Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 133, Issue 2, pp 193–221 | Cite as

The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures

  • Erik G. Hansen
  • Stefan Schaltegger
Article

Abstract

The increasing strategic importance of environmental, social and ethical issues as well as related performance measures has spurred interest in corporate sustainability performance measurement and management systems. This paper focuses on the balanced scorecard (BSC), a performance measurement and management system aiming at balancing financial and non-financial as well as short and long-term measures. Modifications to the original BSC which explicitly consider environmental, social or ethical issues are often referred to as sustainability balanced scorecards (SBSCs). There is much scholarly discussion about SBSC architecture and how it can be designed to relate performance dimensions, strategic objectives and the logical links among these elements. To synthesise the widely scattered research findings and publications on the SBSC, we conducted a thematic analysis based on a systematic literature review containing 69 relevant articles spanning a period of two decades. We found that sustainability-oriented modifications of the BSC architecture are motivated by instrumental, social/political or normative theoretical perspectives. Moreover, these modifications can be mapped with a typology of generic SBSC architectures. The first dimension of the typology describes the hierarchy between performance perspectives and strategic objectives and how it is related to the organisational value system. The second dimension describes how sustainability-related strategic objectives are integrated into SBSC performance perspectives and how this is related to corporate sustainability strategy. This study contributes to the development of the emerging SBSC literature and practice and, more generally, to research on corporate sustainability performance measurement and management. We conclude with a research agenda and implications for management.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Corporate sustainability Performance management and measurement Balanced scorecard Strategy maps Systematic literature review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful for the valuable comments by four anonymous reviewers. Furthermore, we would like to thank various discussants and two reviewers of the paper at the British Academy of Management Conference 2013 (session on performance management). Further, we appreciate the intense discussions with Professor Sven Modell and Roger Burritt on an earlier version of the paper.

References

Publications included in the sample of the systematic review marked with an asterisk (*)

  1. Abdel-Kader, M. G., Moufty, S., & Laitinenm Erkki, K. (2011). Balanced scorecard development: a review of literature and directions for future research. In M. G. Abdel-Kader (Ed.), Review of management accounting research (pp. 214–239). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, H. (2001). Applying the balanced scorecard concept: an experience report. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. * Anand, M., Sahay, B. S., & Saha, S. (2005). Balanced Scorecard in Indian Companies, The Journal for Decision Makers, 30(2), 11–25.Google Scholar
  5. Aragón-Correa, A. J. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aragón-Correa, A. J., & Rubio-López, E. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aragón-Correa, A. J., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., & García-Morales, V. J. (2008). Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. * Avlonas, N., & Swannick, J. (2009). Developing business excellence while delivering responsible competitiveness: The case of Lloyds TSB. In J. Jonker & J. Eskildsen (Eds.), Management Models for the Future (pp. 171–184). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Azzone, G., & Bertelè, U. (1994). Exploiting green strategies for competitive advantage. Long Range Planning, 27(6), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., et al. (2007). State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical EngineersPart BJournal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543–1552.Google Scholar
  11. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bedford, D., Brown, D. A., Malmi, T., & Sivabalan, P. (2008). Balanced scorecard design and performance impacts: some australian evidence. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 17–36.Google Scholar
  14. * Bieker, T., Dyllick, T., Gminder, C. U., & Hockerts, K. (2001). Towards a sustainability balanced scorecard: linking environmental and social sustainability to business strategy. In Conference proceedings of business strategy and the environment 2001 in Leeds (pp. 22–31).Google Scholar
  15. * Bieker, T., & Waxenberger, B. (2002). Sustainability balanced scorecard and business ethics: Developing a balanced scorecard for integrity management. In Working paper, 11th conference of the ‘Greening of Industry Network’, 1 June 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyd, B., Henning, N., Reyna, E., Wang, D. E., & Welch, M. D. (2009). Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  18. * Brignall, S. (2002). The unbalanced scorecard: a social and environmental critique. In Neely, A., Walters, A., & Austin, R. (eds), PMA conference proceedingsperformance measurement and management 2002: Research and action: cranfield school of management (pp. 85–92). Boston, MA: Performance Management Association (PMA).Google Scholar
  19. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. * Butler, J. B., Henderson, S. C., & Raiborn, C. (2011). Sustainability and the balanced scorecard: Integrating green measures into business reporting. Management Accounting Quarterly, 12(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.Google Scholar
  23. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. * Chalmeta, R., & Palomero, S. (2011). Methodological proposal for business sustainability management by means of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(7), 1344–1356.Google Scholar
  25. Chapman, C. S. (1997). Reflections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Custom power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  29. * Claver-Cortés, E., López-Gamero, M. D., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. D. C. (2007). Intellectual and environmental capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(1), 171–182.Google Scholar
  30. * Crawford, D., & Todd, S. (2005). The Balanced Scorecard and Corporate Social Responsibility: Aligning Values for profit. CMA Management, 79(6), 20–27.Google Scholar
  31. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cummings, S., & Daellenbach, U. (2009). A guide to the future of strategy? The history of long range planning. Long Range Planning, 42(2), 234–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Geuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the balanced scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. * Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2002). From environmental performance evaluation to eco-efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards. Environmental Quality Management, 12(2), 51–64.Google Scholar
  35. * Dias-Sardinha, I., & Reijnders, L. (2005). Evaluating Environmental and Social Performance of Large Portuguese Companies: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 73–91.Google Scholar
  36. * Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2007). Developing sustainability balanced scorecards for environmental services: A study of three large Portuguese companies. Environmental Quality Management, 16(4), 13–34.Google Scholar
  37. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  39. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Eccles, R. G., Grant, R., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2006). Reputation and transparency: Lessons from a painful period in public disclosure. Long Range Planning, 39(4), 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (1998). Managing corporate environmental performance: A multinational perspective. European Management Journal, 16(3), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2001). Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. * Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001a). Using a Balanced Scorecard to Implement Sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. * Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001b). Good Neighbors: Implementing Social and Environmental Strategies with the BSC. Balanced Scorecard Report. 3(3). Reprint Number B0105C, Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  46. * Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2004). How Does Your Board Rate? Strategic Finance, 85(8), 25–31.Google Scholar
  47. European Commission. (2003). Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Official Journal of the European Union, 124, 36–41.Google Scholar
  48. * Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2001). the sustainability balanced scorecard—A tool for value-oriented sustainability management in strategy focused organisations. In Conference proceedings of the 2001 eco-management and auditing conference. ERP environment: Shipley (pp. 83–90).Google Scholar
  49. * Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002a). The sustainability balanced scorecard—Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.Google Scholar
  50. * Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002b). The sustainability balanced scorecardTheory and application of a tool for value-based sustainability management. In Paper presented at the greening of industry network conference 2002, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  51. Fink, A. (2009). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  53. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. * Gardiner, C. (2002). Balanced scorecard ethics. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 21(3/4), 129–151.Google Scholar
  55. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.Google Scholar
  56. Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471–482.Google Scholar
  57. * Gminder, C. U., & Bieker, T. (2002). Managing corporate social responsibility by using the “sustainability-balanced scorecard”. In Contribution to the 10th international conference of the greening of industry network, June 2002, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  58. Gold, S., Seuring, S. A., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 230–245. doi: 10.1002/csr.207.Google Scholar
  59. Gond, J.-P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2012). Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Grant, R., & Visconti, M. (2006). The strategic background to corporate accounting scandals. Long Range Planning, 39(4), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hansen, E.G. (2010). Responsible leadership systems: an empirical analysis of integrating corporate responsibility into leadership systems. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.Google Scholar
  64. Hansen, E.G., & Schaltegger, S. (2012). Pursuing sustainability with the balanced scorecard: between shareholder value and multiple goal optimisation. working paper. Lüneburg, Germany: centre for sustainability management (CSM), Leuphana University of Lüneburg.Google Scholar
  65. * Hansen, E. G., Sextl, M., & Reichwald, R. (2009). Integrating strategy and corporate community involvement in a balanced scorecard: results from action research at Merck Thailand Ltd. In Paper presented at 9th EURAM conference, 11–14 May 2009, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  66. * Hansen, E. G., Sextl, M., & Reichwald, R. (2010). Managing stakeholder collaboration through a community-enabled balanced scorecard: The case of Merck Ltd, Thailand. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(6), 387–399.Google Scholar
  67. * Hansen, E. G., & Spitzeck, H. (2011). Measuring the impacts of NGO partnerships: the corporate and societal benefits of community involvement. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 11(4), 415–426.Google Scholar
  68. * Hardjono, T. W., & de Klein, P. (2004). Introduction on the European Corporate Sustainability Framework (ECSF). Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 99–113.Google Scholar
  69. Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids. Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. * Hsu, Y.-L., & Liu, C.-C. (2010). Environmental performance evaluation and strategy management using balanced scorecard. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 170(1–4), 599–607, doi:  10.1007/s10661-009-1260-7.
  71. * Hsu, C-W; Hu, A. H.; Chiou, C.-Y.; Chen, T-C (2011). Using the FDM and ANP to construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12891–12899.Google Scholar
  72. * Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 177–191.Google Scholar
  73. Jakobsen, M., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2011). Constructing performance measurement packages. In M. G. Abdel-Kader (Ed.), Review of management accounting research (pp. 194–213). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  74. * Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231, doi:  10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4.
  75. * James, P. (1994). Business environmental performance measurement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 3, 59–67.Google Scholar
  76. * Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management, 7(3), 297–317.Google Scholar
  77. * Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.Google Scholar
  78. * Johnson, S. D. (1998). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators: Application of the balanced scorecard approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(4), 34–41.Google Scholar
  79. * Joseph, G. (2008). A rationale for stakeholder-based management in developing nations. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 4(2), 136–161.Google Scholar
  80. * Kaplan, R. S. (2012). The balanced scorecard: Comments on balanced scorecard commentaries. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 8(4), 539–545.Google Scholar
  81. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71–79.Google Scholar
  82. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  83. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001a). Balance without profit. Financial Management, 1, 23–26.Google Scholar
  84. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001b). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  85. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001c). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
  86. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  87. Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kolk, A., & Mauser, A. (2002). The evolution of environmental management: From stage models to performance evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(1), 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. * Länsiluoto, A., & Järvenpää, M. (2008). Environmental and performance management forces: Integrating “greenness” into balanced scorecard. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 5(3), 184–206.Google Scholar
  90. * Länsiluoto, A., & Järvenpää, M. (2010). Greening the balanced scorecard. Business Horizons, 53(4), 385–395.Google Scholar
  91. * Länsiluoto, A., & Järvenpää, M. (2012). Integrating greenness into a balanced scorecard in a food processing company. The TQM Journal, 24(5), 388–398.Google Scholar
  92. Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A review of theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutonary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. * León-Soriano, R., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., & Chalmeta-Rosaleñ, R. (2010). Methodology for sustainability strategic planning and management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(2), 249–268.Google Scholar
  94. Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Schoenmakers, W. (2008). Exploration and exploitation in innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(2), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. * Lueg, R., & Carvalho e Silva, A. L. (2013). When one size does not fit all: a literature review on the modifications of the balanced scorecard. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11(3), 86–94.Google Scholar
  97. Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., & Reilly, R. R. (2003). Beyond the balanced scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Mohamed, S. (2003). Adaptation of the balanced scorecard to measure organizational safety culture. Journal of Construction Research, 4(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. * Morsing, M., & Oswald, D. (2008). Novo Nordisk A/S: Integrating Sustainability into Business Practice. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 5, 193–222.Google Scholar
  102. * Morsing, M., & Oswald, D. (2009). Sustainable leadership: Management control systems and organizational culture in Novo Nordisk A/S. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 9(1), 83–99, doi:  10.1108/14720700910936083.
  103. * Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.Google Scholar
  104. Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism, the scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: FT Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  106. Neely, A., Marr, B., Roos, G., Pike, S., & Gupta, O. (2003). Towards the Third Generation of Performance Measurement. Controlling, 3(4), 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. * Nikolaou, I. E., & Tsalis, T. A. (2013). Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. Ecological Indicators, 34, 76–86, doi:  10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.005.
  108. Nørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Oshika, T., Oka, S., & Saka, C. (2013). Connecting the environmental activities of firms with the return on carbon (ROC): mapping and empirically testing a carbon sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC). The Journal of Management Accounting, Japan, Supplement 2, 81–97.Google Scholar
  110. * Panayiotou, N. A., Aravossis, K. G., & Moschou, P. (2009). A new methodology approach for measuring corporate social responsibility performance. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 9(1–2), 129–138, doi:  10.1007/s11267-008-9204-8.
  111. * Parisi, C. (2010). Using qualitative system dynamics to enhance the performance measurement of sustainability. In P. Taticchi (Ed.), Business performance measurement and management: new contexts, themes and challenges. Heidelberg: Springer, 115–130.Google Scholar
  112. * Parisi, C., & Hockerts, K. N. (2008). Managerial mindsets and performance measurement systems of CSR-related intangibles. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2), 51–67.Google Scholar
  113. Parker, C. M., Redmond, J., & Simpson, M. (2009). A review of interventions to encourage SMEs to make environmental improvements. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(2), 279–301. doi: 10.1068/c0859b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Penna, C. C., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Multi-dimensional struggles in the greening of industry: A dialectic issue lifecycle model and case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 999–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6(3–4), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. * Radcliffe, M. J. (1999). Using the balanced scorecard to develop metrics for sustainable development. In Paper presented at eighth international conference of greening of industry network, 14-17 November 1999, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  118. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. * Rohm, H., & Montgomery, D. (2011). Link sustainability to corporate strategy using the balanced scorecard. Cary, NC: Balanced Scorecard Institute. Accessed March 10, 2014, from http://balancedscorecard.org/Portals/0/PDF/LinkingSustainabilitytoCorporateStrategyUsingtheBalancedScorecard.pdf.
  121. Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Scavone, G. M. (2006). Challenges in internal environmental management reporting in Argentina. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(14), 1276–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. * Schaltegger, S. (2011). Sustainability as a driver for corporate economic success. consequences for the development of sustainability management control. Society and Economy, 33(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  124. Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2005). Corporate Sustainability. In H. Folmer & T. Tietenberg (Eds.), The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2005/2006: A Survey of Current Issues (pp. 185–222). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  125. * Schaltegger, S., & Dyllick, T. (Eds.) (2002). Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard: Konzept und Fallstudien. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  126. * Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006a). Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 3(3), 1–19.Google Scholar
  127. * Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006b). Managing sustainability performance measurement and reporting in an integrated manner. Sustainability accounting as the link between the sustainability balanced scorecard and sustainability reporting. In S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. L. Burritt (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting (pp. 681–697). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  128. * Schneider, R., & Vieira, R. (2010). Insights from action research: Implementing the balanced scorecard at a wind-farm company. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(5), 493–507.Google Scholar
  129. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Seuring, S. A., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Long term success dimensions in technology-based organizations. In Gaynor, G.H. (ed), Handbook of technology management (pp. 32.1–32.15). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  134. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.Google Scholar
  135. * SIGMA (2003). The SIGMA guidelines toolkit: Sustainability scorecard. Accessed June 21, 2013, from http://www.projectsigma.co.uk.
  136. * Simmons, J. (2008). Employee significance within stakeholder-accountable performance management systems. The TQM Journal, 20(5), 463–475.Google Scholar
  137. Simons, R. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Somers, A. B. (2005). Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of Balanced Scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. * Spiller, R. (2000). Ethical business and investment: A model for business and society. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 149–160.Google Scholar
  141. * Sundin, H., Granlund, M., & Brown, D. A. (2010). Balancing multiple competing objectives with a balanced scorecard. European Accounting Review, 19(2), 203–246.Google Scholar
  142. Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. * Tsalis, T. A., Nikolaou, I. E., Grigoroudis, E., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2013). A framework development to evaluate the needs of SMEs in order to adopt a sustainability-balanced scorecard. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 10(3–4), 179–197. doi:  10.1080/1943815X.2013.858751.
  145. * Tsamenyi, M., Onumah, J., & Tetteh-Kumah, E. (2010). Post-privatization performance and organizational changes: Case studies from Ghana. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(5), 428–442. doi:  10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.002.
  146. * Tseng, M.-L., Lan, L. W., Wang, R., Chiu, A., & Cheng, H.-P. (2011). Using hybrid method to evaluate the green performance in uncertainty. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 175(1–4), 367–385, doi:  10.1007/s10661-010-1537-x.
  147. Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics: Foundations of a civilized market economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. * van Marrewijk, M. (2004). A value based approach to organization types: Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 147–158.Google Scholar
  151. van Veen Dirks, P., & Wijn, M. (2002). Strategic control: meshing critical success factors with the balanced scorecard. Long Range Planning, 35(4), 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. van den Brink, T. W. M., & van der Woerd, F. (2004). Industry specific sustainability benchmarks: An ECSF pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social responsible investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. * van der Woerd, F., & van den Brink, T. W. M. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard—A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 173–186.Google Scholar
  154. * Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Eckhoff, R. A. (2006). The tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 43–60.Google Scholar
  155. * Wagner, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2006). Mapping the links of corporate sustainability: sustainability balanced scorecards as a tool for sustainability performance measurement and management. In Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (eds), Managing the business case for sustainability: The integration of social, environmental and economic performance (pp. 108–123). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  156. * Wagner, M. (2007). Integration of environmental management with other managerial functions of the firm: Empirical effects on drivers of economic performance. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 611–628.Google Scholar
  157. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”. General Assembly document A/42/427.Google Scholar
  158. Wehmeier, S. (2006). Dancers in the dark: The myth of rationality in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  160. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Wicks, A., & Freeman, E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  163. * Yongvanich, K., & Guthrie, J. (2006). An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental accounting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 309–321.Google Scholar
  164. York, J. (2009). Pragmatic sustainability: Translating environmental ethics into competitive advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. * Zingales, F. (2010). Integrating environment issues in top management decision making, PhD thesis, Leuphana University Lüneburg.Google Scholar
  166. * Zingales, F., O’Rourke, A., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Balanced scorecard and sustainability: State of the art review (2002/65/CMER). Paris: INSEAD.Google Scholar
  167. * Zingales, F., & Hockerts, K. (2003). Balanced scorecard and sustainability: examples from literature and practice. The Centre for the Management of Environmental Resources (CMER) Working Papers No. 2003/30/CMER. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.Google Scholar
  168. Zu, X., Zhou, H., Zhu, X., & Yao, D. (2011). Quality management in China: The effects of firm characteristics and cultural profile. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 28(8), 800–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovation Incubator and Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM)Leuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM)Leuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations