IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v31y2023i3p1536-1552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A conceptual framework for a value‐based sustainability balanced scorecard

Author

Listed:
  • Erlin Trisyulianti
  • Budhi Prihartono
  • Made Andriani
  • Kadarsah Suryadi

Abstract

Sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) is a management system that can translate strategy into the company's operations. However, based on previous research, a gap states that using SBSC gives birth to many performance indicators. Therefore, we need a framework that can formulate performance indicators to be more proportional to using company resources. For this reason, this research proposes a value framework adopted from six business process values. These six values ​​are efficiency, quality, agility, integration, compliance, and networking. This study aims to prove that these six values ​​can be used as SBSC values. So that will be obtained A Conceptual Framework for a Value‐Based Sustainability Balanced Scorecard. The methodology explored three state‐owned plantation enterprise in Indonesia and analyzed data using qualitative research coding. The result shows that there are 11 criteria for efficiency, 11 for quality, seven for agility, 12 for compliance, eight for integration, and nine for networking. These criteria have a 100% validation level where the value criteria are found in each company. The performance indicator criteria have been assessed based on the level of relevance test from managers who say that it is almost 100% important and very important. The criteria that have been grouped against these values ​​have proven that the six values ​​can be used to direct managers in formulating company performance indicators so that the established performance indicators are expected to allocate resources proportionally.

Suggested Citation

  • Erlin Trisyulianti & Budhi Prihartono & Made Andriani & Kadarsah Suryadi, 2023. "A conceptual framework for a value‐based sustainability balanced scorecard," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 1536-1552, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:1536-1552
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.2465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2465
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.2465?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:scandj:v:85:y:1983:i:2:p:181-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Irina N. Tkachenko & Irina V. Pervukhina & Aleksandr A. Zlygostev, 2020. "Modeling the contribution and benefits of company stakeholders," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 2-15, April.
    3. Agrawal, Saurabh & Singh, Rajesh K. & Murtaza, Qasim, 2016. "Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: Sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 41-53.
    4. Zhao, Tianjiao, 2021. "Board network, investment efficiency, and the mediating role of CSR: Evidence from China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 897-919.
    5. Dalenogare, Lucas Santos & Benitez, Guilherme Brittes & Ayala, Néstor Fabián & Frank, Alejandro Germán, 2018. "The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 383-394.
    6. Susanna Falle & Romana Rauter & Sabrina Engert & Rupert J. Baumgartner, 2016. "Sustainability Management with the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard in SMEs: Findings from an Austrian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    7. R Chalmeta & S Palomero, 2011. "Methodological proposal for business sustainability management by means of the Balanced Scorecard," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1344-1356, July.
    8. Rick Edgeman & Jacob Eskildsen, 2014. "Modeling and Assessing Sustainable Enterprise Excellence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 173-187, March.
    9. Robert S. Kaplan, 2010. "Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-074, Harvard Business School.
    10. Garvin, David A., 1984. "Product quality: An important strategic weapon," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 40-43.
    11. Marius Costin Daraban, 2016. "An Empirical View On Value Theory And Value-Based Management," CBU International Conference Proceedings, ISE Research Institute, vol. 4(0), pages 026-035, September.
    12. Stefan Schaltegger & Marcus Wagner, 2006. "Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting," International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19.
    13. Thomas Dyllick & Kai Hockerts, 2002. "Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 130-141, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    3. Cory Searcy, 2016. "Measuring Enterprise Sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 120-133, February.
    4. Jaroslav Vrchota & Petr Řehoř & Monika Maříková & Martin Pech, 2020. "Critical Success Factors of the Project Management in Relation to Industry 4.0 for Sustainability of Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Guang-Wen Zheng & Abu Bakkar Siddik & Mohammad Masukujjaman & Nazneen Fatema, 2021. "Factors Affecting the Sustainability Performance of Financial Institutions in Bangladesh: The Role of Green Finance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Suparak Suriyankietkaew & Phallapa Petison, 2019. "A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Kuo-Jui Wu & Qing Chen & Yun Qi & Xiaoyue Jiang & Shuo Gao & Ming-Lang Tseng, 2019. "Sustainable Development Performance for Small and Medium Enterprises Using a Fuzzy Synthetic Method-DEMATEL," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Fatima Afzal & Benson Lim, 2022. "Organizational Factors Influencing the Sustainability Performance of Construction Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Beltagui, Ahmad & Kunz, Nathan & Gold, Stefan, 2020. "The role of 3D printing and open design on adoption of socially sustainable supply chain innovation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Carlos Suárez-Gargallo & Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez, 2021. "How the Balanced Scorecard Is Implemented in the Spanish Footwear Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    11. María Jesús Muñoz‐Torres & María Ángeles Fernández‐Izquierdo & Juana M. Rivera‐Lirio & Elena Escrig‐Olmedo, 2019. "Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favor business models that promote a more sustainable development?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 439-452, March.
    12. Radosław Wolniak, 2019. "The Level of Maturity of Quality Management Systems in Poland—Results of Empirical Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Ivo Hristov & Antonio Chirico & Andrea Appolloni, 2019. "Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Volkan Ezcan & Jack Steven Goulding, 2022. "Offsite Sustainability—Disentangling the Rhetoric through Informed Mindset Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-27, April.
    16. Jay Joseph & Marc Orlitzky & Bruce Gurd & Helen Borland & Adam Lindgreen, 2019. "Can business‐oriented managers be effective leaders for corporate sustainability? A study of integrative and instrumental logics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 339-352, February.
    17. Luca Di Simone & Barbara Petracci & Mariacristina Piva, 2022. "Economic Sustainability, Innovation, and the ESG Factors: An Empirical Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Minh Hue Nguyen & Anh Chi Phan & Yoshiki Matsui, 2018. "Contribution of Quality Management Practices to Sustainability Performance of Vietnamese Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-31, January.

    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:wly:sustdv:v:31:y:2023:i:3:p:1536-1552. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    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.