Having problems with message search?
I was presenting a workshop in Darwin recently when the manager of a (government-funded) organisation objected that our methods focus only on the financial bottom line -- and that they are not conducive with the concept of the triple-bottom-line management.
Now, I must have had my head in the sand for some time because, up until then, I had never heard of this peculiar concept.
The idea is that an organisation shouldn't strive to improve just one bottom line (the financial one), rather it should also pursue the improvement of two (equally important) additional bottom lines: an environmental one and a social one.
Now, thinking readers will have already recognised two obvious objections to the triple bottom line:
1. Division of labour (As Adam Smith pointed out, the economy as a whole benefits most when organisations specialise).
2. Practicality (there can be no one standard of 'environmental good' or 'social good'; only multiple measures that will ultimately conflict with one another)
But the argument that I presented in Darwin was simpler -- and I suspect stronger -- than either of these. And it it was pure TOC!
I'm wondering if you can deduce -- using TOC principles -- why the concept of the 'triple bottom line' MUST be invalid.
And I'll give you a hint. Your answer will almost certainly invoke the following words: 'goal' and 'necessary conditions'.
I'll post the answer I gave in Darwin in a day or so.
Justin
Offline 
Send Email