People, Planet, and Profit

A reader (who says he growls reading me)  dropped me an email suggesting that actually the double bottom line is triple: People, Planet and Profit. A case can be made that taking care of people and planet is good for profit, and it may sometimes be that nice Brands do finish first. But what of the cases where you can make a killing, exploiting people and pillaging the planet? Why should a trebly positive return be optional? And what can be done to align the incentives of managers and owners with people and profit, so that they make the right choices? I believe a thought process like this would soon lead to questioning the current corporate form, in which owners and managers make money while being shielded personally from liability. A corporation can poison millions through pollution and live forever, whereas a person who poisons even one human being would get jailed for life or get the death penalty. Why should good behavior be optional for corporations? Why should there be just a special class of firms that observe the triple bottom line? Should all firms be required to do so, or pay a forfeit? Shouldn't we require social audits every year, compute damages and recover the money from the company or its managers? Would that align business behavior with the double or triple bottom line? Or should we just continue with the current honor system, and let unscrupulous people get rich without regard to damage done? (God forbid that some companies would pretend to be good for people and planet, in order to buff brand image! I would hate to think that this triple bottom line stuff is mostly hype and PR. Wouldn't you? Rainforest Crunch, anyone? Want a banana and chocolate sauce with that? Good for the planet and profit, if not for you. Of course the swine who swilled  it died, but what the heck. It was profitable anyway.)