Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Qualitative System Dynamics to Enhance the Performance Measurement of Sustainability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Business Performance Measurement and Management

Abstract

This paper aims to propose the adoption of qualitative system dynamics frameworks in order to improve the so called “second generation” performance measurement models with regards to the social and environmental dimensions of business performance. The said models address the issue of connecting financial and non financial indicators by using strategy or success maps. Some authors suggested the use of system dynamics approaches to improve them by taking into account the dynamic nature of performance and the transformation processes linking objectives and resources.

Based on a system thinking approach this paper specifically focuses on the performance measurement of sustainability, suggesting the adoption of qualitative system dynamic frameworks in order to better identify objectives and in support of a correct process of selection of indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Maksoud A, Dugdale D, Luther R (2005) Non-financial performance measures in manufacturing companies. Br Account Rev 37:261–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2004) Using causal mapping: individual and group; traditional and new. In: Pidd M (ed) Systems modeling: theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkermans H, van Oorshot K (2005) Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics. J Syst Dynam Soc 56:931–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1999) On organizational learning, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle KE, Carrol AB, Hatfield JDH (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad Manage J 28(2):446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R (ed) (1976) Structure of decisions: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol WJ (1970) Enlightened self-interest and corporate philanthropy. In: Baumol WJ (ed) A new rationale for corporate social policy. Committee for Economic Development, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blacconiere WG, Patten DM (1994) Environmental disclosures, regulatory costs and changes in firm value. J Account Econ 18:357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bougon MG (1992) Congregate causal maps: a unified dynamic theory of organization strategy. J Manag Stud 29:369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke L, Logsdon JM (1996) How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Plann 29(4):495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji A, Levine D (2006) Breaking down the wall of codes: evaluating non-financial performance measurement. Calif Manage Rev 48(2):29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corvellec H (2006) For a symmetrical understanding of organizing and arguing. Soc Bus Rev 1(3):248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragg PB (2005) The information systems content of the Baldrige and EFQM Models. Total Qual Manag Bus Excel 16(8/9):1001–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (1973) The case for and against business assumptions of social responsibility. Acad Manag J 16:312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JK, Ford DN (1998) Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. Syst Dynam Rev 14:3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick T (1999) Environment and competitiveness of companies. In: Hitchens DMWN, Clausen J, Fichter K (eds) International environmental management benchmarks. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) SODA - The principles. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis in a problematic world, revisited. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L, Malone MS (1997) Intellectual capital. The proven way to establish your company’s real value by measuring its hidden brainpower. Judy Piatkus Publishers, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein MJ, Roy MJ (2003) Improving sustainability performance: specifying, implementing and measuring key principles. J Gen Manag 29(1):15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein MJ, Roy MJ (2007) Implementing a corporate environmental strategy: establishing coordination and control within multinational companies. Bus Strat Environ 16(6):389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figge F, Hahn T, Shaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Environ 11:269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart SL (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):986–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellström T, Husted K (2005) Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic environments. A focus Group Study. J Intellect Cap 5:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner CD, Larcker DF (Fall 1998) Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research implications. J Manag Account Res 10:205–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner CD, Larcker DF, Meyer MW (2003) Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. Account Rev 78:725–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2000) Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harv Bus Rev 78:5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2006) Alignment. Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton D (2008) Mastering the management system. Harv Bus Rev 86(1):62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2004) Strategy maps. Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen RD, Whybark DC (1999) The impact of environmental technologies on. Manufacturing performance. Acad Manag J 42(6):599–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith K (1992) Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. J Manag Stud 29:349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant TK, Shapira Z (eds) (2001) Organizational cognition: computation and interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laukkanen M (1994) Comparative cause mapping of organizational cognitions. Organ Sci 5(3):322–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipe M, Salterio S (2000) The balanced scorecard: judgemental effects of common and unique performance measures. Account Rev 75:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2001) People and profits? the search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm Sci Q 48(2):268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr B, Schiuma G, Neely. A (2004) The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers. J Intellect Cap 5:2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen J, Larsen HT, Bukh PN (2005) Dealing whith the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard. J Intellect Cap 1:8–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan Vijay K (2005) Causal Mapping: an Historical Oveview. In: Narayanan VK, Armstrong DJ (ed) Causal mapping for research in information technology. Idea Group Publishing, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely A et al. (2003) Towards the third generation of performance measurement. Controlling 3/4(2):61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely A, Adams C, Kennerley M (2002) The performance prism. The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini D (1999) Comparing methods for mapping organizational cognition. Organ Stud 20:833–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nørreklit H (2000) The balance on the balanced scorecard. A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Manag Account Res 11(1):65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nørreklit H (2003) The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rethorical analysis of the Balanced Scorecard. Account Organ Soc 28(6):591–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olve NG, Roy J, Wetter M (1999) Performance drivers. a practical guide to using the balanced scorecard. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olve NG, Sjöstrand A (2002) The balanced scorecard. Capstone Publishing, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsato Renato J (2009) Sustainable strategies. When does it pay to be green?. Macmillan, Houndmills, Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman R (2006) Balanced scorecard and causal development: preliminary findings. Management Decision 44(5):690-702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi C, Hockerts KN (2008) Managerial mindsets and performance measurement of csr related intangibles. Measuring Bus Excell 12(2):51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini F, Tencati A (2006) Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus Strat Environ 15:296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad CK, Bettis RA (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strateg Manag J 7:485–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt FL (2000) Down to earth- applying business principles to environmental management. Harvard Business Press, Boston MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie-Dunham J “Informing Mental Models for Strategic Decision Making with ERPs and the Balanced Scorecard A Simulation – Based Experiment”. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos G, Roos J (1997) Measuring your company’s intellectual performance. Long Range Plann 30:413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saizarbitoria IH (2006) How total quality management models influence company results: conclusions from an empirical study based on the delphi method. Total Qual Manag 17(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S, Angelmar R (1993) Cognition in organizational analysis: who’s minding the store?. Organ Stud 14:352–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Boston Business School Press, Harvard, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoeneborn F “Linking balanced Scorecard to System Dynamics”. In Proceedings of the 2003 International System Dynamics Conference, New York, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1957) Models of man. In: Narayanan VK, Armstrong DJ (eds) Causal mapping for research in information technology. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman John D (2000) Business dynamics. System thinking and modelling for a complex world. MacGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers B, Covin J, Green Hall N, Smalt S. How nonfinancial performance measures are used. Management Accounting, February 1998;.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapinos E, Dyson RG (2007) Performance measurement. In: O’Brien F, Dyson RG (eds) Supporting strategy: frameworks, methods and models. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townley B, Cooper DJ, Oakes L (2003) Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organ Stud 2(7):1045–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aken EM (2005) Assessing maturity and effectiveness of enterprise performance measurement systems. Int J Prod Perform Manag 54(5–6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamic. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vo HV, Poole MS, Courtney JF (2005) An empirical comparison of collective causal mapping approaches. In: Narayanan VK, Armstrong DJ (eds) Causal mapping for research in information technology. Idea Group Publishing Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren KD (2007) Strategic management dynamics. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Bougon M (1986) Organizations as causal maps: charting ways to success and failure. In: Sims H, Gioia D (eds) The thinking organization. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • World business council of sustainable development (2002) The business case for sustainable development. WBCSD, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyman BG, Randel JM (1998) The relation of knowledge organization to performance of a complex cognitive task. Appl Cognit Psychol 12:251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yongvanich K, Guthrie J (2006) An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental accounting. Bus Strategy Environ 15(5):309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration and Social Studies Faculty of Economics, University of Siena, Piazza S. Francesco 8, 53100, Siena, Italy

    Cristiana Parisi

Authors
  1. Cristiana Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristiana Parisi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipto. Ingegneria Industriale, Università di Perugia, Via Duranti 67, Perugia, 06125, Italy

    Paolo Taticchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parisi, C. (2010). Using Qualitative System Dynamics to Enhance the Performance Measurement of Sustainability. In: Taticchi, P. (eds) Business Performance Measurement and Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04800-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation