Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

How Balanced Scorecard Format and Reputation Related to Environmental Objectives Influence Performance Evaluations

Hank C. Alewine
Timothy C. Miller

Advances in Management Accounting

ISBN: 978-1-78560-972-5, eISBN: 978-1-78560-971-8

ISSN: 1474-7871

Publication date: 23 November 2016

Abstract

Research limitations/implications

Findings provide the literature with original empirical results that support the popular, but often anecdotal, position of advocating a fifth perspective for environmental measures to help emphasize and promote environmental stewardship within an entity when common low management communication levels exist. Specifically, when positive past environmental performances exist, entities may choose to group environmental performance measures together in a fifth scorecard perspective without risking those measures receiving the discounted decision weight indicated in prior studies.

Keywords

  • Balanced scorecard
  • Environmental accounting
  • Performance evaluations
  • Environmental strategic objectives
  • Loss aversion

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments

For financial support, we thank the Institute of Management Accountants Research Foundation, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Xavier University. For comments on previous drafts, we thank two anonymous reviewers, Alisa Brink, Kelsey Dworkis, Lan Gao, Dan Stone, Yu Tian, participants and reviewers at the 2012 Ohio Regional Conference, the 2013 Management Accounting Section conference, the 2013 AAA annual meeting, and the 2014 Accounting, Behavior and Organizations conference, as well as workshop participants at Kent State University and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Citation

Alewine, H.C. and Miller, T.C. (2016), "How Balanced Scorecard Format and Reputation Related to Environmental Objectives Influence Performance Evaluations", Advances in Management Accounting (Advances in Management Accounting, Vol. 27), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 123-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120160000027004

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here