As we mentioned in our last article, the prevalence of the Triple Bottom Line philosophy is signaling a changing paradigm, a time of transformation. Our question, then, is this: What exactly are we transforming into?  The knee-jerk answer might be that we are transforming from a capitalist system to a socialist system. However, the widespread adoption of 3BL belies such a simple answer. Socialism, with its complete government control of production, is hardly desirable for private business interests. American corporations are willingly embracing 3BL without even a government mandate. There is something deeper going on than simply a tug of war between two economic systems, and we are seeking to explore just what that may be.

Our first clues as to where we are going lay in the past, with the origin of the term “Triple Bottom Line.” For that we can credit John Elkington (his personal website and blog is here), who introduced the public to the term for the first time in his 1997 publication Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Elkington is a longtime advocate for corporate environmental and social awareness, having cofounded the business development consulting firm SustainAbility in 1987. In fact, we may consider him a “founder” of corporate sustainability, having been called a “dean of the corporate responsibility movement for three decades” by BusinessWeek.  Elkington currently serves as the Executive Chairman of the sustainability think tank Volans, which he helped found in 2008. His work with Volans is what provides a real glimpse into the end game of 3BL, in a concept termed “The Phoenix Economy.”

The Phoenix Economy is a concept professing that the failure of an existing economic system will leave a void and an opportunity for a new system to take its place.  (The term “phoenix” refers to the bird of that name which, in ancient mythology, dies in a self-created fire and is then reincarnated from the ashes.)  Old paradigms and established principles are replaced by a new way of approaching economics — and indeed the culture. Elkington recognizes this as an opportunity to establish a new paradigm based on 3BL philosophy. Global sustainability is the principle by which the economic and social culture will be driven. The Volans website provides a concise explanation of the Phoenix Economy.

According to Volans:

From the ashes of the downturn, a new economy is self-assembling—focused on providing social and environmental solutions, where markets and governments have failed.

(more…)

Certainly the philosophy of the Triple Bottom Line (“3BL” or “TBL”) is unconventional when compared with accepted business practices which are based upon the typical single bottom line of profit. We know that profit is essential to business survival, but we should ask how this expanded 3BL business model gained traction. For an answer, we need to look at the history of 3BL, and that history shows us that environmental and social idealism have been closely linked since the modern global environmental movement began in 1972.

In 1972, Maurice Strong, a patriarch of the global environmental movement who now sits on the board of directors for the Chicago Climate Exchange, led the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which met in Stockholm and released a declaration linking the human exerience to nature. It acknowledged that “man is both creature and moulder of his environment” and has advanced to the point where he has the power to significantly affect nature and, by extension, his own intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. The global social ramifications of man’s environmental stewardship are thus clearly stated in the Stockholm declaration:

The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the wellbeing of peoples and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.

The UN felt the environment and social well being were so linked that the declaration’s first Principle focused on it:

Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.

Without question, the UN has made a particular commitment to social and environmental ideology since the very beginning of the green movement, and in the Stockholm declaration we can see much of the framework for global socio-environmental ideology already in place.

(more…)

The story of ShoreBank has caught national attention, as this relatively small, so-called ”community development bank” has been the target for bailout assistance via state and federal taxpayer money. In the past, particular banks have received assistance if they were deemed “too large to fail,” on the presumption is that if they did fail, they would take the banking industry — and possibly the economy itself — with them. ShoreBank, however, is a special case, and the favoritism shown it is based more on its banking philosphy than its size. What is it about ShoreBank’s philosophy that has garnered the favor of those who apparently see it not as “too large” to fail, but too important to fail? To answer that, we will be exploring the concept of the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL or 3BL), which is the most succinct statement of Shorebank’s mission and purpose. In this series of articles we will discuss what the triple bottom line is, where it came from, and where it is leading us. We will see just how important 3BL philosophy is to those who subscribe to it and why they must protect its champion, ShoreBank, at all costs. As we explore it, we will see how it is more than just a new business model, but an maturing philosophy that begs protection from stakeholders whose goal is to establish it as a societal norm. Indeed, as we shall see, the Triple Bottom Line represents a philosophy which has been deemed “too important to fail.”

What is the Triple Bottom Line?

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL or 3BL) is the most succinct statement of Shorebank’s mission and purpose, and the bank proudly touts its commitment to the 3BL objectives. What are these objectives? Essentially, they are an organizational commitment to social and environmental concerns in addition to economic concerns (profit). Shorebank’s website summarizes it as follows:

Most businesses have a single bottom line – maximizing shareholder return. “Triple bottom line” companies typically manage to achieve three returns: profitability, social return and an environmental return. ShoreBank describes its triple bottom line as profitability, community development impact and conservation.

ShoreBank claims that pursuing profit alone is inadequate for businesses today, and therefore it feels traditional accounting measures must now also incorporate the goals of social welfare and environmental responsibility as well.

How is the Triple Bottom Line Practiced?

The vision behind 3BL is praiseworthy, as responsible and upstanding companies will by necessity conduct their business in ways friendly to their employees, customers, and community — as well as protect and preserve their environmental resources. However, how does 3BL actually work in practice? Is it a feasible and practical business model that accomplishes its stated goals? Let’s look again at ShoreBank’s website for the explanation. ShoreBank explains that it invests and loans money to foster community development and environmentally friendly projects. Then it attempts a description of how it codifies its progress towards fulfilling its 3BL aims:

(more…)

As the Central Illinois 9/12 Project has briefly written about in the past, one form of banking in which Shorebank is engaged is microfinance, especially in foreign countries. As this is not a type of finance that is well known to the general public, we will discuss briefly what microfinancing is, how it is used in conjunction with green initiatives and Sharia law, and how Shorebank is using this type of financing in their banking processes.

The Consultive Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) defines microfinance as simply “the  supply of loans, savings, and other basic financial services to the poor.”  These loans are generally relatively small, but carry with them a high interest rate due to costs incurred by defaulting on loans and the transaction costs that are disproportionate to the size of the loan.  (The cost of manpower and other factors needed to make the loan are the same regardless of the size of the loan – thus for smaller loans, the  percentage of these costs in relation to the amount of the loan is greater.)  Specifically, the microfinancing industry enables people to receive loans when they would not otherwise be able to do so, whether due to poverty, lack of a bank account, inability to provide collateral, and/or inability to prove employment. In 2007, there were 873 microfinance institutions worldwide serving more than 133 million loan recipients.

Microfinance was initially, and oftentimes still is, aimed at providing loans and opportunities to those who otherwise may not have the funds to get a business off of the ground, but microfinance is sometimes tied into other things such as green initiatives. Shorebank, a community development bank whose practices the Central Illinois 912 Project has highlighted before, is a partner in an eco entrepreneurship through a project called “Yurtcozy.” This initiative allows individuals to “offset their carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits which enable a microfinance loan recipient to receive funding  for things such as energy efficient appliances and solar lighting. It may also finance education on clean energy for microfianance recipients and partnerships in green initiatives. Yurtcozy asserts that if the carbon credit purchases were made for all microfinance loan recipients worldwide, then loan recipients could decrease their carbon emissions by 260 million tons, and thirty percent of their income would be unlocked.

One of Shorebank’s first forays into microfinance was through the establishment of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. Grameen Bank was founded by Mohammed Yumus, a Noble Peace Prize Recipient in 2006 and 2009 recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Obama. Yumus’ description of the features of Grameencredit includes stating that “credit is a right,” and it’s built on “trust” (i.e., social justice in banking.)

(more…)

In the wake of recent reports that Shorebank’s financial status worsened in the second quarter, some interesting new developments have surfaced.

Yesterday afternoon, Fox Business News reported that Shorebank will now be the target of a federal investigation, to look into whether political pressure was exerted on Wall Street banks to give money to help the troubled Chicago community lending bank reach the monetary threshold needed to allow the bank to qualify for federal TARP funds.

Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), has said that he will begin looking into whether or not top-level political operatives (e.g., Eugene Ludwig, former comptroller of the currency under President Bill Clinton) and FDIC chief Sheila Bair were involved in exerting direct pressure to force Wall Street banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and others to give money (which now totals more than $150 million) to the ailing bank.  Interestingly enough, Shorebank has been involved in raising private capital to qualify for TARP funds despite the fact that Shorebank senior vice president Michelle Collins emphatically stated just last year that Shorebank would take “no TARP money.”

Although the Obama administration has officially denied any involvement in helping to prop up Shorebank, the rush by other banks to come to its aid has been nothing short of remarkable.  More than a few eyebrows have been raised in response to the general flurry of activity shown by other, larger banks seeking to involve themselves in helping to rescue Shorebank.

For example, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach’s chief executive, was personally involved in making phone calls to encourage other Wall Street banks to inject capital into the the failing Shorebank.  This, in a stated effort to allow Goldman Sachs to fulfill its obligations under the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.  (Interestingly, Ron Grzywinski, one of the founders of Shorebank, was the only banker to testify before Congress in favor of the Community Reinvestment Act.)

(more…)

The Central Illinois 9/12 Project became the first to expose — beginning this past March on BigGovernment.com – Shorebank’s extensive green and microfinancing agendas, in anticipation of that bank’s impending bailout.  Shorebank, a Chicago-based, community investment bank, is focused on domestic and foreign microfinancing, is heavily engaged in the financing of “green” projects and “green” jobs, and has a host of ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations. The Central Illinois 9/12 Project has most recently highlighted the bank seeking and obtaining funds from larger banks–such as Chase, Banks of America, and Goldman Sachs — to secure the necessary funding to remain viable.

The fact that Shorebank had the opportunity to be rescued while other banks were allowed to fail proved to be curious to Illinois residents, and for a time it was unknown if the bank would receive enough funds from private entities to qualify for a federally-funded bailout. Such curious treatment sent up a red flag for some Congressional members and thus influenced the formation of the financial reform bill.  Through an amendment offered by Congresswoman Judy Biggert and Congressman Spencer Bachus, the House Financial Committee voted to approve inquiries into the negotiations between the White House and any bank that had been ordered to cease engaging in unsound banking practice, via an amendment to the House finance reform bill in late June.

The Central Illinois 912 Project has learned from an assistant for Biggert that Biggert’s office sent a letter to the White House regarding this probe, but the White House denied receiving that initial letter. Biggert’s office sent a second letter which the White House acknowledged receiving; however, the White House has never responded to it.  This probe would not only have been for Shorebank, but for all other banks that have received bailout funds since June 2009 — and it would have prevented those banks from receiving any TARP funding while under investigation. Potentially, if the bill was passed and signed into law and the probe was started within the given amount of time, Shorebank would have folded without the needed TARP funds to match the private sector’s matching funds (i.e., funds from larger banks).   However, when this bill was passed by the House, the amendment was removed by Senate negotiators.

(more…)

The Central Illinois 9/12 Project became one of the first to expose — beginning this past March on BigGovernment.com – Shorebank’s extensive green and microfinancing agendas, in anticipation of that bank’s impending bailout.  Shorebank, a Chicago-based, community-based investment bank, is focused on domestic and foreign microfinancing, is heavily engaged in the financing of “green” projects and “green” jobs, and has a host of ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations.  Most recently, we wrote in April about Shorebank seeking a “bailout” from larger financial firms that have previously received bailout money from the federal government. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky had previously proposed that the bank receive funds from the State of Illinois to help cover its loss of capital since the beginning of the nation’s economic downturn in 2008.

As we previously wrote, Shorebank would potentially be eligible for TARP funds if it were to be recognized as a “Community Development Financial Institution.” In order to to received needed federal TARP money and prevent seizure by the FDIC, Shorebank needed to receive appropriate matching funds from private sources.  News stories have been released over the past several days indicating that Shorebank has potentially received such funding.

Shorebank has reportedly received $20 million from General Electric, $20 million from Goldman Sachs, and $20 million from Citigroup – with additional large funds being promised by J.P.Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley. Shorebank also has received funds from the Northern Trust Corporation, State Farm, and Harris N.A.  It has been reported that the bank could also receive funds from Wells-Fargo and PNC Financial Services.  Assistance from these financial institutions puts Shorebank’s raised capital from private sources within the range needed to make it eligible for TARP funds.

As we reported previously, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Chase all received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money from TARP.  Does this then mean that Shorebank is being bailed out by bailout money?

(more…)

As the Central Illinois 912 Project has addressed previously on BigGovernment.com, Shorebank is a community bank based out of Chicago that is engaged in microfinancing – a hybrid of capitalism and social justice.  They have been supported and promoted by individuals like Van Jones, President Obama, President Clinton, and Secretary Clinton. They have also become heavily involved in the financing of green projects (see here and here).

In 2009, Shorebank received more than $35 million in federal funds for grants and new market tax credits. Despite this new flow of funds to extend to their customers and loan recipients, Shorebank reported a loss of $50 million in 2009 alone and was issued a “cease and desist” order by the FDIC and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.  In addition, ShoreBank was receiving strong warnings from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Their dire financial state had lead them to initially seek a “bailout” from the State of Illinois, promoted by Chicago Congresswoman Jan Shakowsky and Senator Dick Durbin. However, they have since decided that they can find capital without seeking state help.

Interestingly, Shorebank is currently seeking support from a few large banks –all of which have received federal bailout money from the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) and are Shorebank stockholders. These banks include Citigroup, Bank of America, and Chase. Citigroup initially received $25 billion in taxpayer money (plus another $20 billion soon after), and Bank of America initially received $15 billion (plus another $20 billion after that). Neither of these banks has completely paid back their TARP loan. Chase also received $25 billion in bailout funds, but repaid its loan in December of 2009. So rather than seeking a bailout from a state that has a $13 billion budget deficit, Shorebank is seeking to be bailed out by banks that have already been bailed out by federal taxpayers – which is, in essence, an indirect, federally-funded bailout.

(more…)

The Shorebank story is quite complicated and filled with literally hundreds – if not thousands — of individuals who have been in some way involved in the unfolding of an intriguing saga. It has been difficult to narrow down the field of characters in order to focus on just a few. Some of the names are familiar, and some are relatively unknown (except, perhaps, within the context of their own circles of influence).

The original founders of Shorebank probably didn’t dream that this bank would have the worldwide influence that it now has. They were all very active in their communities and had a desire to see the South Shore neighborhood re-built to its former state of safety and community life. The neighborhood had suffered economically and was becoming run-down and plagued by crime. Their hope was to re-invest and re-enliven this neighborhood of Chicago. They made loans towards the renovation of many of the buildings which were deteriorating and in disrepair. They also invested in new building projects to benefit the residents of South Shore.

For 30-plus years Shorebank has seen its founders’ dreams realized; and beyond those dreams, Shorebank has become the catalyst for international financing — especially that directed toward low-income people in many countries of the world. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed into law in 1977 during President Jimmy Carter’s term of office, encouraged financial institutions to make loans to low-income borrowers. Ron Grzywinski (one of the original founders of Shorebank) was the only banker to testify before Congress in support of the Community Reinvestment Act. Its passage was instrumental in paving the way for Shorebank’s success. The bank steadily grew financially and facilitated the renewal of poverty stricken areas through the rest of the 1970’s and early 80’s, catching the attention of then-Governor Bill and Hillary Clinton of Arkansas (in fact, according to the IFA, Bill is still advocating on behalf of ShoreBank).

(more…)

If you ask people on the street (outside of Chicago) if they have ever heard of ShoreBank, the answer would likely be “no.” While ShoreBank isn’t a Goldman Sachs, a Bank of America, or a JP Morgan, to the Progressives, this “little” bank is in many ways every bit as big and important as the aforementioned “large banks.”

Why?

One of the core components of President Obama’s fundamental change for America is to create clean energy jobs, also known as “green jobs”.  During his campaign and as recently as his State of the Union Address, President Obama continues to talk about the need “green” jobs. In fact, during his State of the Union 2010 speech, the President stated, “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities –  and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. “

In a speech given by the President in Virginia on Dec. 15, 2009, he said, “The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.”

In the  stimulus package last year, President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his plan for building a new green-based economy.

(more…)

Since its founding, ShoreBank has been a progressive-minded bank focused on community development. However, it soon adopted the progressive commitment to environmentalism after founders Ron Grzywinski and Mary Houghton were approached in 1993 by Ecotrust, an environmentally-conscious firm focusing on debt for nature swaps in rainforest countries as well as environmental banking in the Pacific Northwest. The partnership of the two firms led to the establishment of ShoreTrust (now ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific) which provided financing, marketing and management assistance to small businesses in the Pacific coastal rain forest area. From there, the rest of the ShoreBank family eventually followed in adopting the green agenda.

For the entire story chronicling the founding of the bank and its move towards its environmental commitment, you may read Alka Srivastva’s dissertation for Case Western Reserve University here>>>.

From there, it did not take long for ShoreBank to incorporate environmentalism into its mission and formalize its commitment to the green agenda. In 1999, ShoreBank’s board of directors adopted a new conservation and development policy requiring the bank itself to reduce its waste and also encourage its customers to adopt more sustainable practices. The concept of environmental health then assumed its place alongside the goals of community development and profitability to form the “Triple Bottom Line” slogan that the company champions today. As evidence of its own commitment, ShoreBank has even addressed its own carbon emissions by purchasing offsets for 450 metric tons of C02 to offset emissions through 2010.

ShoreBank’s environmental advocacy is now prevalent throughout its dealings, both  in how it relates to its domestic banking customers, and in its international development objectives.

(more…)

In the midst of the radical social atmosphere of the 1960s, a group of Chicagoans, Ron Grzywinski, Milton Davis, James Fletcher, and Mary Houghton, came together to found South Shore Bank in the 1973 with a goal to provide loans to minority owned small businesses.

Ron Grzywinski had banking experience with Hyde Park Bank. Milton Davis was a University of Chicago employee and the Chicago leader of the Congress of Radical Equality (CORE).  James Fletcher had previously worked in President Johnson’s administration as part of the internal transition team and with the Citizen’s Action Program in the Office of Economic Opportunity.  Mary Houghton, at that time, was running a daycare program for low income families.

These four individuals had often met to discuss ways in which they could help the needs of urban society by becoming a financial intermediary for social development and community actions. These discussions led to the creation of a minority lending program at Hyde Park Bank. With the influence of Al Raby, a Chicago black rights leader, they looked for the next step to continue their goals of providing loans to small businesses in neighborhood development. Grzywinski stated, ” community-based organizations appeared to be the only organizations in society that cared about the broad range of needs that exist in urban communities”.

(more…)

We all know what the words “debt,” “taxpayer,” and “interest” mean, but how many people know what the words “jizya”, “dhimmi” and “Grameen” mean? In order to understand the precipice of disaster that the banking system is resting upon today, one must understand all these words, and then some. No solution can be found by only understanding the first three. Only an illusion of understanding exists until the latter, and more, like “jihad” and “Sharia Law”, are considered.

The jizya amounts to a tax paid by Non-Muslims to Muslims in order that they may live in peace. A fair comparison is money paid by business owners to neighborhood thugs in order to gain protection. Think Mob. Engaging in this endeavor creates the status of dhimmi – a willingly subservient protected group of third class subjects. Let’s just call this what it is – extortion based slavery. Let us also understand that this is an endgame of this thing called “jihad”.

From the Koran:

(9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

(30:39)  And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may increase in the property of men, it shall not increase with Allah; and whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah’s pleasure– it is these (persons) that shall get manifold.

(3:130) O you who believe! do not devour usury, making it double and redouble, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, that you may be successful

(2:275) Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as one whom  Shaitan has prostrated by (his) touch does rise. That is because they say, trading is only like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury. To whomsoever then the admonition has come from his Lord, then he desists, he shall have what has already passed, and his affair is in the hands of Allah; and whoever returns (to it)– these arc the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it.

You get the idea.

(more…)