Description
You are to read, The triple bottom line, For Warby Parker free glasses equals clear company vision, UN Global Compact 2020 + 2017 excerpt. these are attached to the question.
These are 1-2 page single-spaced, and include typed, bullet-point answers to the following:
Main message
My reflection: things that surprised me or challenged the way I think about things; things I agreed/didn’t agree with, and why; concepts/ideas/examples I can apply to my life [this should demonstrate critical thinking skills]
Things I don’t understand from the reading [only include this if relevant]
Both categories 1 and 2 must include each reading assigned for the Address the readings as thoroughly as possible and cite page numbers when you use quotations. Content of reading reflections should illustrate that you have completed all assigned readings
Unformatted Attachment Preview
For Warby Parker, Free Glasses Equals
Clear Company Vision
Image credit: Warby Parker
Michael Fitzgerald
February 10, 2015
Warby Parker sounds like a white-shoe law firm, not one of the the hottest socially
conscious businesses around. Actually, the company’s name comes from two obscure
characters in Jack Kerouac’s novels.
The maker of hip eyewear has created a sensation with its designer glasses, disrupting
the industry’s entrenched incumbents with trendy eyeglass frames that sell for $100, not
$600.
Also fueling the buzz is Warby Parker’s buy-a-pair, give-a-pair program, similar to the
model made famous by TOMS Shoes. Every pair of Warby Parker glasses bought
1
means another pair is sold inexpensively in the developing world to people who would
otherwise have difficulty (or no access to) buying their own specs. The company says
its model has led to the distribution of more than 1 million pairs.
Warby’s growth has been phenomenal. It reached its first year sales goal three weeks
after it launched in 2010, and had waiting list 20,000 people long. By the end of 2013,
the company raised $60 million from investors Tiger Global Management, General
Catalyst Partners, Spark Capital, Thrive Capital and First Round Capital, according
to Fortune magazine. The company has raised $116 million total. Other notable
investors include American Express, Mickey Drexler (the founder of J.Crew), Lerer
Ventures and Menlo Ventures.
Other ventures, including Soapbox Soaps and Two Degrees Foods, have adopted the
same buy-one-give-one model model. Brown Water Coffee contributes 50 cents to fund
clean water projects for every bag of coffee it sells. KNO Clothing gives 50 percent of its
profits to homeless causes.
The model can be significantly effective as marketing. The question is whether it is
effective as a social-change strategy. Some characterize it as charity, albeit businessbased. Critics say such giveaways can foster dependency and undermine local
producers and that actual social outcomes are often unclear or unmeasured.
Warby Parker has tried to anticipate and respond to such concerns. It has identified a
market where there is need: as many as 90 percent of the world’s visually impaired
people live in developing countries. Rather than donating the glasses outright, the
company makes cash donations from its sales to VisionSpring, a non-profit for which
Warby Parker founder Neil Blumenthal used to work. VisionSpring trains lowincome men and women to sell glasses in their communities for affordable prices,
allowing them to earn a living. This helps ensure Warby Parker’s donations actually
meet people’s needs and don’t displace local businesses.
“If you’re just giving something away, you don’t have the market as a mechanism to
determine whether or not the consumer really wants your product, whereas when you
ask the consumer to pay, you know clearly where that person places value,” Jordan
Kassalow, VisionSpring’s founder, told Forbes.
Warby Parker goes further in its effort to have a positive impact. On the environmental
side, it measures greenhouse gas emissions from its operations and buys carbon
offsets to maintain its carbon neutrality. On the social side, it has its overseas factories
approved by Verite, which certifies labor practices. Warby Parker is also a B Corp (as
certified by the nonprofit B Lab), which means it has put itself through an assessment
that scores the company’s commitment to sustainable business practices.
As with many other social enterprises, Warby Parker’s success could end up testing its
social commitments, if its investors decide they want to sell at some point, or if it grows
2
big enough that a company like Luxottica, which controls much of the world’s eyeglass
business, looks to buy it.
Hopefully, possible buyers will realize that Warby Parker’s model is part of its identity as
a brand, as well as a marketing strategy. At an impact investing panel in New York last
week, sponsored by the Case Foundation, Warby Parker’s Blumenthal concurred: “A
core aspect of our brand is doing good.”
Impacts
Financial
Warby Parker announced the opening of corporate offices in Nashville, Tenn., and said
it aimed to create about 250 jobs in the next five years.
Social
Warby Parker has distributed more than 1 million pairs of glasses through 10,000
emerging market entrepreneurs.
Produced by ImpactAlpha and the Case Foundation.
3
The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and
How Does It Work?
Timothy F. Slaper, Ph.D.: Director of Economic Analysis, Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana University Kelley School of
Business
Tanya J. Hall: Economic Research Analyst, Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana University Kelley School of Business
S
ustainability has been an
often mentioned goal of
businesses, nonprofits and
governments in the past decade, yet
measuring the degree to which an
organization is being sustainable or
pursuing sustainable growth can be
difficult.
John Elkington strove to measure
sustainability during the mid-1990s
by encompassing a new framework
to measure performance in
corporate America.1 This accounting
framework, called the triple
bottom line (TBL), went beyond the
traditional measures of profits, return
on investment, and shareholder
value to include environmental and
social dimensions. By focusing on
comprehensive investment results—
that is, with respect to performance
along the interrelated dimensions
of profits, people and the planet—
triple bottom line reporting can
be an important tool to support
sustainability goals.
Interest in triple bottom line
accounting has been growing across
for-profit, nonprofit and government
sectors. Many businesses and
nonprofit organizations have adopted
the TBL sustainability framework to
evaluate their performance, and a
similar approach has gained currency
with governments at the federal, state
and local levels.
This article reviews the TBL
concept, explains how it can be useful
for businesses, policy-makers and
economic development practitioners
and highlights some current
examples of putting the TBL into
practice.
The Triple Bottom Line Defined
The TBL is an accounting framework
that incorporates three dimensions of
4
performance: social, environmental
and financial. This differs from
traditional reporting frameworks
as it includes ecological (or
environmental) and social measures
that can be difficult to assign
appropriate means of measurement.
The TBL dimensions are also
commonly called the three Ps: people,
planet and profits. We will refer to
these as the 3Ps.
Well before Elkington introduced
the sustainability concept as “triple
bottom line,” environmentalists
wrestled with measures of, and
frameworks for, sustainability.
Academic disciplines organized
around sustainability have multiplied
over the last 30 years. People inside
and outside academia who have
studied and practiced sustainability
would agree with the general
definition of Andrew Savitz for
TBL. The TBL “captures the essence
of sustainability by measuring the
impact of an organization’s activities
on the world … including both
its profitability and shareholder
values and its social, human and
environmental capital.”2
The trick isn’t defining TBL. The
trick is measuring it.
Calculating the TBL
The 3Ps do not have a common
unit of measure. Profits are
measured in dollars. What is
social capital measured in? What
about environmental or ecological
health? Finding a common unit of
measurement is one challenge.
Some advocate monetizing all
the dimensions of the TBL, including
social welfare or environmental
damage. While that would have
the benefit of having a common
unit—dollars—many object to
Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center
putting a dollar value on wetlands
or endangered species on strictly
philosophical grounds. Others
question the method of finding
the right price for lost wetlands or
endangered species.
Another solution would be to
calculate the TBL in terms of an
index. In this way, one eliminates
the incompatible units issue and,
as long as there is a universally
accepted accounting method, allows
for comparisons between entities,
e.g., comparing performance between
companies, cities, development
projects or some other benchmark.
An example of an index that
compares a county versus the
nation’s performance for a variety of
components is the Indiana Business
Research Center’s Innovation Index.
There remains some subjectivity
even when using an index however.
For example, how are the index
components weighted? Would each
“P” get equal weighting? What about
the sub-components within each “P”?
Do they each get equal weighting? Is
the people category more important
than the planet? Who decides?
Another option would do away
with measuring sustainability using
dollars or using an index. If the users
of the TBL had the stomach for it,
each sustainability measure would
stand alone. “Acres of wetlands”
would be a measure, for example,
and progress would be gauged based
on wetland creation, destruction or
status quo over time. The downside
to this approach is the proliferation
of metrics that may be pertinent to
measuring sustainability. The TBL
user may get metric fatigue.
Having discussed the difficulties
with calculating the TBL, we turn
our attention to potential metrics
for inclusion in a TBL calculation.
Following that, we will discuss how
businesses and other entities have
applied the TBL framework.
What Measures Go into the
Index?
There is no universal standard
method for calculating the TBL.
Neither is there a universally
accepted standard for the measures
that comprise each of the three TBL
categories. This can be viewed as a
strength because it allows a user to
adapt the general framework to the
needs of different entities (businesses
or nonprofits), different projects or
policies (infrastructure investment or
educational programs), or different
geographic boundaries (a city, region
or country).
Both a business and local
government agency may gauge
environmental sustainability in
the same terms, say reducing the
amount of solid waste that goes into
landfills, but a local mass transit
might measure success in terms of
passenger miles, while a for-profit
bus company would measure success
in terms of earnings per share.
The TBL can accommodate these
differences.
Additionally, the TBL is able
to be case (or project) specific or
allow a broad scope—measuring
impacts across large geographic
boundaries—or a narrow geographic
scope like a small town. A case
(or project) specific TBL would
measure the effects of a particular
project in a specific location, such as
a community building a park. The
TBL can also apply to infrastructure
projects at the state level or energy
policy at the national level.
The level of the entity, type of
project and the geographic scope will
drive many of the decisions about
what measures to include. That said,
the set of measures will ultimately
be determined by stakeholders and
The level of the entity, type of project and
the geographic scope will drive many of the
decisions about what measures to include.
subject matter experts and the ability
to collect the necessary data. While
there is significant literature on the
appropriate measures to use for
sustainability at the state or national
levels, in the end, data availability
will drive the TBL calculations.
Many of the traditional sustainability
measures, measures vetted through
academic discourse, are presented
below.
Economic Measures
Economic variables ought to be
variables that deal with the bottom
line and the flow of money. It could
look at income or expenditures,
taxes, business climate factors,
employment, and business diversity
factors. Specific examples include:
• Personal income
• Cost of underemployment
• Establishment churn
• Establishment sizes
• Job growth
• Employment distribution by
sector
• Percentage of firms in each
sector
• Revenue by sector contributing
to gross state product
Environmental Measures
Environmental variables should
represent measurements of natural
resources and reflect potential
influences to its viability. It could
incorporate air and water quality,
energy consumption, natural
resources, solid and toxic waste, and
land use/land cover. Ideally, having
long-range trends available for
each of the environmental variables
would help organizations identify
the impacts a project or policy would
have on the area. Specific examples
include:
• Sulfur dioxide concentration
• Concentration of nitrogen
oxides
• Selected priority pollutants
• Excessive nutrients
• Electricity consumption
• Fossil fuel consumption
• Solid waste management
• Hazardous waste management
• Change in land use/land cover
Social Measures
Social variables refer to social
dimensions of a community or region
and could include measurements of
education, equity and access to social
resources, health and well-being,
quality of life, and social capital. The
examples listed below are a small
snippet of potential variables:
• Unemployment rate
• Female labor force participation
rate
• Median household income
• Relative poverty
• Percentage of population with
a post-secondary degree or
certificate
• Average commute time
• Violent crimes per capita
• Health-adjusted life expectancy
Data for many of these measures
are collected at the state and national
levels, but are also available at the
local or community level. Many are
appropriate for a community to use
when constructing a TBL. However,
as the geographic scope and the
nature of the project narrow, the set
Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011
5
of appropriate measures can change.
For local or community-based
projects, the TBL measures of success
are best determined locally.
There are several similar
approaches to secure stakeholder
participation and input in designing
the TBL framework: developing
a decision matrix to incorporate
public preferences into project
planning and decision-making,3
using a “narrative format” to solicit
shareholder participation and
comprehensive project evaluation,4
and having stakeholders rank and
weigh components of a sustainability
framework according to community
priorities.5 For example, a community
may consider an important measure
of success for an entrepreneurial
development program to be
the number of woman-owned
companies formed over a five-year
time period. Ultimately, it will be
the organization’s responsibility
to produce a final set of measures
applicable to the task at hand.
Variations of the Triple Bottom
Line Measurement
The application of the TBL
by businesses, nonprofits and
governments are motivated
by the principles of economic,
environmental and social
sustainability, but differ with regard
to the way they measure the three
categories of outcomes. Proponents
who have developed and applied
sustainability assessment frameworks
like the TBL encountered many
challenges, chief among them,
how to make an index that is both
comprehensive and meaningful and
how to identify suitable data for the
variables that compose the index.
The Genuine Progress Indicator
(GPI), for example, consists of 25
variables that encompass economic,
social and environmental factors.
Those variables are converted into
monetary units and summed into a
single, dollar-denominated measure.6
Minnesota developed its own
progress indicator comprised of 42
variables that focused on the goals
of a healthy economy and gauged
progress in achieving these goals.7
There is a large body of literature
on integrated assessment 8 and
sustainability measures that grew
out of the disciplines that measure
environmental impact. These are
not constrained by strict economic
theory for measuring changes in
social welfare.9 Researchers in
environmental policy argue that
the three categories—economic,
social and environmental—need
to be integrated in order to see the
complete picture of the consequences
that a regulation, policy or economic
development project may have and to
assess policy options and tradeoffs.
Who Uses the Triple Bottom Line?
Businesses, nonprofits and
government entities alike can all use
the TBL.
Businesses
The TBL and its core value of
sustainability have become
compelling in the business world due
to accumulating anecdotal evidence
of greater long-term profitability.
For example, reducing waste from
packaging can also reduce costs.
Among the firms that have been
exemplars of these approaches are
General Electric, Unilever, Proctor
and Gamble, 3M and Cascade
Engineering.10 Although these
companies do not have an indexbased TBL, one can see how they
measure sustainability using the
TBL concept. Cascade Engineering,
for example, a private firm that does
not need to file the detailed financial
paperwork of public companies, has
identified the following variables for
their TBL scorecard:
• Economic
o Amount of taxes paid
• Social
o Average hours of training/
employee
o From welfare to career
retention
o Charitable contributions
• Environmental/Safety
o Safety incident rate
o Lost/restricted workday rate
o Sales dollars per kilowatt
hours
o Greenhouse gas emissions
o Use of post-consumer and
industrial recycled material
o Water consumption
o Amount of waste to landfill
Nonprofits
Many nonprofit organizations have
adopted the TBL and some have
partnered with private firms to
address broad sustainability issues
that affect mutual stakeholders.
Companies recognize that aligning
with nonprofit organizations makes
good business sense, particularly
those nonprofits with goals of
economic prosperity, social
well‑being and environmental
protection.11
The Ford Foundation has funded
studies that used variations of
the TBL to measure the effects of
programs to increase wealth in
dozens of rural regions across the
United States.12 Another example
Companies recognize that aligning with nonprofit organizations makes
good business sense, particularly those nonprofits with goals of economic
prosperity, social well-being and environmental protection.
6
Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center
is RSF Social Finance,13 a nonprofit
organization that uniquely focuses
on how their investments improve
all three categories of the TBL. While
RSF takes an original approach to
the TBL concept, one can see how
the TBL can be tailored to nearly
any organization. Their approach
includes the following:
• Food and Agriculture
(economic): Explore new
economic models that support
sustainable food and agriculture
while raising public awareness
of the value of organic and
biodynamic farming.
• Ecological Stewardship
(environmental): Provide
funding to organizations and
projects devoted to sustaining,
regenerating and preserving the
earth’s ecosystems, especially
integrated, systems-based and
culturally relevant approaches.
• Education and the Arts (social):
Fund education and arts
projects that are holistic and
therapeutic.
Government
State, regional and local governments
are increasingly adopting the
TBL and analogous sustainability
assessment frameworks as decisionmaking and performance-monitoring
tools. Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont,
Utah, the San Francisco Bay Area and
Northeast Ohio area have conducted
analyses using the TBL or a similar
sustainability framework.
Policy-makers use these
sustainability assessment frameworks
to decide which actions they should
or should not take to make society
more sustainable. Policy-makers
want to know the cause and effect
relationship between actions—
projects or policies—and whether
the results move society toward or
away from sustainability. The State
of Maryland, for example, uses a
blended GPI-TBL framework to
compare initiatives—for example,
investing in clean energy—against
The concept of the triple bottom line can be
used regionally by communities to encourage
economic development growth in a sustainable
manner.
the baseline of “doing nothing” or
against other policy options.14
Internationally, the European
Union uses integrated assessment
to identify the “likely positive and
negative impacts of proposed policy
actions, enabling informed political
judgments to be made about the
proposal and identify trade-offs in
achieving competing objectives.”15
The EU guidelines have themselves
been the subject of critique and
have undergone several rounds
of improvement.16 The process of
refining the guidelines shows both
the transparency of the process and
the EU commitment to integrated
assessment.
sustainable economy in Cleveland
by focusing on a TBL-like concept.
The city uses four key areas for
measuring sustainability: the
personal and social environment,
the natural environment, the built
environment (e.g., infrastructure
and urban growth patterns) and the
business environment. Each key area
has six goals. At this point, specific
measurement indicators have not
been fully developed; however, the
city is looking to create a dashboard
that could be combined to create an
index for overall project success. This
dashboard would allow for quick
year-to-year assessment in the SC2019
progress.
Regional Economic
Development Initiatives
The concept of the triple bottom
line can be used regionally by
communities to encourage economic
development growth in a sustainable
manner. This requires an increased
level of cooperation among
businesses, nonprofit organizations,
governments and citizens of the
region. The following examples
throughout the United States show
various ways the TBL concept can
be used to grow a region’s economic
base in a sustainable manner.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the
Surrounding Region
In 2005, the Grand Rapids region
created the nation’s first “Community
Sustainability Partnership” to
develop a roadmap to lead Grand
Rapids to sustainability. The
region employs 14 major indicators
related to the region’s quality of
life and environmental factors to
determine progress made towards
sustainability. Rather than create an
index, target goals were established
for each indicator. More detailed
information of the metrics used
for each indicator can be found in
their TBL report.18 Below are brief
explainations of the variables used to
measure their TBL.
• Environmental Quality
o Waste: trends in recycling,
refuse and yard waste
o Energy: energy
consumption, natural gas
Cleveland, Ohio
In 2009, the mayor of Cleveland
convened the Sustainable Cleveland
2019 (SC2019) Summit to bring
together hundreds of people
interested in applying the principles
of sustainability to the design of
the local economy.17 The SC2019
is a 10-year initiative to create a
Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011
7
consumption and alternative
fuel usage
o Water: water consumption
o Air Quality: toxic release
inventory and number of air
pollution ozone action days
o Built Environment: number
of LEED registered and
certified projects
o Land Use and Natural
Habitat: inventory of land
use and forest canopy
o Transportation: public
transportation ridership
• Economic Prosperity
o Personal Income: personal
income per capita
o Unemployment:
unemployment rate
o Redevelopment,
Reinvestment and Jobs:
results from brownfield
redevelopment investment
and job creation
o Knowledge Competitiveness:
third-party report ranking
U.S. regions
• Social Capital and Equity
o Safety and Security: crime
statistics
o Educational Attainment:
degree attainment levels
o Health and Wellness: infant
mortality rate and blood
lead levels trends
o Quality of Life: home
ownership, poverty, and
reduced price and free
lunches trends
o Community Capital: 211
calls for assistance, voter
participation and population
and ethnicity
Summary
The Triple Bottom Line concept
developed by John Elkington
has changed the way businesses,
nonprofits and governments
measure sustainability and
the performance of projects or
policies. Beyond the foundation of
measuring sustainability on three
fronts—people, planet and profits—
8
the flexibility of the TBL allows
organizations to apply the concept
in a manner suitable to their specific
needs.
There are challenges to putting the
TBL into practice. These challenges
include measuring each of the three
categories, finding applicable data
and calculating a project or policy’s
contribution to sustainability. These
challenges aside, the TBL framework
allows organizations to evaluate the
ramifications of their decisions from a
truly long-run perspective. n
Notes
1. John Elkington, “Towards the Sustainable
Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business
Strategies for Sustainable Development,”
California Management Review 36, no. 2 (1994):
90–100.
2. Andrew Savitz, The Triple Bottom Line (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).
3. Peter Soderbaum, “Positional Analysis and
Public Decision Making,” Journal of Economic
Issues 16, no. 2 (June 1982): 391–400,
www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4225177.pdf.
4. Terre Satterfield, Paul Slovic and Robin
Gregory, “Narrative Valuation in a Policy
Judgment Context,” Ecological Economics 34
(2000): 315–331.
5. Stephen R. J. Sheppard and Michael
Meitner, “Using Multi-Criteria Analysis
and Visualization for Sustainable Forest
Management Planning with Stakeholder
Groups,” Forest Ecology and Management
207 (2005): 171–187. Another example can
be found in Katrina Brown et al., “TradeOff Analysis for Marine Protected Area
Management,” Ecological Economics 37, no. 3
(June 2001): 417–434.
6. See Herman E. Daly, John B. Cobb and
Clifford W. Cobb, For the Common Good:
Redirecting the Economy towards Community,
the Environment, and a Sustainable Future
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1989) and John
Talberth, Clifford Cobb and Noah Slattery,
“The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: A
Tool for Sustainable Development,” www.
environmental-expert.com/Files/24200/
articles/12128/GPI202006.pdf.
7. Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality
Board, “Smart Signals: An Assessment of
Progress Indicators,” March 2000,
www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi/pdfs/GPIMinnesota.pdf.
8. Integrated assessment is used as a
general rubric for all sustainability
assessment frameworks, including TBL.
The proliferation of frameworks and
their acronyms often complicates the
issues associated with implementing a
TBL framework for evaluating economic
development initiatives. Except for a
couple of sustainability frameworks, the
accessibility components and measures
Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center
can be easily organized into the three
TBL categories (economic, social and
environmental).
9. Theo Hacking and Peter Guthrie, “A
Framework for Clarifying the Meaning
of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and
Sustainability Assessment,” Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008):73–89
and Wouter de Ridder et al., “A Framework
for Tool Selection and Use in Integrated
Assessment for Sustainable Development,”
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
and Management 9, no. 4 (December 2007):
423–441.
10. Cascade Engineering, “The Triple Bottom
Line Report,” 2009, www.cascadeng.com/
pdf/TBL_2009.pdf.
11. Nancy Fell, “Triple Bottom Line Approach
Growing in Nonprofit Sector,” Causeplanet,
January 21, 2007, and Peter Senge, et al., The
Necessary Revolution (New York: Doubleday,
2008).
12. For example, see Nancy Stark and
Deborah Markley, “Rural Entrepreneurship
Development II: Measuring Impact on the
Triple Bottom Line, Wealth Creation in Rural
America,” July 2008, www.yellowwood.org/
wealthcreation.aspx.
13. “Focus Areas,” RSF Social Finance, http://
rsfsocialfinance.org/values/focus/.
14. “Maryland’s Genuine Progress Indicator:
An Index for Sustainable Prosperity,”
Maryland: Smart, Green and Growing,
www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi/.
15. Commission of the European Communities,
“Communication from the Commission on
Impact Assessment,” May 6, 2002, http://
trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/
february/tradoc_121479.pdf.
16. EU Secretariat General, “Memo: The Main
Changes in the 2009 Impact Assessment
Guidelines Compared to 2005 Guidelines,”
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/
index_en.htm.
17. Sustainable Cleveland 2019, “Action and
Resources Guide: Building an Economic
Engine to Empower a Green City on a Blue
Lake,” October 2010,
www.gcbl.org/system/files/SC2019+Executiv
e+Summary+%289SEP10%29.pdf.
18. City of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
“Community Triple Bottom Line Indicator
Report,” September 2008, www.grpartners.
org/pdfs/resources/TBLFinal1.pdf.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
