from YAPRap February 2007
by John Ferguson, YAPA Policy & Training Officer
In 2006, former NCOSS* Director Gary Moore called on the NSW Government to commit to the introduction of full triple bottom line reporting in the NSW Public Sector. In other words, the NSW Government and its departments should be required to report on its achievements:
- economically
- socially
- environmentally.
NCOSS called on the NSW Government to look at publishing a well-being index in future NSW Budgets. The problem is however, that they may not do this, so it is up to non-government organisations, academics and everyone else to sort this out for them.
Measurements of economic performance are well established in our society. We constantly hear about the productivity of our economy with such measurements as the Gross Domestic Product. We have indices that indicate how the Australian share market is performing such as the All Ordinaries Index. We even see what's going on in the New York Stock Exchange with the NASDAQ. Also, with the rising of interest rates in recent times, we also have a basic understanding of the relationship between the interest rates of the Reserve Bank and the Australian economy.
Furthermore, thanks to the continued efforts of a lot of people and influential reports such as the Stern Report, the environmental impact of human development is finally getting its time in the political sun. The average person on the street is now becoming much more aware of global warming and the voices of the sceptics are becoming weaker and weaker. Anyone who has seen the documentaries An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, and Who killed the electric car, will know the depth and breadth of these issues, and the struggle to get these issues to become politically acceptable. They have even made their way on to prime time breakfast television, with Channel Seven's Sunrise program constantly promoting the cool the globe campaign.
However, will we ever see the same level of public concern and government attention given to measurements of social impact? I certainly hope so, which is why the calls from Gary Moore are ever so important. For any doubters, don't forget that some people also laughed off environmental considerations 30 years ago.
For evidence that social wellbeing is a government responsibility, despite the belief of free market advocates, we can look no further than the Coalition of Australian Governments' (COAG) commitment of $1 billion to the National Mental Health Strategy. COAG has members from both major political parties, which demonstrates the acceptance that there is more to government responsibility than economic management. COAG has responded to growing community concern and the informed projections of the World Health Organisation that depression will be second highest cause of premature mortality and productive life lost due to disability by the year 2020. It is clear from this evidence that more and more people are beginning to ask, "What's the point of a strong economy if depression and social issues are becoming so prevalent?"
To further demonstrate the link between government policy and well-being, we can examine one of the seminal theories of depression, from Beck (1976). His theory of depression consists of a cognitive triad:
- an individual's view of himself or herself,
- his or her view of the world, and
- his or her view of the future.
When depression is thought of in this way, it is clear to see how government policy can impact on an individual's wellbeing. For example, the view of the future will be impacted upon by perceptions of job security, employability and opportunities for education and training. A view of the world would be impacted upon by the availability of transport, housing affordability and the treatment of those in need. This is only one example, but it is clear to see the link between government policy and wellbeing. Following on from this, a measure of national wellbeing is both logical and tangible.
One concept that is receiving global attention is called GNH, or Gross National Happiness. According to Wikipedia, the four pillars of GNH are:
- the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development,
- preservation and promotion of cultural values,
- conservation of the natural environment, and
- establishment of good governance.
Can you imagine a newsreader reporting, "GNH has risen by 10 points this quarter mainly due to the government's effort in transport and housing?" The newsreader would only have to say GNH because it would be so enshrined in public language that everyone would know this acronym.
National Happiness is enjoying increasing attention around the world. Narrow-minded economic hardliners will laugh this off, but there are dissenters in their midst as the reality of life outside of the economic circle begins to bite. The best demonstration of this is from a recent book called Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, from Lord Richard Layard, a Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics. In essence, the book discusses the notion that as Western society has become richer over the past 50 years, happiness has not increased.
On this matter, governments of Australia need to follow the lead set by the private sector. Some companies have begun to address this by taking on the concept of social responsibility, with efforts going into the area of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For some, this may be nothing more than a PR campaign, but for others it is an acknowledgement that at the same time as pursuing profits, they also have to consider the social ramifications of their business. Hence, more and more businesses are gaining the awareness that they have both a social responsibility and an environmental responsibility, which satisfies the themes of the triple bottom line.
It will become increasingly unacceptable to judge a Governments performance through economic impacts alone. The environmental impacts are in their rightful place and now we need the social impacts to be considered to complete the triple bottom line. If it is not the phrase Gross National Happiness that best encapsulates the concept of measuring social outcomes, then it would serve us well to find and agree upon another one. The Australia Institute has described its Genuine Progress Indicator, while the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW is currently working on new indicators of disadvantage. Although difficult to capture, we need a higher order measurement that will become easily recognisable and easily understood. Then, at least, the ongoing discussion about how to measure the social impact of government decisions can continue in reference to the measurement we need to promote. Consequently, as the years roll on, we can judge government policies and spending according to their impact on this social indicator.
With COAG devoting over $1 billion to national mental health, it seems counter-intuitive not to measure the social impact of government departments and policies. Moreover, there are a growing number of people around the world that see the triple bottom line as symbolic of a healthy society. The areas of social, economic and environmental form part of a triad for a healthy and productive society, where all three are interdependent and the right balance of growth in these areas will be advantageous for everyone.
*NCOSS = Council of Social Service of NSW, the peak welfare body in NSW
