TY - JOUR

T1 - Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures

T2 - Irrelevant or Misunderstood?

AU - Hansen, Erik Gunnar

AU - Schaltegger, Stefan

N1 - Funding Information: Open access funding provided by Johannes Kepler University Linz. We are thankful for the valuable discussions with and advice by Professor Roger Burritt (not only for this response article, but also concerning the previously published systematic review). Author Erik G. Hansen declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Stefan Schaltegger declares that he has no conflict of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2017, The Author(s).

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - 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).

AB - 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).

KW - Sustainability sciences, Management & Economics

KW - Balanced scorecard

KW - Corporate sustainability

KW - Corporate social responsibility

KW - CSR

KW - Strategy maps

KW - Objective function

KW - Integrative view

KW - Performance measurement

KW - Performance management

KW - Management control

KW - Trade-offs

KW - Balanced scorecard

KW - Corporate sustainability

KW - Corporate social responsibility

KW - CSR

KW - Strategy maps

KW - Objective function

KW - Integrative view

KW - Performance measurement

KW - Management control

KW - Trade-offs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018505310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5

DO - 10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 150

SP - 937

EP - 952

JO - Journal of Business Ethics

JF - Journal of Business Ethics

SN - 0167-4544

IS - 4

ER -