Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

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).
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Business Ethics
Volume150
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)937-952
Number of pages16
ISSN0167-4544
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01.07.2018

Bibliographical note

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).

    Research areas

  • Sustainability sciences, Management & Economics - Balanced scorecard , Corporate sustainability, Corporate social responsibility , CSR , Strategy maps , Objective function , Integrative view , Performance measurement , Management control , Trade-offs

Documents

DOI