Science Speaker Asks Students to Consider the Triple Bottom Line

Shazib Viljee, PhD, MBA, associate professor of engineering at the University of Portland, spoke to Upper School students on May 5 about the “triple bottom line” as part of the OES Science Speaker Series. What does this term mean, and why is it important to mitigating the effects of climate change?

Dr. Viljee started his talk by asking students what they think the “bottom line” is. Suggestions included “what is most important to companies.” Dr. Viljee clarified its meaning as to how companies measure their success. Particularly, their cost vs. their return on investment (ROI). He showed the students two sample companies, one with a profit of 10% and one with a 15% profit, and asked them which company was more successful.

Then he added in the costs to the environment and society. The company with the higher profit margin also dumped hazardous waste and used child labor in mines. “Now, which company would you buy from?” Dr. Viljee asked. Taking a more comprehensive look at a company’s ROI is what is meant by the triple bottom line. It’s also commonly referred to as “people, planet, profit.”

This triple bottom line is what is important when considering a truly sustainable future, he explained to the students. In order to keep a resource like energy renewable, you need to consider who is going to be paying for it, and what all of its costs are. Fossil fuels are finite resources. Renewable energy sources like wind, sun, and water may appear to be “cleaner” alternatives, but harnessing that energy for human use has costs that need to be measured alongside its benefits.

There are five lenses to look through when considering the triple bottom line, Dr. Viljee said, which include:

• Technological
• Societal
• Environmental
• Economic
• Political

He gave the students two case studies to consider through these lenses: A proposal by PGE to route new power lines through Portland’s Forest Park—meaning cutting down trees—and the replacement of croplands with solar panel farms.

The students discussed the problems in teams and then shared their feedback, looking through the suggested lenses. 

Regarding the solar energy on farmland, they brought up the points that:

• Solar panels are expensive (technological)
• Farmers would be out of jobs (societal)
• Roads to access the panels would have an impact (environmental)
• Could you offer the farmers financial incentives (political)

For the powerlines vs. trees case study, the students considered:

• It would disturb the park environment for users (societal)
• Cutting down the trees would affect nature (environmental)
• in addition to the cost to cut down the trees and install the lines, there could be a loss of tourism (economic)
• Could the power lines be put underground instead (technological).

Dr. Viljee said that in the case of the farmland case study, solar power companies are offering to lease land from farmers, and this may be a viable option for the next generation of farming families, where the younger people are not interested in farming but want to keep the land and have an income.

The Friends of Forest Park recently convinced the Portland City Council to reject PGE’s plan to cut through Forest Park, but the need for more power is still there. “The bottom line is that it’s complicated,” said Dr. Viljee. “We have an appetite for electricity, and we have to feed it somehow.”

Zach T. ’28 reflected that, “The 'triple bottom line' will be crucial when innovating for the future. Engineers and scientists will need to consider not just an advancement's impact on people and the planet, but also its feasibility given potential for profit and current policy."