With the effects of inclusive economic predicament of 2008, the obstinate problems of importunate poverty and environmental change have focused the attention towards maintaining the sustainability by establishing balance in the triple bottom line (TBL). In this paper, we have tried to critically examine the philosophy of triple bottom line and it’s relevance in maintaining the sustainability. The process of maintaining sustainability in the TBL is undoubtedly facilitated by the citizenship behaviour of companies (Henriques et al. Routledge, London, 2013). Yet the triple bottom line philosophy is being accepted by different researchers because they consider TBL is one of the concepts evaluating and improving the sustainability. Critics are typically “slow to praise and quick to criticize” (Mish and Scammon, J Public Policy Market 29:12–26, 2010) with this the critics of TBL argue on its practicality and validity. One of the critical studies of TBL regarded it as intrinsically ambiguous because it is unable to convey its exact meaning (Norman and MacDonald, Bus Ethics Q 14:243–262, 2004). Triple Bottom Line a framework of sustainability to examine the social, environmental and economic impact of company was recalled by Elikington it's originator despite rapid growth in the area of sustainability extending up over one million dollar in a year as he realized that TBL was not meeting the purpose for which it was created. After comprehensive understanding and building upon the available literature, this paper criticizes TBL and reveals that this philosophy is not based on the real concept, nothing is new, unique and innovative in it. It only explains the already existing concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and a sustainability measurement tool.

在2008年包容性经济困境的影响下，顽固的贫困和环境变化这一顽固问题将注意力集中在通过在三重底线（TBL）中建立平衡来维持可持续性。在本文中，我们尝试批判性地研究了三重底线的哲学及其与维持可持续性的相关性。毫无疑问，公司公民行为促进了TBL中可持续性的维持（Henriques等，Routledge，伦敦，2013年）。然而，三重底线哲学被不同的研究人员接受，因为他们认为TBL是评估和改善可持续性的概念之一。评论家通常“赞美慢，批评快”（Mish和Scammon，J公共政策市场29：12–26，2010年），TBL的批评者就其实用性和有效性提出了争论。对TBL的批判研究之一认为它本质上是模棱两可的，因为它无法传达其确切含义（Norman和MacDonald，Bus Ethics Q 14：243–262，2004）。三重底线Elikington召回了一个可持续性框架来研究公司的社会，环境和经济影响，尽管其可持续性领域的快速增长每年超过一百万美元，但他意识到这一点是他的创始人，因为他意识到TBL无法满足该要求。创建它的目的。经过全面的理解并在现有文献的基础上，本文对TBL提出了批评，并揭示了这种哲学不是基于真实的概念，没有什么是新的，独特的和创新的。