 23 years is a priority before wider reporting begins.
Stakeholder dialogue is proceeding on community involvement priorities.
Plans to integrate environmental and social decisions with financial.
Being led with close connections to the AMP board.

The Boards decision has been to place an increased emphasis on the implementation of sustainability development principles across all AMP operations. This
approach is now incorporated into the companys strategic priorities for 2001 to
create an organisation that is socially responsible.
Its approach will encompass social issues such as employee practices and community development, as well as environmental issues such as climate change and
resource use. It will be integrating social and environmental issues, as well as
financial, into the business decision-making processes.
It is making use of the various guidelines for measurement and performance
indicators, but is cautious about adopting processes that are black and white.
Rather it recognises that:
It calls for a more credible and thoughtful approach and different
industries need to understand their own conditions because they
manage matters differently.
Bed down internal process
before reporting externally
AMP intends to bed down the internal processes for two to three years before
reporting more widely. It will develop a consistent and credible management
process and measurement and reporting systems for sustainability.
Establishing the management systems for sustainability is being centrally led
with close connections to the AMP Board. Each business unit is identifying short
and long term sustainable development priorities to contribute to the companywide framework. A key aspect of this process is consultation with a broad range
of stakeholders:
Dialogue with the community will be fundamental to the companys
journey towards sustainable development and to being recognised and
supported by all stakeholders as socially responsible.
44
Challenges
Fundamental grassroots
change not publicity
AMP is pursuing fundamental grassroots change not publicity. The steps for
reporting on these objectives and results will be taken very slowly. It wants its
employees to be fully engaged in developing an external version of its progress
to sustainability.
A challenge to those managing such processes in any company is to avoid the
flavour-of-the-month effect. This calls for a concerted effort to create a full awareness in the organisation of the benefits and to involve all levels of the company.
A further task is to avoid building unrealistic expectations for commercial gains
from greater community investment. Wider involvement with the community
is integral to its approach, but it is not a simple adjunct to marketing but
a way of relating to stakeholders and contributing to the public good. A
company also needs to convey to stakeholders its motivation, as well as its activities and outcomes:
As an organisation we need to develop policies and practices that are relevant to our business strategy and operations, while at the same time
balance these needs with the interests and concerns of our stakeholder
groups and the delivery of stakeholder value.
Culturally and philosophically driven operations

Core business is
philosophically consistent
with sustainability
he final group of companies to be profiled are those leveraging from their

commitment to sustainable development to better learn, innovate and
manage for the future. They adopt a bold and solid approach to sustainable development around principles such as zero waste and sustainable product life cycles.
They see that their core business is fully consistent with their endorsement
of sustainability.
The companies described here are not publicly owned. At this stage in the
development of triple bottom line this may provide the basis for the very strong
commitment they exemplify.
Visy Industries: A values-driven business
Visys core business operations and philosophy are integrally based on what it
refers to as a sustainable development approach it sees itself as a triple bottom
line business. In one sense, much of its activity falls outside that covered in this
review but its philosophical position is illustrative of a private company at this end
of the spectrum.
Formal reporting forms one small component of its total communication strategy
that embraces extensive dialogue with stakeholders and partners. As a private
company, it produces substantial internal environmental and social impact information, but externally it reports on a as needs basis as far as the wider community
is concerned and according to commitments it has made such as the National
Packaging Covenant.
45
The environmental focus is essentially on closing the loop by reusing and

recycling paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, and steel and aluminium products. The
Pratt Foundation and Visy Cares reflect the social dimension. Visy donates more
than 3 per cent of its pre-tax profits through the foundation to numerous not-forprofit organisations. The current focus is on Aboriginal health, the environment,
youth in crises and religion. In addition, Visy Cares works with local communities
to develop projects that enhance the quality of life and provide benefits for disadvantaged, minority and special needs groups.
BOX 2.20
VISY INDUSTRIES
Key features of Visy Industries triple bottom line approach:
business philosophy and operations are integrated within a sustainable development framework;
reporting is done internally for employees and shareholders, and externally on an as needs basis;
operates in a model that clearly identifies stakeholder concerns and corporate priorities;
triple bottom line is considered to be a valuable business tool; and
moving beyond compliance towards sustainable development.
Challenges
Visys ultimate strategy is to contribute to developing a sustainable society, which
has the following features:
much less dependence on non-renewable natural resources;
a much lower net production of substances and phase-out of persistent

substances;
a reduction in negative environmental impacts; and
more efficient and equitable use of available resources.

While Visy is now on a sustainable development path, it did not start on this
road for environmental reasons, rather because it made good business sense.
Over time, however, the direction and focus has moved from a compliance focus to
beyond compliance and towards sustainable development. Visy would like to
keep developing its processes in the way that works best for it and its stakeholders:
Triple bottom line is a very good management tool and the focus and
priorities will vary from business to business so it must remain flexible
government should not prescribe indicators.
The best benefit comes when companies need to develop their own focus and
identify stakeholder concerns that they intend to address and report on.
The Co-operative Bank: Partnerships define its core business
The Co-operative Bank in the United Kingdom is wholly owned by a co-operative
and its background is philanthropy. It is not publicly listed and it is run by a shareholder conglomerate. It is atypical in the finance sector: because it has pushed the
boundaries of social and environmental reporting, major banks are looking more
closely at its achievements.
The core-underpinning concept for its corporate citizenship is a partnership
approach that commenced in 1990. The partnership approach frames its relationship with seven partners or stakeholders: customers, staff and families, suppliers,
local communities, national and international society, past and future generations
of those in co-operative movements, and shareholders.
46
Through an extensive consultation process with customers in response to a

downturn in business, it identified ethics as a potential competitive advantage.
The bank came to the position that being ethical was of value to customers.
As with many other companies, it came to this understanding out of crisis.
BOX 2.21
THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK UK
Key features of the Co-operative Banks triple bottom line approach:
it grew out of financial crisis went to customers to see what they valued;
ethics have become the foundation business value;
seven partner/stakeholder groups define the parameters for their ethical business partners are regularly surveyed to identify what
matters to them;
measurement and reporting is structured around how they add value to the seven partnerships; and
multi-dimensional indicators are reported.

The initial approach to establishing a business plan around the value of being
ethical was to institute a screening process for investments by asking customers
what values they thought should be supported through investment. It surveyed
customers regularly as attitudes are culturally and time-specific; for example, in
1998 only 8 per cent said that genetically modified organisms were an issue, but
now there is a far higher proportion of customers showing concern. (All surveys
said that NGOs and charities are more trusted than public groups in the community and hence dialogue with those groups became a very important input to the
banks planning.)
The next step was to ask customers if they wanted proof regarding the banks
actions. They assumed that customers trusted the banks but the audit culture of
the United Kingdom led the bank to conclude that proof was needed. It also started to examine internal environmental issues such as waste, recycling and the use
of air-conditioning. The bank developed an ecological mission statement.
Stakeholder surveys
are integrated into
and drive the business
Reporting is geared to indicating to the seven partners the extent to which the
bank has delivered value. The first report was issued in 1998. A core goal is that
the partnership surveys are integrated into the business and become a driver of
the business.
Challenges
One difficult issue in reporting includes how to deliver greater value to partners
when their performance is already high. For example, there is already a higher level
of customer satisfaction than would be evident in more traditional organisations.
Measuring improvement therefore may be misleading.
The bank knows that on the social side there are many complexities; for example, how to measure the inputs and outcomes of community involvement? Also,
incorporating the perspective of its partners into all aspects of the business is
another challenge.
The bank is engaged in a consortium of banks concerned with the Global
Reporting Initiative, but there are many cultural difference that place significant
limitations on the international comparability of indicators and measures. For
example, different cultural attitudes to part-time work, ethnic minorities or to people with disabilities are limitations on establishing an international template.
47
Conclusion
here are many common features among companies but, as the case studies
illustrate, the pattern of motivations, priorities, strategies and perceived bene-
fits varies.
To see a pattern in current practices, companies were grouped into five general
categories. The first group represents the bulk of companies in that they are either
not taking any action at this stage to change their measurement or reporting, or
they are waiting to observe the benefits other companies identify. Companies with
well-recognised brands, such as Fosters and Woolworths, are satisfied with their
current communication channels, relations and reputation with their customers,
employees and the community. Some, such as Leighton Holdings, are thinking
about the first steps they will take towards a triple bottom line approach and are
weighing up the possible business gains.
There are others such as Wesfarmers and Orica who are far from newcomers to
openly communicating a rigorous assessment of their environmental performance
and observing a community right to know principle. These companies understand the benefits of greater transparency and accountability to the community.
However, potential additional benefits from changing their strategies to embrace
a wider form of measurement and reporting, requiring more resources and
management attention, are not yet apparent. Such companies prefer to let their
processes evolve.
Others are either poised to go more deeply into triple bottom line strategies
(not necessarily labelling their activities as triple bottom line), or are already well
engaged. Some, such as Westpac, have started from developing a better understanding of stakeholder needs to developing measurement, accountability and
communication systems. Others, such as WMC, are already embedding their
approach into the management systems of the company and identifying significant benefits in enhanced management.
Another group of companies have a set of principles as their guiding framework. While the well-established global companies Rio Tinto and Shell, for
example, are mature in their processes, while still acknowledging there is a long
way to go, others, such as AMP, are just starting on their journey. A common theme
is to avoid aspirations getting ahead of reality. These companies have embarked
on significant cultural change. Transparency and accountability for economic,
environmental and social performance outcomes applies not only to the needs of
those external to the company but to employees.
Finally, a small group of companies have adopted a holistic philosophy for the
triple bottom line. Their cultural perspective is integrated with their business
philosophy. Examples identified so far in this category are privately owned and
have a strong background in philanthropy and community service.
Some of the common features apparent in the transition in reporting of the
more active companies are summarised below (see Box 2.22).
48
BOX 2.22
TRANSFORMATION OF CORPORATE REPORTING
The Old Reporting System
The New Reporting System
Shareholder focus
Stakeholder focus
Paper-based
Paper- and web-based
Standardised information
Tailored stakeholder information
Financial information
Economic, social and environmental information
Company-controlled information
Open and transparent approach including third- party information
Periodic reporting
Continuous reporting
Distribution of information
Stakeholder dialogue
Technical features and past performance
Greater emphasis on strategy, future projects, risk management

and sustainability
Historical cost
Value-based assessments
Audit of accounts
Assurance of underlying system
Essentially static system
Continuously evolving model
49
50

Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TRI PLE BOTTOM LINE MEASUREMENT AND RE PORTI NG IN AUSTRALIA

TRI PLE BOTTOM LINE

This study was funded by:

Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership

John Gorton Building

King Edward Terrace

Sydney NSW 2000

Parkes ACT 2600

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources

Canberra ACT 2601

North Sydney, NSW 2060

This study was prepared by:

The Allen Consulting Group

Commonwealth of Australia 2002

Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible

his project was funded and supported by a range of public-sector departments

The Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, Commonwealth

Environment Australia, Commonwealth Government: Judith Kendrick; David

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Commonwealth Government:

Cisco Systems: Kip Cole and Katherine Baddeley;

The Business Council of Australia: Steven Munchenberg;

Shell Australia: John Simpson;

The Body Shop: Chris Childs;

Westpac Investment Management: Shaun Mays.

Definitions, Context and Drivers 1

Triple bottom line defined

How triple bottom line works

Reshaping business priorities: Drivers of change

Triple Bottom Line: A Work in Progress 17

The current foundations

Packaging information for community right to know

Culturally and philosophically driven operations

Indicators and Assessment 51

Partnering with third parties and disclosure

Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible

Table of Contents (continued)

Determining The Value 85

Benefits: Looking for the value added

Management improvement versus external accountability

Off-the-shelf indicators versus company- or sector-owned indicators

Conclusion: Strategies for Achieving Greater Clarity 103

Meeting interest group and consumer needs

Relationship with industry associations and codes of practice

Research Methodology 108

Standards, Guidelines and Other Useful

Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible

Qantas Airways Ltd

ANZ Banking Group Ltd

Rio Tinto Ltd

AXA Asia Pacific

Shell International Ltd

British Airports Corporation

Telstra Corporation Ltd

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The Body Shop

Fosters Brewing Group Ltd

Leighton Holdings Ltd

Medibank Private Ltd

MIM Holding Ltd

WMC Resources Limited

Telstra Corporation Ltd

The Body Shop

Fosters Brewing Group Ltd

Normandy Mining Ltd