nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

05.08.2016

Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems

verfasst von: Irene Eleonora Lisi

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study investigates the performance measurement systems adopted by companies to manage their social responsibility activities, a theme that remains under-researched despite the important role that these mechanisms may play in helping firms control and improve their social performance. An integrative model is developed to examine how the three fundamental drivers of corporate social strategies, i.e., business motivations, perceived stakeholder pressures, and top management’s social commitment, influence the use of social performance indicators for internal decision-making and control and how such use impacts companies’ social and economic performance. The results from a survey of 97 Italian companies suggest that economic motivations and top management’s commitment are associated with a more intensive use of social performance indicators for decision-making and control, whereas perceived pressures from stakeholders do not represent a significant determinant of such use. The use of social performance indicators, in turn, is found to directly influence a firm’s social performance and, indirectly, its bottom line.

Vorheriger Artikel Permanency of CSR Activities and Firm Value

Nächster Artikel Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting and Financial Reporting Quality: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The possibility of a disconnect between the measures adopted by companies in response to external pressures and firms’ internal practices has been highlighted by various schools of thought, particularly by neo-institutional research (Baxter and Chua 2003). This is why the neo-insitutional perspective has so far been extensively applied within the social and environmental accounting research (see, e.g., Bebbington et al. 2009; Chen and Roberts 2010; Larrinaga-Gonzalez 2007) to investigate the ceremonial and symbolic roles CSR reporting may play in signaling ritual conformity to institutionalized myths (Meyer and Rowan 1977).

Indeed, sophisticated models and tools have been developed for computing companies’ carbon or water footprints (see, e.g., Pinkse and Kolk 2009, 2010), despite the undeniable complexities of measuring many firms’ environmental impacts (Unerman and Chapman 2014; Hartmann et al. 2013). The European Union Emissions Trading System also represents an attempt—albeit limited—to quantify in monetary terms companies’ environmental externalities.

An exemplary list of SPI is provided by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 guidelines, the most widely adopted standard for corporate responsibility reporting (KPMG 2011). More details on GRI SPI are provided in “SPI Use” section.

The decision-making use refers to, e.g., goal setting, capital investment decisions, or suppliers’ selection, whereas the control use refers to, e.g., performance evaluation and rewarding. By investigating the extent to which SPI are used by managers for a variety of different purposes pertaining to both the decision-making and the control roles of management accounting information, this paper contributes to extant performance measurement literature that tends to examine only one or a few uses of performance measures (e.g., compensation) while ignoring other potential uses (Ittner and Larcker 2001). More details on the definition and operationalization of SPI use are provided in "SPI Use" section.

Some thoughts on the implications of such a definition, and related limitations, are offered in the final section.

Indeed, this study investigates the use of SPI at the corporate level of analysis, consistently with prior environmental management accounting literature (e.g., Henri and Journeault 2010; Perego and Hartmann 2009).

The score for each respondent on the multi-item scale is based on the weighted factor score calculated in the final PLS measurement model.

Injury rate was chosen as an objective, proxy measure of social performance for two reasons. First, it represents a particularly relevant, albeit limited, aspect of a company’s overall social performance. In addition, it emerged as the social performance indicator most frequently measured by firms during the pre-tests of the questionnaire.

I use Smart PLS 2.0 (Ringle et al. 2005).

Chin’s (1998) rule of thumb suggests that the sample size for a PLS study should be 5 to 10 times for either: 1) the largest number of formative indicators for a particular construct in the measurement model; or 2) the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular construct in the structural model. In this study, the dependent latent variable with the largest number of structural paths directed at it is SPI use, with seven independent variables (namely, expected competitive advantage, perceived stakeholder concern, top management’s social commitment and the four control variables). Thus, the sample size of 97 cases satisfies this requirement.

Given that the estimation of path coefficients in the PLS structural model is based on OLS regressions of each endogenous latent variable on its predecessor constructs, these coefficients might be biased in the presence of high levels of collinearity among the predictor constructs. Therefore, collinearity diagnostics were assessed as a preliminary test of the structural model (Hair et al. 2014). Because the VIF values for all the predecessor constructs are well below the threshold value of 5, it seems possible to conclude that collinearity does not represent a threat to the robustness of the study’s results.

Statistical significance is determined using the reported original PLS estimates and bootstrapped standard errors.

As reported in Table 5, the path coefficient between SPI use and economic performance is β = 0.050 (p > 0.1).

As noted by Hair et al. (2014), this approach is particularly suited for PLS settings, as it makes no distributional assumption, unlike the Sobel (1982) test. It also exhibits higher levels of statistical power.

Interestingly enough, the findings from the complete model (see Table 6, panel B) indicate a positive and slightly significant direct path between perceived stakeholder concern and social performance (β = 0.253, p < 0.1). Some thoughts on this result are offered in the final section.

The statistical significance of the indirect path is again computed by applying the bootstrapping procedure suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008).

More specifically: (i) the path between expected competitive advantage and SPI use is positive and strongly significant for both the decision-making and the decision-control components; (ii) perceived stakeholder concern is not a significant predictor of either component; (iii) top management’s social commitment is a weak determinant of both components; and (iv) both the decision-making and the decision-control components have a strong and positive influence on social performance.

An exemplary case is Enron, which “looked like an exceptional corporate citizen, with all the corporate social responsibility and business ethics tools and status symbols in place” (Basu and Palazzo 2008, p. 123).

Abernethy, M. A., Bouwens, J., & van Lent, L. (2004). Determinants of control system design in divisionalized firms. The Accounting Review, 79(3), 545–570.

Abernethy, M. A., & Vagnoni, E. (2004). Power, organization design and managerial behaviour. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3–4), 207–225.

Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organizational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting. Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.

Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

Adams, C. A., Hill, W., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

Albeda Perez, E., Correa Ruiz, C., & Carrasco Fenech, F. (2007). Environmental management systems as an embedding mechanism: A research note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 403–422.

Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (1998). Management control systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Aragòn-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556–567.

Aragòn-Correa, J. A., & Rubio-Lòpez, E. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40, 357–381.

Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2003). Corporate environmentalism: Antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 106–122.

Bansal, P., Gao, J., & Qureshi, I. (2014). The extensiveness of corporate social and environmental commitment across firms over time. Organization Studies, 35(7), 949–966.

Bansal, P., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2013). The time and space of materiality in organizations and the environment. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 61–82.

Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

Bartolomeo, M., Bennet, M., Bouma, J. J., Heydkamp, P., James, P., & Wolters, T. (2000). Environmental management accounting in Europe: Current practice and future potential. European Accounting Review, 9(1), 31–52.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

Battaglia, M., Frey, M., & Passetti, E. (2014). Accidents at work and costs analysis: A field study in a large Italian company. Industrial Health, 52(4), 354–366.

Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research—Whence and whither. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 97–126.

Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, B. (2009). Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(4), 588–625.

Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 959–971.

Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational myth? Organization Science, 18(1), 127–146.

Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (2000). A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: Implications for management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 19–64.

Bouwens, J., & Abernethy, M. A. (2000). The consequences of customization on management accounting system design. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(3), 221–241.

Burkert, M., Davila, T., Mehta, K., & Oyon, D. (2014). Relating alternative forms of contingency fit to the appropriate methods to test them. Management Accounting Research, 25, 6–29.

Burnett, R. D., & Hansen, D. R. (2008). Ecoefficiency: Defining a role for environmental cost management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(6), 551–581.

Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.

Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967.

Chapman, C. S. (1997). Reflections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 189–205.

Chapman, C. S., & Kihn, L. A. (2009). Information system integration, enabling control and performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(2), 151–169.

Chen, J. C., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization-society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 651–665.

Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control system design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168.

Chenhall, R. H. (2005). Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(5), 395–422.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Research methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

Crutzen, N., & Herzig, C. (2013). A review of the empirical research in management control, strategy and sustainability. In L. Songini, A. Pistoni, & C. Herzig (Eds.), Accounting and control for sustainability. Bingley: Emerald.

Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

Ditillo, A., & Lisi, I. E. (2014). Towards a more comprehensive framework for sustainability control systems research. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 5, 23–47.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of contingency fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514–539.

Elbashir, M. Z., Collier, P. A., & Sutton, S. G. (2011). The role of organizational absorptive capacity in strategic use of business intelligence to support integrated management control systems. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 155–184.

Epstein, M. J. (2010). The challenge of simultaneously improving social and financial performance: New research results. In M. J. Epstein, J.-F. Manzoni, & T. Davila (Eds.), Performance measurement and management control: Innovative concepts and practices. Bingley: Emerald.

Epstein, M. J., & Birchard, B. (2000). Counting what counts. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Erhemjamts, O., Li, Q., & Venkateswaran, A. (2013). Corporate Social responsibility and its impact on firms’ investment policy, organizational structure, and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 395–412.

European Commission. (2001). Green paper. Brussels: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility.

Ferreira, A., Moulang, C., & Hendro, B. (2010). Environmental management accounting and innovation: An exploratory analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(7), 920–948.

Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282.

Flamholtz, E. G., Das, T. K., & Tsui, A. S. (1985). Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 35–50.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Gerdin, J. (2005). the impact of departmental interdependencies and management accounting system use on subunit performance. European Accounting Review, 14(2), 297–327.

Gerdin, J., & Greve, J. (2004). Forms of contingency fit in management accounting research—A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 303–326.

Gond, J.-P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2012). Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 205–223.

Grabner, I., & Moers, F. (2013). Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38, 407–419.

Gray, R. H. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting. A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

Gray, R. H., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: Mirages, methods and myths. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 70–80). London: Earthscan.

Gray, R. H., & Milne, M. J. (2015). It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it? Of method and madness. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 32, 51–66.

GRI. (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 141–163.

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74.

Hartmann, F., Perego, P., & Young, A. (2013). Carbon accounting: Challenges for research in management control and performance measurement. ABACUS, 49(4), 539–563.

Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

Henri, J.-F., Boiral, O., & Roy, M.-J. (2014). The tracking of environmental costs: Motivations and impacts. European Accounting Review, 23(4), 647–669. doi:10.1080/09638180.2013.837400.

Henri, J.-F., & Journeault, M. (2010). Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 63–80.

Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.

Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204.

Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 293–314.

Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1–3), 349–410.

Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003). Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7–8), 715–741.

Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: an empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 241–262.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment. Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). Environmental management in operations: The selection of environmental technologies. Decision Sciences, 30(3), 601–631.

Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2014). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 1–15.

KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Amsterdam: KPMG.

Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and stategy: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 207–232.

Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. (2007). Sustainability reporting: Insights from neo-institutional theory. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability. London: Routledge.

Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting change or institutional appropriation? A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3), 269–292.

Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 253–261.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2003). Mapping management accounting: Graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 169–249.

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497–514.

Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Cantalone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3), 329–351.

Merchant, K. A., & Van Der Stede, W. A. (2003). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 179–208.

Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.

Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in Wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization, 13(6), 801–839.

Moerman, L., & Van Der Laan, S. (2005). Social reporting in the tobacco industry: All smoke and mirrors? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(3), 374–389.

O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557.

O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: A case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382.

Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the desing of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.

Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted times? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–267.

Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163.

Perego, P., & Hartmann, F. (2009). Aligning performance measurement systems with strategy: The case of environmental strategy. ABACUS, 45(4), 397–428.

Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2009). International business and global climate change. London: Routledge.

Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2010). Challenges and trade-offs in corporate innovation for climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 261–272.

Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Burgos-Jiménez, J., Vazquez, D. A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (2009). The ‘win–win’ paradigm and stakeholder integration. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 487–499.

Pondeville, S., Swaen, V., & De Rongé, Y. (2013). Environmental management control systems: The role of contextual and strategic factors. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), 317–332. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.007.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS. (2.0 (beta) ed.). Hamburg, Germany.

Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

Songini, L., & Pistoni, A. (2012). Accounting, auditing and control for sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 202–204.

Tregidga, H., Kearins, K., & Milne, M. (2013). The politics of knowing “organizational sustainable development”. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 102–129.

Unerman, J., & Chapman, C. (2014). Academic contributions to enhancing accounting for sustainable development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 385–394.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

Wisner, P. S., Epstein, M. J., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Organizational antecedents and consequences of environmental performance. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 3, 143–167.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Titel: Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems
verfasst von: Irene Eleonora Lisi
Publikationsdatum: 05.08.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3287-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

The Voice Link: A Moderated Mediation Model of How Ethical Leadership Affects Individual Task Performance

Permanency of CSR Activities and Firm Value

Cryptocurrencies and Business Ethics

Fighting Software Piracy: Some Global Conditional Policy Instruments

Whistleblowing and Information Ethics: Facilitation, Entropy, and Ecopoiesis

Investigating the Effects of Anger and Guilt on Unethical Behavior: A Dual-Process Approach