The competitive environment of the 21st century, failure of U.S. companies, and the financial crisis of 2008 have moved leadership expectations to the forefront of research. However, there is a lack of empirical research about organizational reporting outcomes of self-identified servant leadership (SL) organizations compared to self-identified nonservant (non-SL) organizations. Guided by Greenleaf's SL theory, the purpose of this study was to compare information on organizational data for triple bottom line (TBL) reporting outcomes in SL organizations and non-SL organizations. Using causal comparative research design and global reporting initiative data with a sample of 12 organization reports, reporting outcomes were compared from 6 SL and 6 non-SL organizations. The independent variables were SL and non-SL organizations. The dependent variables were TBL outcomes (social, financial, and environmental) with 55 intervening variables such as economic impact, greenhouse gas emissions, and human rights. Data analysis included descriptive statistics such as comparative analysis of the total and average of reporting outcomes and inferential statistics such as t tests. Findings of the study showed no statistically significant differences existed between TBL reporting outcomes of SL and non-SL organizations. Implications for positive social change lie in the focus on humanism in leadership in which organizational reports provide reliable outcome data for future community building and influence on social good.