IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15979-d988972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

BSC’s Perspectives Ranking towards Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study Performed with Portuguese Exporters

Author

Listed:
  • Cidália Oliveira

    (Department of Management, University of Minho, 4704-553 Braga, Portugal
    Research Center REMIT-Research on Economics Management and Information Technologies, Department of Economy and Management, Universidade Portucalense, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal)

  • Margarida Rodrigues

    (Instituto Europeu de Estudos Superiores, Department of Management, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal
    CIDI—Centro de Investigação Desenvolvimento e Inovação, R. Universitária 200, 4820-509 Medelo, Portugal
    CEFAGE-UBI Research Center, Department of Management and Economics, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal)

  • Rui Silva

    (CETRAD Research Center, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro—UTAD, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
    NECE-UBI (Research Center in Business Sciences), Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal)

  • Galvão Meirinhos

    (LABCOM-IFP, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro—UTAD, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal)

  • Mário Franco

    (CEFAGE-UBI Research Center, Department of Management and Economics, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal)

Abstract

Bearing the growing competition between organisations in mind, managers are focused on keeping on with the search for strategic alignment and performance monitoring. The literature has shed much light into the field of Management but a guide to monitor the defined strategy via Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is still lacking. Few studies have made their focus the question of which perspectives are the most relevant; it is therefore likely that there are different importance rankings between organisations with and without BSC. Highlighting the need to bring insight into this research field concerning the organizational performance measurement of the BSC, quantitative research was performed, to analyse the different rankings of the four perspectives, comparing organisations with and without BSC. The sample was composed of 107 out of the 250 major export organisations of Portugal. The outcomes confirm that the most relevant perspective is indeed the financial perspective, followed by the customer perspective, a finding unanimous in both types of organization (with and without BSC). For organizations without BSC, in third place stands the internal perspective, but, contrastingly, it comes after learning and growth perspective for organisations with BSC. The perspective of learning and growth differs in its rankings between organisations with and without BSC, as it shows up at third position for organizations with BSC, and at the fourth (last) position in organizations without BSC. This research has relevant outcomes for both managers and academia, as it is still a fertile ground, as it guides managers to identify the importance assigned by major exporters to different perspectives, in order to link its indicators. Despite having different levels of importance assigned to the third and fourth perspective, BSC is known and regarded as a meaningful management tool, even by managers who do not have BSC implemented. It conceivably still has growing possibilities in several activity areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Cidália Oliveira & Margarida Rodrigues & Rui Silva & Galvão Meirinhos & Mário Franco, 2022. "BSC’s Perspectives Ranking towards Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study Performed with Portuguese Exporters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15979-:d:988972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dincer, Hasan & Yuksel, Serhat, 2019. "Balanced scorecard-based analysis of investment decisions for the renewable energy alternatives: A comparative analysis based on the hybrid fuzzy decision-making approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 1259-1270.
    2. Ionel Bostan & Aliona Bîrcă & Neculai Tabără & Ligia Muntean Jemna, 2019. "Analysis of the Relationships Between Sustainable Management Control and Performance Appraisal System," Postmodern Openings, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 08-28, December.
    3. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    4. Robert S. Kaplan, 2010. "Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-074, Harvard Business School.
    5. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F. & Randall, Taylor, 2003. "Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 715-741.
    6. Véronique Malleret & Annick Bourguignon & Hanne Norreklit, 2004. "The American balanced scorecard versus the French tableau de bord : the ideological dimension," Post-Print hal-00486648, HAL.
    7. Mooraj, Stella & Oyon, Daniel & Hostettler, Didier, 1999. "The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 481-491, October.
    8. Ricardo Malagueño & Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras & Jacobo Gomez-Conde, 2018. "Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 221-244, June.
    9. Margarida Rodrigues & Mário Franco, 2019. "The Corporate Sustainability Strategy in Organisations: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Hartmann, Frank & Slapnicar, Sergeja, 2009. "How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 722-737, August.
    11. Wong-On-Wing, Bernard & Guo, Lan & Li, Wei & Yang, Dan, 2007. "Reducing conflict in balanced scorecard evaluations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 363-377.
    12. Rui Silva & Cidália Oliveira, 2020. "The Influence of Innovation in Tangible and Intangible Resource Allocation: A Qualitative Multi Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2016. "The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 193-221, January.
    14. Chenhall, Robert H., 2005. "Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 395-422, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. So-Hyun Park & Changhoon Jung, 2024. "The Impact of Informatization Leadership of CEOs and Executives in SMEs on Business Performance: A Balanced Scorecard Perspective for Sustainable Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. LIN, Zhijun & YU, Zengbiao & ZHANG, Liqun, 2014. "Performance outcomes of balanced scorecard application in hospital administration in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Jazayeri, Mostafa & Scapens, Robert W., 2008. "The Business Values Scorecard within BAE Systems: The evolution of a performance measurement system," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 48-70.
    3. Dimes, Ruth & de Villiers, Charl, 2024. "Hallmarks of Integrated Thinking," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(1).
    4. Mandy M. Cheng & Peter F. Luckett & Habib Mahama, 2007. "Effect of perceived conflict among multiple performance goals and goal difficulty on task performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(2), pages 221-242, June.
    5. Iryna Alves & Sofia M. Lourenço, 2022. "The use of non-financial performance measures for managerial compensation: evidence from SMEs," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 151-187, June.
    6. Paul Andon & Jane Baxter & Habib Mahama, 2005. "The Balanced Scorecard: Slogans, Seduction, and State of Play," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 15(35), pages 29-38, March.
    7. Francesca Francioli, 2018. "Strategic performance management systems in Italian banks. A research note," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(2), pages 155-178.
    8. Maria José Gomes & António Sousa & Jorge Novas & Ricardo Vinícius Dias Jordão, 2021. "Environmental Sustainability in Viticulture as a Balanced Scorecard Perspective of the Wine Industry: Evidence for the Portuguese Region of Alentejo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Wynder, Monte, 2010. "Chemico: Evaluating performance based on the Balanced Scorecard," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 221-236.
    10. Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 667-697, September.
    11. Thi Cam Tu Luong & Ann Jorissen & Ine Paeleman, 2019. "Performance Measurement for Sustainability: Does Firm Ownership Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-35, August.
    12. Hofmann, Thorsten, 2011. "Balanced Scorecard: Theoretische Konzeption und Anwendung in der Praxis," Research Papers on Marketing Strategy 4/2011, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Lehrstuhl für BWL und Marketing.
    13. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    14. Rui Silva & Cidália Oliveira, 2020. "The Influence of Innovation in Tangible and Intangible Resource Allocation: A Qualitative Multi Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, June.
    15. Pérez Granero, Luis & Guillén, Manuel & Bañón-Gomis, Alexis J., 2017. "Influencia de los factores de contingencia en el desarrollo del cuadro de mando integral y su asociación con un rendimiento mejor. El caso de las empresas españolas," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 82-94.
    16. Jennifer Adolph & Markus Beckmann, 2024. "Corporate sustainability strategy: From definitional ambiguity toward conceptual clarification," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4708-4729, July.
    17. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2006. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Other publications TiSEM f83d0732-69e7-4b1c-87c2-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Laura Broccardo & Simona Alfiero & Francesca Culasso, 2024. "Enhancing Performance Management Systems in a challenging environment," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2024(1), pages 5-14.
    19. Margaret A. Abernethy & Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2013. "The Role of Performance Measures in the Intertemporal Decisions of Business Unit Managers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 925-961, September.
    20. Lindawati Gani & Johnny Jermias, 2012. "The Effects of Strategy–Management Control System Misfits on Firm Performance," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 165-196, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15979-:d:988972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.