Triple Bottom Line

John Elkington, editor-at-large for GreenBiz.com, coined the term "triple bottom line" in 1994 (image from The Elkington Report)

The concept of the triple bottom line (TBL) provides a framework within which to analyze the full societal costs (both direct and indirect) of environmental, social, and economic impacts. The TBL framework is particularly applicable to what architects do because of the far-reaching effects of our work. Construction and its associated extraction and processing of resources tax our environment, as does every building’s operation. The quality and efficacy of our designs directly factor into the calculation of a development’s economic benefits over time. The degree to which all stakeholder interests are viewed as interdependent, and benefitting as many constituencies as possible, influences the strength and growth of a community. 

A growing appreciation for thinking sustainably originally fueled TBL’s full-cost accounting model. Today, TBL tends to be more holistic and less siloed. It’s a useful structure for achieving integrated decision-making, adaptable for use by any organization. The City of Eugene is one such organization, having adopted the framework as a means for helping reach its sustainability goals. How to implement TBL on any particular project is a factor in the City’s consideration of responses to its Requests for Proposals, including those from architectural firms. 

Typically, an organization’s TBL policy includes a vision comprised of declarative statements similar to those listed here (these happen to be those of the City of Eugene):

• Value all people, encouraging respect and appreciation for diversity, equity, justice, and social well-being. We recognize and appreciate our differences and embrace our common humanity as the source of our strength.
• Be responsible stewards of our physical assets and natural resources. We will sustain our clean air and water, beautiful parks and open space, livable and safe neighborhoods, and foster a vibrant downtown, including a stable infrastructure.
• Encourage a strong, sustainable and vibrant economy, fully utilizing our educational and cultural assets, so that every person has an opportunity to achieve financial security.

The City of Eugene refers to TBL as a tool, but also acknowledges it doesn’t produce objective data. Instead, TBL provides a set of questions or prompts to guide discussions and decision-making. The City defines these questions in the following way:

• Environmental Health:  How would this proposal affect environmental health and our ability to effectively address climate change? 
• Economic Prosperity: How would this proposal affect the local economy and what are its costs to the community, now and over the long term? How does the proposal support responsible stewardship of public resources?
• Social Equity:  How would this proposal affect community relationships, effective government, social justice and overall livability? Does the proposal account for differing impacts on community members (vulnerable populations, specific neighborhoods, distinct groups, other)?

The TBL tool is not an exhaustive analytical process involving rigorous layers of research and analysis. It is rather a moral imperative that follows the dictates of conscience, the outcome of which are practical environmental, economic, and social benefits. 

All fine and good, but how do architects apply TBL in practice? 

The TBL does function as a useful frame of reference within which architects can evaluate an evolving design using metrics focused upon matters of equity, the environment (a metric such as LEED is useful), and economic impact (including full life-cycle costing and evaluation of community benefits). Ideally, it can also serve as a foundation upon which architects build their practices, instilling an overarching ethos that guides decisions related to running all aspects of a firm (such as efforts to diversify the workplace). 

My office—Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—recently pursued the City of Eugene’s Town Square project, of which a new City Hall building and Lane County Farmers Market pavilion will be components. The City ultimately selected FFA Architecture + Interiors of Portland as its architects for the project. While the City did not choose us, the RFP and interview process did prompt serious consideration about how we address the TBL in our work. 

In response to the Town Square RFP, we emphasized our perception of how important the project will be to Eugene’s sense of identity. If it fulfills its promise, Eugene’s Town Square will be a place where everyone embraces and celebrates diversity, equity, justice, and social wellbeing (by providing equitable exposure and recognition, allowing all to occupy the space with accommodation and dignity). We regarded the project as the strongest possible demonstration of the City’s commitment to its urban core and all that entails—a vibrant open space that attracts high-value downtown development and with it jobs, residents, and a concomitant boost to the tax base. 

Additionally, we described how we envisioned Eugene’s Town Square as an exemplar of sustainability, not only because of specific design and specifications strategies but also because it will spur a shift toward walkability and a greater concentration of pedestrian-oriented services and amenities in its immediate vicinity, reducing carbon emissions and fostering healthier lifestyles. We imagined a successful Town Square project being a force for community engagement, where everyone can be seen and heard, and where citizens and their elected officials view each other as equals—characteristics common to the most equitable and democratic of forums. Above all, we emphasized our belief that good design should benefit everyone. 

It’s helpful when a client is committed to TBL principles. A challenge for architects is to avoid the urge to press their own agendas if their clients do not share a sympathetic perspective. Working primarily for a client’s benefit, the architect acts as a service-provider and the product should reflect the client’s desires. On the other hand, an architect’s ethical obligations include giving due regard for the interests of all who will be exposed to the impacts of their work. If these obligations are at odds with the client’s initial wishes, the onus falls upon the architect to fully research alternatives (architects need to ask the tough questions and not presume their clients will do likewise) so they can in turn educate their clients about the range of practical options available to choose from. In this context, framing the discussion from a TBL perspective can be helpful. 

Ideally, the triple bottom line is a winning proposition on all fronts, of mutual and synergistic benefit for the environment, economy, and society. Applying the TBL to every project—regardless of whether the project starts with TBL as a mandate—is a responsibility every architect should embrace.