Talk:Triple bottom line/Archives/2014

"Arguments Against": Food for Thought or Discussion

From the article's "Arguments Against" section: "Effectiveness. It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it). As a society becomes richer its citizens develop an increasing desire for a clean environment and protected wildlife, and both the willingness and financial ability to contribute to this and to a compassionate society. Indeed support for the concept of the 'Triple Bottom Line' itself is said to be an example of the choices available to the citizens of a society made wealthy by businesses attending to business. Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic."

While there is obviously some truth to this, what I believe this argument overlooks is that the mentioned "richness" (and clean-ness, and willingness and financial ability) of developed, rich nations is often secured by, and possibly dependent upon, resources coming from lesser-developed nations. For one thing, these resources may be less depleted than in a longer-developed rich nation; for another, the need within the poorer nations may be such that they will sell their labor, resources, and productive capacity cheaply. Though this often desperate, highly competitive market participation on the part of poorer nations benefits rich nations in terms of cheaper raw materials and consumer goods (and provides jobs in the poorer nations), it very frequently contributes to the poor social and environmental conditions in the poorer nations. So aren't these social and environmental "conditions" in the poorer nations often the "externalized costs" of the richer nations? I don't believer this figured into Adam Smith's thinking... or am I wrong?--Joel Russ 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The truism that as a nation becomes wealthier, they become ecologists, ignores the fact that everyone, no matter how poor, basically wants a healthy ecology. The process of "creating wealth" is based on consuming the natural resources, using fuel and chemicals to modify those resources, and thus polluting the ecology. Simultaneous with the rise of "wealth", people become conscious that the process creates pollution, and then demand that the pollution be controlled. Likewise, they demand workers' rights. Eventually, they start to realize that all this development was enabled by their governments' participation in a neoliberal compacts with the North, and demand a cessation of neoliberalism. That little phrase that Americans say, about poor nations becoming wealthier, and then going eco, is pure neoliberal smoke-and-mirrors to hide the fact that it's pollution and so-called "development" that's causing the pollution, and that's inspiring ecological revolt. 66.245.194.238 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism might be good, if the Nation does not only take care of its own people first, but also of its own nature. Nationalism is often helpful in the absence of proper laws dealing with globalisation, multi-national companies, carelessness or intentional damage.

Nationalism today means responding to the issues of "citizens" while issues concerning everyone else outside the country (and often, non-citizen immigrant) are ignored. That is unsustainable, because the costs of pollution, health, and natural resource conservation can be externalized. 66.245.194.238 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Arguments against" section needs work. It seems odd that the deep conceptual criticisms are not noted. There is at least one scholarly criticism (MacDonald & Norman) in a top-ranked peer-reviewed journal, yet the criticisms in that article are absent here. I can't add it myself, of course, without violating Wikipedia norms about conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismacd (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Arguments Against' Section actually just looks like a bit of a rant. It's original research, someone's personal opinion on the subject. I'm sure there's some of the views expressed in the section have been expressed elsewhere but unless they haven't, why do we have this section? 188.220.169.56 (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the "arguments against" section is windy, unbalanced, and far too long.Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This section does not cite anything, and is clearly biased. I've just noticed it has been like that since 2006! I'm just going to delete the uncited bits, it's not encyclopaedic, its (as other people have said) a bit of a rant. Apologies if this isn't the correct procedure, but revisions are stored aren't they? And if it has been a problem for 8 years, spreading potentially false information, that seems like it won't be fixed any time soon to me.

for instance "business should not be expected to take on concerns outside its core expertise, provided the business doesn't do obvious harm to people or the planet." what is obvious harm? Whose opinion is it that subtle harm is okay? As has been said above, businesses work outside their core competencies all the time. Does doing this harm the business? "Adam Smith's invisible hand will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic." That theory is hundreds of years old, I'm no economist, but surely there has been some critical discussion of this. Didn't Adam Smith himself think focusing on pure economic efficiency would turn people into drones? Not sure what the nationalist bit is referring to. Smileperegrine (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms: Missing Citations

Notice that the criticism section is entirely without citations, contrary to Wikipedia policies.

If that section is going to be done properly, someone is going to have to dig up published criticisms. Otherwise that section is liable simply to get deleted. Ethicsblogger (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CRITCISM SECTION: "The concept of a triple bottom line, while initially attractive, seems to ignore the reality that if one is not adding value to society it is subtracting value." This is based on a zero-sum conception of value, and neglects to define the concept of value being used in this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.246.135 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)