Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Architecture Does Not Matter: On the Fallacy of Sustainability Balanced Scorecards

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a recent review article published in this journal, Hansen and Schaltegger discuss the architecture of sustainability balanced scorecards (SBSC). They link the architecture of SBSCs to the maturity of the value system of a firm as well as to the proactiveness of a firm’s sustainability strategy. We contend that this argument is flawed and that the architecture of SBSC does not matter since—irrespective of their architecture—SBSCs are ill-suited to achieve substantive corporate contributions to sustainability. First, we assess the SBSC against three fundamental conditions for an effective management of corporate sustainability—the generation of positive outcomes at the societal level, the consideration of complexities and tensions, and the integration of heterogeneous and competing logics—to show that the SBSC is diametrically opposed to the complex and multi-facetted nature of corporate sustainability and ill-suited to achieve transformational change of for-profit organisations towards sustainability. Second, we address the question whether architecture of the SBSC matters and find that it is a fallacy to believe that the architecture of SBSCs can address this fundamental misfit. Rather, our argument reveals that irrespective of its architecture the SBSC is not a suitable tool for achieving strategic change for sustainability beyond incrementalism because it is deeply rooted in the idea of aligning sustainability with established core business routines. We propose that the emerging integrative view on corporate sustainability offers a more promising route for scholars and practitioners who are truly concerned with a deep transformation of private firms towards more sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570. doi:10.2307/1556355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonsen, Y. (2014). The downside of the balanced scorecard: A case study from Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 40–50. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2013.08.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón-Correa, J. A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., & García-Morales, V. J. (2008). Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 88–103. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D., & Walker, J. (2010). The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Accounting & Finance, 50(1), 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-629X.2009.00315.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 122–131. doi:10.5465/AME.2002.7173572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218. doi:10.1002/smj.441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2013). The time and space of materiality in organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 61–82. doi:10.1177/1086026612475069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N. C., Jacobsen, K., & Roos, G. (1999). The knowledge toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. European Management Journal, 17(4), 391–402. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00019-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): Performance Management Association (PMA).

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1996). A process model of strategic business exit: Implications for an evolutionary perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (1996). Strategic dissonance. California Management Review, 38(2), 8–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470. doi:10.1002/smj.299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmeta, R., & Palomero, S. (2011). Methodological proposal for business sustainability management by means of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(7), 1344–1356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00210.x.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, B. F., & Huang, S.-C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1999). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36(6), 757–778. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., Etzion, D., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 255–267. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2002). From environmental performance evaluation to eco-efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards. Environmental Quality Management, 12(2), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2007). Developing sustainability balanced scorecards for environmental services: A study of three large Portuguese companies. Environmental Quality Management, 16(4), 13–34. doi:10.1002/tqem.20139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, R. (2003). Predicting a firm’s forecasting ability: The roles of organizational illusion of control and organizational attention. Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), 821–838. doi:10.1002/smj.339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egels-Zandén, N., & Rosén, M. (2015). Sustainable strategy formation at a Swedish industrial company: Bridging the strategy-as-practice and sustainability gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001a). Good neighbors: Implementing social and environmental strategies with the BSC. Balanced Scorecard Report, 3(3), 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001b). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1–10. doi:10.1002/tqem.1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D., Gehman, J., Ferraro, F., & Avidan, M. (2015). Unleashing sustainability transformations through robust action. Journal of Cleaner Production,. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (2007). Developing organizational practices of ecological sustainability: A learning perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 632–645. doi:10.1108/01437730710823888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 1605–1625. doi:10.1177/0170840614563742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. A. F. (2013). Measuring trade-offs among criteria in a balanced scorecard framework: Possible contributions from the multiple criteria decision analysis research field. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(3), 433–447. doi:10.3846/16111699.2011.631744.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1002/bse.339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00169.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune India. (2013). Indian oil’s skunk works: Inside the oil company’s lab that’s seeking an alternative fuel source.

  • Fosfuri, A., & Rønde, T. (2009). Leveraging resistance to change and the skunk works model of innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 274–289. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frame, B. (2008). ‘Wicked’, ‘messy’, and ‘clumsy’: Long-term frameworks for sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(6), 1113–1128. doi:10.1068/c0790s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1245-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907. doi:10.2307/258959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2015). Toward cognitive plurality on corporate sustainability in organizations: The role of organizational factors. Organization & Environment, 28(3), 255–263. doi:10.1177/1086026615604446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 325–345. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0911-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2016). Ambidexterity for corporate social performance. Organization Studies, 37(2), 213–235. doi:10.1177/0170840615604506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. C. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273–284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00389.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). the challenges of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, E., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193–221. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 327–351. doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.12691227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, M. (2001). Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time & Society, 10(2/3), 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huzzard, T., & Östergren, K. (2002). When norms collide: Learning under organizational hypocrisy. British Journal of Management, 13(S2), S47–S59. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.13.s2.5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imboden, C., Gross, D., Meynell, P.-J., Richards, D., & Stalmans, M. (2010). Biodiversity management system: Proposal for the integrated management of biodiversity at Holcim Sites. Geneva: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154. doi:10.1080/09585190802479389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., & Fenton, E. (2006). Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 631–648. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2006.11.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052. doi:10.2307/258964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, U., Skoog, M., Backlund, A., & Almqvist, R. (2006). Balancing dilemmas of the balanced scorecard. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 842–857. doi:10.1108/09513570610709890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones Christensen, L., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, T., & Nordberg, P. (2006). The evolution of organizations and natural environment discourse. Organization & Environment, 19(4), 439–457. doi:10.1177/1086026606294955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & de Pinho, R. R. (2007). Amanco: Developing the sustainability scorecard. Harvard Business School Case 9-107-038.

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176.

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001a). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001b). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance management to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Startegy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Response to S. Voelpel et al. “The tyranny of the balanced scorecard in the innovation economy,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 1, 2006, pp. 43–60. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(3), 421–428. doi:10.1108/14691930610681492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 382–391. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malina, M. A., Nørreklit, H. S. O., & Selto, F. H. (2007). Relations among measures, climate of control, and performance measurement models. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(3), 935–982. doi:10.1506/car.24.3.10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 413–426. doi:10.1002/sres.900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. doi:10.2307/3556659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusson, N. (2010). The championing of environmental improvements in technology investment projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 777–783. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midttun, A. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a resource and knowledge perspective Towards a dynamic reinterpretation of C(S)R: Are corporate responsibility and innovation compatible or contradictory? Corporate Governance, 4(2), 401–413.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet? Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113–139. doi:10.1177/1086026614526413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, F., Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2015). Planned or emergent strategy making? Exploring the formation of corporate sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment,. doi:10.1002/bse.1875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, T. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor-network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niven, P. R. (2008). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of some of its assumption. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman, R. (2008). Enhancing the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard with scenario planning. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 259–266. doi:10.1108/17410400810857266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The Problem of Emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The emergence of organizations and markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., et al. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379–408. doi:10.1002/job.312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plambeck, N., & Weber, K. (2009). CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organization Science, 20(6), 993–1010. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge european companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605–626. doi:10.2307/1556357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivoli, P., & Waddock, S. (2011). “First they ignore you…”: The time-context dynamic and corporate responsibility. California Management Review, 53(2), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, S., Hull, C. E., & Tang, Z. (2015). The impact of human resource management on corporate social performance strengths and concerns. Business and Society,. doi:10.1177/0007650315586594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259–284. doi:10.1111/joms.12014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks. The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47(2), 148–186. doi:10.1177/0007650306297942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1038-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349. doi:10.2307/20159585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Pablo, A. L., & Vredenburg, H. (1999). Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: The importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 87–108. doi:10.1177/0021886399351008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Z., & Zaidman, N. (2010). Strategization of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 51–71. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0181-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4(3), 154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P., & Kennelly, J. J. (2013). Sustainability and place-based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 83–101. doi:10.1177/1086026612475068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science,. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderberg, M., Kalagnanam, S., Sheehan, N. T., & Vaidyanathan, G. (2011). When is a balanced scorecard a balanced scorecard? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(7), 688–708. doi:10.1108/17410401111167780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers, A. B. (2005). Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 43–56. doi:10.1108/17508610580000706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundin, H., Granlund, M., & Brown, D. A. (2010). Balancing multiple competing objectives with a balanced scorecard. European Accounting Review, 19(2), 203–246. doi:10.1080/09638180903118736.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2014, August 30). A New Green Wave. p. 61. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21614152-few-pioneering-businesses-are-developing-sustainability-policies-worthy-name-new.

  • Valente, M. (2010). Demystifying the struggles of private sector paradigmatic change: Business as an agent in a complex adaptive system. Business and Society, 49(3), 439–476. doi:10.1177/0007650310369376.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Woerd, F., & van den Brink, T. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard: A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 173–186. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1900-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Marrewijk, M. (2004). A value based approach to organization types: Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 147–158. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1898-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Eckhoff, R. A. (2006). The tyranny of the balanced scorecard in the innovation economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 43–60. doi:10.1108/14691930610639769.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (2011). Science and the modern world (First paperback edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business Journal, 67(6), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. I., & Pogutz, S. (2013). Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization & Environment, 26(2), 203–229. doi:10.1177/1086026613490173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, W., Bao, Y., & Verbeke, A. (2011). Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 75–92. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0710-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuindeau, B. (2007). Territorial equity and sustainable development. Environmental Values, 16(2), 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KEDGE Business School, Domaine de Luminy-BP 921, 13288, Marseille Cedex 9, France

    Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge

Authors
  1. Tobias Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Figge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Hahn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hahn, T., Figge, F. Why Architecture Does Not Matter: On the Fallacy of Sustainability Balanced Scorecards. J Bus Ethics 150, 919–935 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3135-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3135-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation