IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v150y2018i4d10.1007_s10551-017-3531-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?

Author

Listed:
  • Erik G. Hansen

    (Johannes Kepler University (JKU) Linz)

  • Stefan Schaltegger

    (Leuphana University Lüneburg)

Abstract

In a recent systematic review of the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) literature in this journal, we developed a typology of architectures as a basis for the process of SBSC design, implementation, use, and evolution. This paper addresses a comment by Hahn and Figge (2016) designed to stimulate further research. We argue that the existing literature demonstrates that the SBSC management tool can play an important role in corporate sustainability. The SBSC architectures—as representations of goals and priorities—form an integral and iterative part of the corporate sustainability strategy-making process and therefore cannot be isolated from it. However, the concept as such should not be overloaded (e.g. as a tool for radical change). In this paper, we first reflect on the potentials and constraints of the SBSC in relation to (1) radical or transformational change and (2) measuring performance outcomes on the level of human–earth systems. Second, we discuss the importance of SBSC architecture concerning (1) how it enables the integration of sustainability into business organisations; (2) how both strictly hierarchical cause-and-effect chains and less hierarchical designs can allow companies to seek inclusive profits; and (3) the contingency-based use of generic architectures (i.e. using the sustainability strategy and value system to determine a fitting architecture) in contrast to its use as a diagnostic tool (i.e. the architecture revealing the sustainability strategy and value system).

Suggested Citation

  • Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:150:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3531-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hockerts, Kai & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2010. "Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids -- Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 481-492, September.
    2. Heidi Sundin & Markus Granlund & David Brown, 2010. "Balancing Multiple Competing Objectives with a Balanced Scorecard," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 203-246.
    3. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    4. Cory Searcy, 2012. "Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 239-253, May.
    5. Gail Whiteman & Brian Walker & Paolo Perego, 2013. "Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 307-336, March.
    6. Geels, Frank W., 2012. "A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 471-482.
    7. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    8. Erik G. Hansen & Friedrich Grosse-Dunker & Ralf Reichwald, 2009. "Sustainability Innovation Cube — A Framework To Evaluate Sustainability-Oriented Innovations," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 683-713.
    9. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge, 2011. "Beyond the Bounded Instrumentality in Current Corporate Sustainability Research: Toward an Inclusive Notion of Profitability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 325-345, December.
    10. Stefan Schaltegger & Florian Lüdeke-Freund & Erik G. Hansen, 2012. "Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(2), pages 95-119.
    11. Max Baker & Stefan Schaltegger, 2015. "Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(2), pages 263-294, February.
    12. Dima Jamali, 2008. "A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 213-231, September.
    13. Chenhall, Robert H., 2003. "Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 127-168.
    14. Roman Schneider & Rui Vieira, 2010. "Insights from action research: implementing the balanced scorecard at a wind‐farm company," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 59(5), pages 493-507, June.
    15. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Luis Jesús Córdova-Aguirre & Juan Manuel Ramón-Jerónimo, 2021. "Exploring the Inclusion of Sustainability into Strategy and Management Control Systems in Peruvian Manufacturing Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Karime Chahuán-Jiménez, 2020. "Correlation between the DJSI Chile and the Financial Indices of Chilean Companies," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Krongthong Heebkhoksung & Wanchai Rattanawong & Varin Vongmanee, 2023. "A New Paradigm of a Sustainability-Balanced Scorecard Model for Sport Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Lena Ries & Markus Beckmann & Peter Wehnert, 2023. "Sustainable smart product-service systems: a causal logic framework for impact design," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 667-706, May.
    6. Tawse, Alex & Tabesh, Pooya, 2023. "Thirty years with the balanced scorecard: What we have learned," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 123-132.
    7. Evita Milana & Frank Ulrich, 2022. "Do open innovation practices in firms promote sustainability?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1718-1732, December.
    8. Dennis Vegter & Jos van Hillegersberg & Matthias Olthaar, 2021. "Performance Measurement Systems for Circular Supply Chain Management: Current State of Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Chiara Mio & Antonio Costantini & Silvia Panfilo, 2022. "Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: A systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 367-384, March.
    10. Christoph Endenich & Rouven Trapp, 2020. "Ethical Implications of Management Accounting and Control: A Systematic Review of the Contributions from the Journal of Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 309-328, May.
    11. Adelaide Martins & Cidália Oliveira & Rui Silva & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2023. "Management Control Practices as Performance Facilitators in a Crisis Context," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Hyun Kang & Hyung Jong Na, 2024. "The Impact of a Company’s Management Strategy on Its Profitability, Stability, and Growth: A Focus on the Information Security Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-21, June.
    13. Martin Ritter & Heiner Schanz, 2021. "Carsharing Business Models’ Strategizing Mindsets Regarding Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Kerry A. Humphreys & Ken T. Trotman, 2022. "Judgment and decision making research on CSR reporting in the COVID‐19 pandemic environment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 739-765, March.
    15. Oriol Iglesias & Nicholas Ind, 2020. "Towards a theory of conscientious corporate brand co-creation: the next key challenge in brand management," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(6), pages 710-720, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge, 2018. "Why Architecture Does Not Matter: On the Fallacy of Sustainability Balanced Scorecards," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 919-935, July.
    3. Wided Bedoui & Mame Gningue, 2019. "An integrated performance monitoring model based on port stakeholders perceptions [Modèle de pilotage de la performance globale basé sur les perceptions des parties prenantes portuaires]," Post-Print hal-02901541, HAL.
    4. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    5. Harmke Immink & Robbie Louw & Amy Garlick & Samuel Vosper & Alan Brent, 2022. "Country specific low carbon commitments versus equitable and practical company specific decarbonisation targets," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 10005-10025, August.
    6. Kai Hockerts & Cory Searcy, 2023. "How to Sharpen Our Discourse on Corporate Sustainability and Business Ethics—A View from the Section Editors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 225-235, October.
    7. Erik G. Hansen & Ferdinand Revellio, 2020. "Circular value creation architectures: Make, ally, buy, or laissez‐faire," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1250-1273, December.
    8. Adelaide Martins & Cidália Oliveira & Rui Silva & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2023. "Management Control Practices as Performance Facilitators in a Crisis Context," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
    9. Enes Ünal & Vikash Kumar Sinha, 2023. "Sustainability trade‐offs in the circular economy: A maturity‐based framework," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4662-4682, November.
    10. Stefan Schaltegger & Derk Loorbach & Jacob Hörisch, 2023. "Managing entrepreneurial and corporate contributions to sustainability transitions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 891-902, February.
    11. Biswaraj Ghosh & Christian Herzig & Musa Mangena, 2019. "Controlling for sustainability strategies: findings from research and directions for the future," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 5-24, April.
    12. Arjan Kozica & Ina Ehnert, 2014. "Lernen von Nachhaltigkeit: Exploration und Exploitation als Lernmodi einer vollständig ambidextren Organisation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(68), pages 147-167, January.
    13. Stefan Schaltegger & Markus Beckmann & Erik G. Hansen, 2013. "Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the Field," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 219-229, May.
    14. Chaminda Wijethilake & Rahat Munir & Ranjith Appuhami, 2018. "Environmental Innovation Strategy and Organizational Performance: Enabling and Controlling Uses of Management Control Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1139-1160, September.
    15. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    16. Emmanuelle Reuter, 2022. "Hybrid business models in the sharing economy: The role of business model design for managing the environmental paradox," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 603-618, February.
    17. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    18. Nicos A. Scordis & Yoshihiko Suzawa & Astrid Zwick & Lucia Ruckner, 2014. "Principles for Sustainable Insurance: Risk Management and Value," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 17(2), pages 265-276, September.
    19. Karoline Augenstein & Alexandra Palzkill, 2015. "The Dilemma of Incumbents in Sustainability Transitions: A Narrative Approach," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:150:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3531-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.