Abstract :

The Triple Bottom Line, introduced by Elkington in the mid-1990s, has achieved widespread institutional legitimacy, becoming embedded in corporate reporting standards, regulatory frameworks, and business school curricula globally. However, despite this proliferation of TBL rhetoric, corporate behavior has not substantively changed, particularly in emerging economies such as Indonesia. This study examines the philosophical foundations and accounting thought underlying the implementation of TBL in Indonesia, addressing the persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and corporate practice. Employing qualitative content analysis within an interpretive paradigm, this library research synthesizes theoretical frameworks from stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional theory to understand how Indonesian corporations conceptualize and operationalize TBL dimensions—economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet). The analysis reveals that Indonesian TBL implementation is characterized by symbolic adoption driven by institutional pressures rather than substantive ethical commitment, reflecting organized hypocrisy in sustainability reporting. Philosophical examination through eudaimonic ethics and critical accounting perspectives demonstrates that authentic TBL implementation requires transcending instrumental rationality toward inclusive profitability notions that integrate stakeholder well-being. The study identifies five critical challenges: rhetoric-practice gaps, weak integration of philosophical ethics with accounting practice, insufficient digital transformation adoption, inadequate ethical governance frameworks, and power asymmetries in stakeholder engagement. Recommendations emphasize developing culturally-grounded sustainability accounting frameworks that synthesize Indonesian philosophical traditions—including Stewardship and Common Good principles rooted in Catholic Social Teaching—with international best practices, strengthening environmental management accounting capabilities, and fostering genuine stakeholder dialogue to enable transformative corporate sustainability in Indonesia.

---

Keywords :

accounting thought, catholic social teaching, environmental management accounting, stewardship, Triple Bottom Line

---

References :

1. Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2020). Advancing research into accounting and the un sustainable development goals. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33 (7), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4556.
2. Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the ‘death of environmentalism’ debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.001.
3. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Heinemann.
4. Cahyaningtyas, F., & Salleh, S. C. (2024). Dive in the “soul” of corporate social responsibility through the philosophy of tri hita karana. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis, 19(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.24843/JIAB.2024.v19.i01.p03.
5. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 46, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003.
6. Das, T. C., Bora, P. K., & Das, J. P. (2025). Corporate sustainability, esg, and the triple bottom line: A review of key challenges.International Review of Management and Marketing, 15(5), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.19768.
7. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
8. Fay, B. 1987. Critical social science: liberation and its limits. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
9. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing.
10. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611—642.
11. Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0911-0.
12. Hilmi, H., Zarkasyi, W., Sueb, M., & Tanzil, N. D. (2021). Implementation of corporate social responsibility based on triple bottom line concepts on the company’s financial performance: Empirical studies in manufacturing and mining companies. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 11(2), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.11190.
13. Jankalová, M., & Jankal, R. (2024). Review of sustainability accounting terms. Administrative Sciences, 14(7), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070137.
14. Lee, M.-J., Pak, A., & Roh, T. (2024). The interplay of institutional pressures, digitalization capability, environmental, social, and governance strategy, and triple bottom line performance: A moderated mediation model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(6), 5247–5268. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3755.
15. Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2022). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (9th ed.). Pearson.
16. Marek, A., & Jablonski, A. (2021). Care of the common good as a responsibility of business leaders: Catholic social teaching perspective. Religions, 12(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020125.
17. Nogueira, E., Gomes, S., & Lopes, J. M. (2025). Unveiling triple bottom line’s influence on business performance. Discover Sustainability, 6(43). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00804-x.
18. Lodhia, S., Farooq, M. B., Sharma, U., & Zaman, R. (2025). Digital technologies and sustainability accounting, reporting and assurance: Framework and research opportunities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 33(2), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-01-2025-2796.
19. Nørreklit, L., Nørreklit, H., Cinquini, L., & Mitchell, F. (2024). Accounting for a better world: Towards a conceptual framework to enable corporate reporting to contribute to the sustainability of the good life. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(5), 1608–1640. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-05-2023-2015
20. López-Cabarcos, M. Á., Ziane, Y., López-Pérez, M. L., & Piñeiro-Chousa, J. (2025). The ethical commitment of business strategy: ESG-related factors as drivers of the sdgs. Journal of Business Ethics, 202, 805-821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06002-z
21. Primacintya, V. A., & Kusuma, I. W. (2025). Environmental, social and governance (esg) performance and earnings management: The role of gender diversity. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 10(3), 294–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-12-2023-0414.
22. Sari, I. K., & Aryani, Y. A. (2023). A decade of corporate social responsibility research in Indonesia: A bibliographic study. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 7(2), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.28992/ijsam.v7i2.765.
23. Wahyuni, S. (2019). Qualitative Research Method: Theory and Practice. Edisi 3. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
24. Solovida, G. T., & Latan, H. (2021). Achieving triple bottom line performance: Highlighting the role of social capabilities and environmental management accounting. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(3), 596-611. https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-09-2020-0202.
25. Spence, C., Husillos, J., & Correa-Ruiz, C. (2010). Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(1), 76-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.09.008.
26. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
27. Suhardjo, I., Akroyd, C., & Suparman, M. (2024). Beyond sustainability reporting: A theoretical framework for ethical sustainability governance. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 8(3), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv8i3p1.
28. Zimon, G., Arianpoor, A., & Salehi, M. (2022). Sustainability reporting and corporate reputation: The moderating effect of CEO opportunistic behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1257–1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031257.