IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v19y2010i2p203-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Multiple Competing Objectives with a Balanced Scorecard

Author

Listed:
  • Heidi Sundin
  • Markus Granlund
  • David Brown

Abstract

This paper investigates how multiple and competing objectives are managed within an organisation, and the role that the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) plays in balancing organisational objectives. The issue of achieving multiple objectives, those which represent the interests of various stakeholders, has come to the forefront of the corporate agenda, as companies are seen increasingly as more than a source of profit for shareholders, but rather as 'citizens' playing a broader role in society. This study adopts an exploratory case study approach to understand how the BSC is used in management decision and control processes to assist with the balancing of objectives. The case organisation is a state-owned electricity company, and provides a unique setting where multiple and equally important strategic objectives exist. The results demonstrate that the BSC has the potential to help in making trade-offs and balancing objectives, but there are certain requirements for this to succeed. The paper provides insights into issues of balanced strategic management, as it discusses 'balance' in terms of both process and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:19:y:2010:i:2:p:203-246
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180903118736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638180903118736
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180903118736?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Aziza Laguecir & Anja Kern & Cécile Kharoubi, 2020. "Management accounting systems in institutional complexity: Hysteresis and boundaries of practices in social housing," Post-Print hal-03134361, HAL.
    4. Paul G. Kimiti & Stephen M.A. Muathe & Elishiba M. Murigi, 2020. "Nexus between Cost Leadership Strategy and Performance: Fact or Fallacy in Milk Processing Firms in Kenya," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(10), pages 1-1, October.
    5. Li Liu & Gary Gang Tian, 2021. "Mandatory CSR disclosure, monitoring and investment efficiency: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 595-644, March.
    6. E. Van Der Hauwaert & W. Bruggeman, 2012. "The balanced scorecard as an enabling technology – the role of participation," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/816, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    7. 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.
    8. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2013. "Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51294, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Conaty, Frank & Robbins, Geraldine, 2021. "A stakeholder salience perspective on performance and management control systems in non-profit organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Jitender Kumar & Neha Prince & H. Kent Baker, 2022. "Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Issues," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 11(2), pages 147-161, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Pamela Queen, 2015. "Enlightened Shareholder Maximization: Is this Strategy Achievable?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 683-694, March.
    14. Ralph Kober & Deryl Northcott, 2021. "Testing cause‐and‐effect relationships within a balanced scorecard," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1815-1849, April.
    15. João Nuno Morais Lopes & Luís Farinha, 2018. "Measuring the Performance of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Networks," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 402-423, June.
    16. Sharul Effendy Janudin & Farahaini Mohd Hanif & Noor Shafeeza Zainuddin, 2016. "Developing Contemporary Performance Measurement System Performance Model for Co-operatives in Malaysia: Is it Necessary?," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(11), pages 436-448, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:euract:v:19:y:2010:i:2:p:203-246. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    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.