When Dr. Bruno Dyck from the University of Manitoba gave me the opportunity me to join his team in revising the textbook "Management: Financial, Social, and Ecological Well-Being," I knew this would be more than just another academic project. The experience has pushed me to question and reflect on fundamental assumptions about how businesses approach sustainability and social responsibility.

One striking realization emerged during our collaborative work: the stark difference between Triple Bottom Line (TBL) thinking and what Bruno terms Social and Ecological Thought (SET). While many Filipino businesses embrace sustainability principles, the approach often reflects TBL thinking - where financial performance remains the primary goal, with social and environmental considerations serving as secondary, instrumental objectives.

This mindset manifests in countless discussions where environmental initiatives must first demonstrate a clear return on investment, or where community programs are valued primarily for their potential to enhance corporate reputation. These are not inherently wrong approaches, but they reveal the persistent dominance of financial metrics in decision-making.

My own journey in management education reflects this bias. For years, I taught the Business Model Canvas as a comprehensive framework for strategy and entrepreneurship. However, working on this textbook has made me increasingly aware of its limitations. The traditional canvas provides minimal space to articulate how social and ecological goals might be embedded within a business model. While newer variations attempt to address this gap by incorporating social entrepreneurship or ecological components, these modifications often feel like add-ons rather than fundamental reimaginings of the framework.

The "thought" in SET is particularly meaningful because it signals the need for a deeper transformation in business thinking. SET proposes something more radical than simply balancing multiple bottom lines - it suggests inverting the traditional hierarchy altogether. What if businesses viewed financial mechanisms as tools to achieve social and ecological well-being, rather than treating environmental and social initiatives as means to financial ends?

This shift requires us to ask uncomfortable questions. Must a community development program generate positive PR to be worthwhile? Should environmental conservation efforts be justified solely through cost savings? SET challenges us to envision businesses that measure success primarily through their contributions to community welfare and ecological restoration, while maintaining financial viability rather than maximizing profits.

In the Philippine context, this perspective feels particularly relevant. Our nation faces pressing social challenges and environmental vulnerabilities that demand innovative solutions. While many local businesses have embraced corporate social responsibility, few have taken the bold step of placing social and ecological outcomes at the core of their mission.

Our revision process for "Management: Financial, Social, and Ecological Well-Being" has been both challenging and enlightening. As we prepare to release this work through open access, my hope is not just to contribute another management textbook, but to spark meaningful dialogue about the purpose of business in society.

This dialogue seems especially crucial now, as businesses worldwide grapple with mounting environmental crises and social inequalities. The conventional wisdom that corporations must focus primarily on shareholder value while addressing other stakeholder concerns as secondary priorities is increasingly difficult to defend.

SET offers a compelling alternative vision - one where businesses serve as catalysts for positive social change and environmental stewardship while maintaining financial sustainability. This approach asks us to reimagine success metrics, organizational structures, and the fundamental purpose of business enterprises.

As our team concludes the textbook revision, I find myself reflecting on the broader implications of this work. The transition from TBL to SET thinking represents more than an academic exercise - it offers a pathway for businesses to become genuine forces for social and environmental progress. While this shift may seem radical, perhaps such radical thinking is precisely what our current challenges demand.

The journey of working on this textbook has reinforced my belief that management education must evolve beyond teaching students how to maximize profits while minimizing negative externalities. Instead, we need to nurture business leaders who can envision and create enterprises that actively contribute to social and ecological well-being, supported by - rather than driven by - financial success.