Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
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).
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J. R., Overy, P., & Denyer, D. (2012). Innovation for sustainability: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. London/Montreal, Canada. Retrieved 21 Mar 2013. http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Innovation.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013.
Bedford, D., Brown, D. A., Malmi, T., & Sivabalan, P. (2008). Balanced scorecard design and performance impacts: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 17–36.
Bento, R. F., Mertins, L., & White, L. F. (2016). Ideology and the balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 401. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3053-6.
Bieker, T., & Waxenberger, B. (2002). Sustainability balanced scorecard and business ethics: Developing a balanced scorecard for integrity management. In Working Paper, 11th Conference of the “Greening of Industry Network”, 1 June 2002. Retrieved 16 July 2007. http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/person/W/Bernhard_Waxenberger/17766. Accessed 16 July 2007.
Brignall, S. (2002). The unbalanced scorecard: A social and environmental critique. In A. Neely, A. Walters, & R. Austin (Eds.), PMA conference proceedings—Performance measurement and management 2002: Research and action: Cranfield School of Management, 2002 (pp. 85–92). Boston, MA: Performance Management Association.
Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). (2011). Guidelines on quarry rehabilitation: Biodiversity and land stewardship. Retrieved 29 Aug 2016. http://wbcsdcement.org/pdf/CSI%20Guidelines%20on%20Quarry%20Rehabilitation%20(English)_Dec%202011.pdf.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Washington, DC: Beard Books.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 197–218. CrossRef
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001a). Good neighbors: Implementing social and environmental strategies with the BSC. Balanced Scorecard Report 3(3). Reprint Number B0105C. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School.
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001b). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1–10. CrossRef
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard—Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284. CrossRef
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Karnoe, P. (2010). Categorization by association: nuclear technology and emission-free electricity. Institutions and Entrepreneurship Research in the Sociology of Work, 21, 51–93. CrossRef
Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2016). Why architecture does not matter: On the fallacy of sustainability balanced scorecards. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3135-5.
Hall, J. K. (2002). Sustainable development innovation: A research agenda for the next 10 years. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 195–196. CrossRef
Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 177–191. CrossRef
Husted, B. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 24–48. CrossRef
International Standards Organization (ISO). (2015). Introduction to ISO 14001:2015. Geneva: ISO.
Jennings, D. P., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052. CrossRef
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256. CrossRef
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2009). Business model concepts in corporate sustainability contexts: From rhetoric to a generic template for “Business Models for Sustainability”. Lüneburg: Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany.
Ny, H., MacDonald, J. P., Broman, G., Yamamoto, R., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2006). Sustainability constraints as system boundaries: An approach to making life-cycle management strategic. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1–2), 61–77. doi: 10.1162/108819806775545349.
Paech, N. (2007). Directional certainty in sustainability-oriented innovation management. In M. Lehmann-Waffenschmidt (Ed.), Innovations towards sustainability: Conditions and consequences (pp. 121–140). Heidelberg, New York: Physica.
Schaltegger, S. (2002). A framework for ecopreneurship: Leading bioneers and environmental managers to ecopreneurship. Greener Management International, 38, 45–58. CrossRef
Schaltegger, S., & Beständig, U. (2010). Corporate biodiversity management handbook. A guide for practical implementation. Berlin: Federal Ministry for the Environment and Nuclear Safety (BMBF) (Ed.), GTZ, & CSM-Leuphana University Lüneburg.
Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2015). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: Legitimacy- or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2854-3.
Scholz, R. W. (2011). Environmental problems, transdisciplinary research and managing sustainability transformations—The case of the energy system. Presentation given in Freiburg.
SIGMA. (2003). The SIGMA guidelines toolkit: Sustainability scorecard. London. Retrieved 21 July 2008. http://www.projectsigma.co.uk/Toolkit/SIGMASustainabilityScorecard.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2008.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127. CrossRef
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. CrossRef
van der Woerd, F., & van den Brink, T. W. M. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard—A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 173–186. CrossRef
Wicki, S., Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2015). Exploration of green technologies in SMEs: The role of ambidexterity, domain separation and commercialization. In E. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkelli, & I. Bitran (Eds.), XXVI ISPIM innovation conference, Budapest 14–17 June 2015. International Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Wüstenhagen, R. (1998). Greening goliaths versus multiplying Davids: Pfade einer Coevolution ökologischer Massenmärkte und nachhaltiger Nischen. St. Gallen, Switzerland: IWÖ.
- Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?
Erik G. Hansen
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia