Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 144, Issue 2, pp 323–342 | Cite as

A Heuristic Model for Establishing Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems

  • Jonathan Pryshlakivsky
  • Cory Searcy


A large body of the literature on sustainability indicators, assessments and reporting is currently available. However, sustainability performance measurement systems have an insubstantial presence in the literature. Invariably, a sustainability performance measurement system presents the potential for certain trade-offs or opportunity costs for organizations. Extant sustainability platforms and standards are largely silent about how to deal with trade-offs. Utilizing evidence from the literature, as well as contingency factors, this paper seeks to present a heuristic model for establishing trade-offs in corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Trade-offs in this area revolve around performance measurement, stakeholder management, competitive advantage, as well as the vertical and horizontal integration of the performance platform. This is particularly important for organizations seeking to establish, integrate or expand their environmental management systems into the area of sustainability. As yet, formalistic attempts to deal with trade-offs in sustainability performance measurement systems are infrequent and vague.


Strategy Sustainability Performance Measurement Metrics Trade-offs Contingency factors 


  1. Acquier, A. (2010). CSR in search of a management model: A case of marginalization of a CSR initiative. In N. C. Smith, C. B. Bhattacharya, D. Vogel, & D. I. Levine (Eds.), Global challenges in responsible business (pp. 107–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2002). Loosely coupled performance measurement systems. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: theory and practice (pp. 244–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albelda-Pérez, E. A., Ruiz, C. C., & Fenech, F. C. (2007). Environmental management systems as an embedding mechanism: A research note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(3), 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2004). The use of international R&D teams: An empirical investigation of selected contingency factors. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angus-Leppan, T., Benn, S., & Young, L. (2010). A sensemaking approach to trade-offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 230–244.Google Scholar
  7. Axelsson, R. (2002). Institutional developments in the russian system of social security: Organizational and interorganizational aspects. Social Policy and Administration, 36(2), 142–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Axelsson, R., & Axelsson, S. B. (2006). Integration and collaboration in public health—a conceptual framework. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 21(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baas, L. (2008). Industrial symbiosis in the Rotterdam Harbour and industrial complex: Reflections on the interconnection of the techno-sphere with the social system. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(5), 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrett, S. (1991). Environmental regulation for competitive advantage. Business Strategy Review, 2(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonacchi, M., & Rinaldi, L. (2007). Dartboards and clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(7), 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boons, F., & Wagner, M. (2009). Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1908–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(7), 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. BP. (2003). Sustainability review 2003. London: BP.Google Scholar
  19. BP. (2005). Sustainability review 2005. London: BP.Google Scholar
  20. BP. (2009). Sustainability review 2009. London: BP.Google Scholar
  21. BP. (2010). Sustainability review 2010. London: BP.Google Scholar
  22. Brown, H. S., DE Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. CBSNEWS. (2010). Blowout: The deepwater horizon disaster. Accessed 30 June 2014.
  26. Ceres. (2010). The 21st century corporation: The ceres roadmap for sustainability. Boston, MA: Ceres.Google Scholar
  27. Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98.Google Scholar
  28. Coleman, G. D. (2006). Strategic performance management. In Badiru, A. B. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and systems engineering, (pp. 12–1 to 12–22). Boca Raton, FL: Crc Press.Google Scholar
  29. Damanpour, F. (1996). Bureaucracy and innovation revisited: Effects of contingency factors, industrial sectors, and innovation characteristics. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Das, K. (2011). Technology transfer under the clean development mechanism: An empirical study of 1000 CDM projects. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  31. DE Vries, H. J., Bayramoglu, D. K., & van der Wiele, T. (2012). Business and environmental impact of ISO 14001. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 29(4), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dehning, B., & Stratopoulos, T. (2003). Determinants of sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Delmas, M., & Blass, V. D. (2010). Measuring corporate environmental performance: The trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Delquié, P. (1993). Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science, 39(11), 1382–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Delquié, P. (1997). ”Bi-matching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Science, 43(5), 640–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dick, G. P. M., Heras, I., & Casadesús, M. (2008). Shedding light on causation between ISO 9001 and improved business performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(7), 687–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2005). Managing and controlling environmental performance: Evidence from Mexico. Advances in Management Accounting, 14, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ferreira, F. A. (2013). Measuring trade-offs among criteria in a balanced scorecard framework: Possible contributions from the multiple criteria decision analysis research field. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(3), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard—linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(23), 5330–5339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  46. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122–126.Google Scholar
  47. Gasperados, A., El-Harem, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(4–5), 286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gasperados, A., El-Harem, M., & Horner, M. (2009). The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gasperados, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics, 80, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gates, S., & Germain, C. (2010). Integrating sustainability measures into strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical study. Management Accounting Quarterly, 11(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  51. GEMI. (2007). The metrics navigator. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative.Google Scholar
  52. Genaidy, A. M., Sequeira, R., Tolaymat, T., Kohler, J., Wallace, S., & Andrinder, M. (2010). Integrating science and business models of sustainability for environmentally-challenging industries such as secondary lead smelters: A systematic review and analysis of findings. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(9), 1872–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. González-Benito, J., Lannelongue, G., & Queiruga, D. (2011). Stakeholders and environmental management systems: A synergistic influence on environmental imbalance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(14), 1622–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gosden, E. (2013). BP warns gulf spill costs will exceed $42.4bn as compensation costs rise. The telegraph. Accessed 30/6/2014 from
  56. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisation and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. GRI. (2013). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines: Implementation manual. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
  58. Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hall, R. W. (2010). Compression: Meeting the challenges of sustainability through vigorous learning enterprises. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  62. Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Dick, G. P. M. (2011). ISO 14001 certification and financial performance: Selection-effect versus treatment-effect. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. IAS. (2012). IAS 38—intangible assets. London: International Accounting Standards Board.Google Scholar
  69. ICC. (2000). The business charter for sustainable development: Principles for environmental management. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
  70. Ifinedo, P., & Nahar, N. (2009). Interactions between contingency, organizational it factors, and ERP success. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(1), 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. ISO. (1999). ISO 14031: Environmental management—environmental performance evaluation— guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  72. ISO. (2010). ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  73. ISO. (2013). Guide for addressing sustainability in standards. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  74. Jasch, C. (2009). Environmental and material flow cost accounting: Principles and procedures. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Kandampully, J. (2002). Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: The role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kanji, G. K. (2002). Performance measurement system. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134–147.Google Scholar
  78. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  79. Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2010). Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14(6), 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Karnani, A. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”: The grand illusion. California Management Review, 53(2), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kazanjian, R. K., & Drazin, R. (1987). Implementing internal diversification: Contingency factors for organization design choices. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 342–354.Google Scholar
  83. Keeney, R. L. (2002). Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research, 50(6), 935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kemp, D., Owen, J. R., & van de Graaff, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, mining and “audit culture”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1222–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2003). Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Loorbach, D., & Wijsman, K. (2013). Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Loureiro, S. M. C., Sardinha, I. M. D., & Reijnders, L. (2012). The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: The case of the automobile industry sector in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lozano, R. (2012). Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: An analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25(complete), 14–26.Google Scholar
  90. Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2–3), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Macalister, T. (2013). BP hit by new $34bn deepwater horizon claim. The Guardian. Accessed 30/6/2014 from
  92. Marginson, D., & Mcaulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Margonelli, L. (2010). Obama’s BP oil spill commission gets it wrong. The Atlantic. Accessed 6/30/2014 from
  95. Marimon, F., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., del Pilar Rodríguez, M., & Alejandro, K. A. C. (2012). The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Mayer, A. L. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International, 34(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mckeen, J. D., Guimaraes, T., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1994). The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: And investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mcwilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mohamed, R., Hui, W. S., Kamal, I., Rahman, A., & Aziz, R. A. (2007). Strategic performance measurement system and organisation competitive advantage. In R. Maelah (Ed.), Sustaining competitiveness in a liberalized economy: The role of accounting (pp. 94–116). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  100. Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Morris, J., & Pell, M. B. (2010). Renegade refiner: OSHA says BP has “systemic safety problem”. Accessed 30 June 2014.
  102. Murovec, N., Erker, R. S., & Prodan, I. (2012). Determinants of environmental investments: Testing the structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37(complete), 265–277.Google Scholar
  103. Nawrocka, D., & Parker, T. (2009). Finding the connection: Environmental management systems and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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 and Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring business success. Harlow: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  107. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2006). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring business success. Harlow: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  108. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Neely, A., Kennerley, M., & Adams, C. (2007). Performance measurement frameworks: A review. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Unifying theory and integrating practice (pp. 143–162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M., & Kennerley, M. (2000). Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(10), 1119–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Nehrt, C. (1996). Timing and intensity of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Nilsson, F., & Rapp, B. (2005). Understanding competitive advantage: The importance of strategic congruence and integrated control. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  114. OECD. (2008). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation And Development.Google Scholar
  115. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Padmanabhan, M., & Beckmann, V. (2009). Institutions and sustainability: Introduction and overview. In V. Beckmann & M. Padmanabhan (Eds.), Institutions and sustainability: Political economy of agriculture and the environment—essays in honour of Konrad Hagedorn (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  117. Parker, L. D. (2000). Environmental costing: A path to implementation. Australian Accounting Review, 10(3), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: The need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio stamp: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. POJASEK, R. B. (2011). ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility. Environmental Quality Management, 20(3), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  124. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  125. Porter, M. E. (1996, November–December). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 61–78.Google Scholar
  126. Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  128. Pueyo, A., García, R., Mendiluce, M., & Morales, D. (2011). The role of technology transfer for the development of a local wind company industry in Chile. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4274–4283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Reuters. (2014). BP PLC (BP.L). Accessed 30/6/2014 from
  130. Schneider, M., Holzer, A., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2008). Understanding the CDM’s contribution to technology transfer. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2930–2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. SFI. (2010). Requirements for the SFI 2010–2014 program. Washington, DC: Sustainable Forestry Initiative.Google Scholar
  133. Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy Of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.Google Scholar
  135. Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organization theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kournousis, F. (2010). Assessing non-financial reports according to the global reporting initiative guidelines: Evidence from greece. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2009, August). Short on time: The role of time in business sustainability. Chicago, IL: Academy of Management Proceedings.Google Scholar
  139. Stapleton, L. M., & Garrod, G. D. (2008). Policy preceding possibility? Examining headline composite sustainability indicators in the United Kingdom. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Starke, F., Eunni, R. V., Fouto, N. M. M. D., & de Angelo, C. F. (2012). impact of ISO 9000 certification on firm performance: Evidence from Brazil. Management Research Review, 35(10), 974–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Sullivan, R. (2011). Valuing corporate responsibility: How do investors really use corporate responsibility information. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  142. Sullivan, P. H., & Sullivan, P. H. (2000). Valuing intangibles companies: An intellectual capital approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Tietenberg, T. (1998). Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environmental & Resource Economics, 11(3–4), 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 175–190). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  146. Toman, M. A. (1994). Economics and “sustainability”: Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics, 70(4), 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Tonchia, S., & Quagini, L. (2010). Performance measurement: Linking balanced scorecard to business intelligence. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. U.S. Chemical Safety, Hazard Investigation Board. (2014). Explosion and fire at the Macondo well: Investigation report (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Chemical Safety Board.Google Scholar
  149. Valdini, E., & Arbore, A. (2013). Competitive strategies: Managing the present, imagining the future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.Google Scholar
  152. Warhurst, A. (2005). Future roles of business in society: The expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, 37(2/3), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. WBCSD. (n.d.). Eco-efficiency: Learning module. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  154. Wicks, A. C. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration of business and society research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Winn, M., Pinske, J., & Illge, L. (2012). Case studies on trade-offs in corporate sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(2), 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Yadav, N., Sushil, S., & Sagar, M. (2013). Performance measurement and management frameworks: Research trends of the last two decades. Business Process Management Journal, 19(6), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Youngblood, A. D., & Collins, T. R. (2003). Addressing balanced scorecard trade-off issues between performance metrics using multi-attribute utility theory. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Applied Science and ManagementRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations