Search results

This study aims to assess the current state of research on the use of sustainability balanced scorecards (SBSCs), as they relate to environmental performance-related outcomes. It also seeks to present a conceptual framework proposing relationships between SBSC and environmental performance.

This paper conducts a systematic literature review of articles published in double-blind peer-reviewed journals that are listed on Scopus and/or Web of Science databases.

The first part of the paper reveals that two architectures of SBSC appear to be dominant in the literature (SBSC-4 where sustainability parameters are integrated with the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard and SBSC-5 where sustainability is shown as an additional standalone fifth perspective). The next part of the paper presents a conceptual model relating SBSC as decision-making tools to environmental performance outcomes. The paper also indicates that SBSC knowledge mediates the above relationships. Furthermore, based on the theory of expert competence, the presence of experts possibly moderates the relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes.

The literature indicates a lack of consensus on establishing a clear linkage on the relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes. As a result, a holistic conceptual framework where SBSC knowledge acts as a mediator and presence of experts as a moderator may be able to provide a more consistent relationship between SBSC architecture and environmental performance outcomes.

The conceptual framework proposed provides factors to be considered by decision makers, for effective outcomes when aiming to achieve environmental stewardship objectives.

Environmental performance by business organisations have come under close scrutiny of stakeholders. As a result, the holistic model proposed in the current study may pave the path for decision-makers to achieve superior environmental outcomes, leading to greater satisfaction of stakeholders such as the communities that are impacted by the business operations of an organisation.

This is the first paper to propose a model for future research regarding the link between SBSC and environmental performance outcomes – with expert managers acting as moderators and SBSC knowledge acting as a mediator.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the technical, social and moral aspects of accounting through the implementation of a novel balanced scorecard (BSC) that addresses the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation – within the Portuguese water utilities sector.

A novel research design is adopted, using actor network theory (ANT) as a broad approach to frame the study. ANT emphasizes the importance of ever-evolving networks of relationships and how concepts such as the BSC are just as important in structuring social practice. A set of expert interviews was conducted with stakeholders in the water utilities sector in Portugal, which led to the iterative development of a context-relevant BSC proposal and associated indicators.

A novel BSC architecture to achieve UN SDG 6 is proposed through a unique engagement between professionals and academics. The BSC, and the specific definition of indicators for an entire sector (water), contribute to bridging business processes with the common good to improve life and planetary conditions. Ultimately, the study discusses how the technical aspects of accounting can be enhanced to achieve social and moral imperatives. The paper also reflects on the limitations of broadening existing technical practices.

There is a burgeoning literature on how organizations are engaging with the UN SDG agenda. However, there is a dearth of studies on how management control systems are currently addressing, or can potentially contribute to measuring and managing specific UN SDGs such as Clean Water and Sanitation. This study makes a unique contribution to the literature by developing a novel BSC solution to SDG 6 measurement and management using a novel practitioner-led approach. Ultimately, our study highlights how accounting can be broadened to enhance technical practices while also serving a moral and social purpose.

The purpose of this study is to integrate the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) framework with decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) for proposing a model and identifying the cause-and-effect relationships between the five perspectives of SBSC and then 23 performance indicators within the SBSC framework in a strategy map.

The DEMATEL approach is used to obtain a matrix including direct and indirect influences between the five perspectives of SBSC and among 23 key performance indicators (KPIs). DEMATEL data are gathered from experts to propose a model and establish reliable relationships between performance metrics. Using DEMATEL and the SBSC framework, a strategy map for the SBSC dimensions and KPIs was built to illustrate strategic cause-and-effect relationships among the various dimensions and performance indicators.

The outcomes indicated that internal process and financial perspectives play essential outputs. Sustainability is the most critical predictor (causal) in the model, then customer and learning and growth dimensions, indicating that sustainability, learning and growth and customer dimensions all positively affect other dimensions. Additionally, sustainability has bi-directional in its link to the customer and internal processes and bi-directional in its relationship to finance, learning and growth. Numerous additional linkages are observed among the five SBSC perspectives and KPIs.

The data collected is based on an “average” company in manufacturing sector; thus, companies need to customize this model to ensure that their strategies are clearly translated into KPIs.

The findings gave valuable information to management about manufacturing companies KPIs. They determined which KPIs are regarded as outcome (effect) variables and which KPIs are considered predictor (casual) variables. Additionally, the findings offer management with SBSC perspectives that should be traded as outcomes and those that should be traded as predictors. Additionally, the findings highlighted the critical KPIs and explained their interrelationships. This enables managers to focus on the significant financial besides non-financial indicators and comprehend the logical connection among them.

The results qualify executives and management to analyze and recognize a strategy map by understanding each objective's impacts, including direct and indirect, on all others. The typical analysis comprises determining the strategic objectives that are “cause” and the objectives considered as “effect”. As this study extends the BSC framework to have sustainability perspectives, the results of DEMATEL provide administrators with exceptional information to blend the conventional BSC perspectives with sustainability as added perspective.

The current study proposed an illustration model for strategy map development and also provide an interrelationship among SBSC perspectives.

This paper aims to (1) identify the different performance drivers (lead indicators) and outcome measures (lag indicators) investigated in the literature concerning the four balanced scorecard (BSC) perspectives in operations management (OM) contexts and (2) understand how performance drivers and outcome measures (and substantiated perspectives) are related.

We undertake a systematic literature review of the BSC literature in OM journals. From the final sample of 40 articles, performance drivers and outcome measures have been identified, and the relationships amongst them have been synthesised according to the system dynamics approach.

Findings show (1) the most relevant performance drivers and outcome measures within each BSC perspective, (2) their relationships, (3) how the perspectives are linked through the performance drivers and outcome measures and (4) how the different measures relate systemically. Accordingly, four causal loops amongst identified measures have been built, which – jointly considered – allowed for the creation of a dynamic strategy map for OM.

This study is the first one that provides a comprehensive and holistic view of how the different performance drivers and outcome measures within and between the four BSC perspectives in OM relate systemically, increasing the knowledge and understanding of scholars and practitioners.

This study seeks to develop an Environmental Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (ESBSC) articulated through a strategic map for collaborative implementation by municipalities by municipalities. In addition, it aims to elucidate the architecture of this tool.

The research uses qualitative methodology, initiating with document analysis, followed by municipal-level surveys and an interview with the Norte Portugal Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDR-N).

The study constructs an ESBSC that adopts an integrative approach to sustainability, focusing on municipal joint action. The tool fosters synergies and enhances cooperation. By incorporating a strategic mix, the tool contributes to improving the environmental management performance of the participating municipalities.

This study introduces a tool designed for municipalities that aspire to incorporate environmental sustainability into their strategies. This tool facilitates the implementation and management of a long-term environmental strategy, with potential implications for organization and its culture. In addition, it highlights critical environmental factors that should serve as a starting point in future studies or applications of this tool.

Involving both an academic institution and multiple municipalities, this research identifies critical environmental factors that enhance environmental awareness within municipalities and designs a tool that, when consciously adopted, can influence the culture dynamics of the population involved. Furthermore, it proposes a structured and systematic research method for creating an ESBSC for joint municipal action.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this research constitutes the first exploratory attempt to devise an environmental strategy for joint municipal action. Although the tool emphasizes the environmental component, it promotes an integrated vision of sustainability. Despite the extensive application of balanced scorecards in various organizational contexts, their utilization in fostering environmental sustainability at a municipal level remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by developing a tailored strategic tool that operationalizes environmental priorities within municipal governance frameworks.

This study examines the direct and indirect effects of organizational environmental orientation (EO)/culture, quality management practices (QMP) and sustainability experience (SE) on the relationship between organizational green practices (GP) and the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability performance (SuP).

To test the seven hypotheses, a structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The responses of 365 managers from various USA businesses in the service industries were analyzed using IBM SPSS and structural equation modeling (SEM)-AMOS.

The empirical results indicate that positive SuP in the economic, environmental and social dimensions and organizational GP can be improved by a strong culture of EO, effective QMP and substantial SE.

This research fills the gap in existing research between important organizational and environmental priorities and SuP. Consequently, the study provides managers with important strategic guidance: for environmental practices to achieve profitability and sustainability success, companies must promote an environmental-mindful culture and strategically invest in integrated QM systems.

This research is one of the first that explores how organizational environmental culture and QMP affect directly and indirectly the relationship between GP and SuP. These results provide empirical evidence to support the claim that environmental culture and QMP have significant direct and indirect effects on the relationship between GP and SuP dimensions.

The instrumental-normative divide that has historically characterized approaches to societal sustainability has also resulted in a rift between underlying mental models and methods destined to address the issue. This separation makes our understanding and tackling of the present global ecological problems only limited and ineffective. The present work aims to draw on theoretical background to develop a conceptual framework for transitioning to integrated corporate sustainability.

Drawing inspiration from Luhmann’s (1995) theory of social systems, we consider the instrumental (hard) and normative (soft) methods (Jackson 2019) for corporate sustainability as “conceptual systems” that derive much of traditional social systems’ attributes. These systems are autopoietic, complexity-reducing and functionally differentiated. Following Luhmann’s philosophical grounding, we suggest that integrating the two systems of hard and soft methods boils down to constraining both systems’ internal complexity by imposing limitations on their operational structures. This translates into a decodification–recodification process whereby new methods emerge as a combination of initially disconnected structures.

The proposed conceptual integration framework is applied to the case of the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) which has been recently subject to inconclusive controversy. Our work demonstrates that redesigning the SBSC’s architecture following the presented framework leads to embracing complexity, tensions and conflict all the while offering a systematic approach for properly identifying and quantifying cause–effect relationships. Moreover, the proposed framework scores high in Complexity and Systemicity measures, making it both durable and practically useful. More generally, this work drives home the point that an integrated approach to sustainability management is not only important but also feasible and theoretically durable.

Theoretically, the present work underscores the contribution of systems theory, and particularly the Luhmannian perspective, to transcending some of the most salient “divides” in approaches to societal sustainability. The decodification–recodification process not only enables integrating two distinct conceptual systems, but it also transforms the divide into an opportunity to gain a fresher perspective on one of the most challenging issues of our time. This process may demand, however, some adjustments as we move across various function systems, which requires solid knowledge and understanding of the underlying “codes” that define the systems subject to integration.

This work implies that integration of varied and sometimes outwardly opposed function systems can and must be carried out to achieve larger societal impact. With respect to the illustrated case, the emerging dynamic SBSC offers a viable strategic planning platform whereby managers and stakeholders can concurrently define, forecast and adjust the societal strategy that maximizes triple bottom-line indicators and sustainable development impact.

Providing decision and policymakers with integrated sustainability management approaches and instruments will have a direct benefit on enhancing the way systems, and large corporations in particular, treat and deal with nature and human beings.

We propose that proper integration of multiple function systems, employing integrative, unbiased and structured methodologies, can be decisive in challenging current practices in sustainability management and in providing informed guidance for making the high-stake decisions needed in the transition towards sustainable development of business and society.

This experimental study examined whether sustainability performance measures matter in managerial appraisal and bonus decisions. Participants received financial and non-financial information about four branch managers of a commercial bank, with different combinations of sustainability and financial performance. Participants perceived sustainability measures as being less important than financial ones; still, the experiment revealed that sustainability performance had some impact on appraisal and bonus decisions (albeit it mattered less than financial performance). Evaluators seemed to penalize inferior sustainability performance less than they penalized inferior financial performance. They also seemed to reward sustainability success less than financial success. These findings have practical implications for the implementation of sustainability measures in managerial evaluation systems. The experimental results indicated that incorporating these measures in evaluations does not necessarily mean they will have a sizable effect in decision-making. Results from a companion experiment suggested that organizations using a sustainability balanced scorecard for appraisal and bonus purposes might benefit from an increased emphasis on communication and evaluator training, with a focus on how sustainability performance impacts the attainment of strategic objectives.

The growing importance of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, as well as related performance planning, measuring and reporting, has spurred interest in linking corporate sustainability and performance management systems (PMSs). In this context, the aim of this paper is to provide companies with a framework for implementing the requirements of the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) through a sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC). The framework will further the integration of sustainability with corporate governance.

The framework was grounded in the relevant literature and the CSRD requirements.

This paper provides companies with a novel framework for implementing the requirements of the CSRD through a SBSC. The framework specifies four key steps (i.e. identifying material themes, initial assessment, strategic formulation and action, and sustainability reporting) to integrate sustainability with corporate governance.

The framework supports managers’ decision-making processes in linking sustainability with strategy and providing a basis for integrating sustainability with corporate governance in organizations. The paper provides a way to practically address the CSRD requirements.

This is the first study integrating the emerging CSRD requirements with corporate governance. The paper advances discussion and debate by management scholars on how a SBSC can be practically implemented, providing details on how this may be achieved.

This study explores how balanced scorecard format and reputation from environmental performances interact to influence performance evaluations.

Two general options exist for inserting environmental measures into a scorecard: embedded among the four traditional perspectives or grouped in a fifth perspective. Prior balanced scorecard research also assumes negative past environmental performances. In such settings, and when low management communication levels exist on the importance of environmental strategic objectives (a common practitioner scenario), environmental measures receive less decision weight when they are grouped in a fifth scorecard perspective. However, a positive environmental reputation would generate loss aversion concerns with reputation, leading to more decision weight given to environmental measures. Participants (N=138) evaluated performances with scorecards in an experimental design that manipulates scorecard format (four, five-perspectives) and past environmental performance operationalizing reputation (positive, negative).

The environmental reputation valence’s impact is more (less) pronounced when environmental measures are grouped (embedded) in a fifth perspective (among the four traditional perspectives), when the environmental feature of the measures is more (less) salient.

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.