Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Heuristic Model for Establishing Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems

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

Abstract

A large body of the literature on sustainability indicators, assessments and reporting is currently available. However, sustainability performance measurement systems have an insubstantial presence in the literature. Invariably, a sustainability performance measurement system presents the potential for certain trade-offs or opportunity costs for organizations. Extant sustainability platforms and standards are largely silent about how to deal with trade-offs. Utilizing evidence from the literature, as well as contingency factors, this paper seeks to present a heuristic model for establishing trade-offs in corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Trade-offs in this area revolve around performance measurement, stakeholder management, competitive advantage, as well as the vertical and horizontal integration of the performance platform. This is particularly important for organizations seeking to establish, integrate or expand their environmental management systems into the area of sustainability. As yet, formalistic attempts to deal with trade-offs in sustainability performance measurement systems are infrequent and vague.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the purposes of this paper, metrics are considered the equal of indicators.

  2. Which includes employees, customers, and suppliers.

References

  • Acquier, A. (2010). CSR in search of a management model: A case of marginalization of a CSR initiative. In N. C. Smith, C. B. Bhattacharya, D. Vogel, & D. I. Levine (Eds.), Global challenges in responsible business (pp. 107–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2002). Loosely coupled performance measurement systems. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: theory and practice (pp. 244–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albelda-Pérez, E. A., Ruiz, C. C., & Fenech, F. C. (2007). Environmental management systems as an embedding mechanism: A research note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(3), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2004). The use of international R&D teams: An empirical investigation of selected contingency factors. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angus-Leppan, T., Benn, S., & Young, L. (2010). A sensemaking approach to trade-offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 230–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, R. (2002). Institutional developments in the russian system of social security: Organizational and interorganizational aspects. Social Policy and Administration, 36(2), 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, R., & Axelsson, S. B. (2006). Integration and collaboration in public health—a conceptual framework. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 21(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, L. (2008). Industrial symbiosis in the Rotterdam Harbour and industrial complex: Reflections on the interconnection of the techno-sphere with the social system. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(5), 330–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. (1991). Environmental regulation for competitive advantage. Business Strategy Review, 2(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacchi, M., & Rinaldi, L. (2007). Dartboards and clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(7), 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boons, F., & Wagner, M. (2009). Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1908–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(7), 754–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP. (2003). Sustainability review 2003. London: BP.

    Google Scholar 

  • BP. (2005). Sustainability review 2005. London: BP.

    Google Scholar 

  • BP. (2009). Sustainability review 2009. London: BP.

    Google Scholar 

  • BP. (2010). Sustainability review 2010. London: BP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., DE Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBSNEWS. (2010). Blowout: The deepwater horizon disaster. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blowout-the-deepwater-horizon-disaster-16-05-2010/. Accessed 30 June 2014.

  • Ceres. (2010). The 21st century corporation: The ceres roadmap for sustainability. Boston, MA: Ceres.

  • Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G. D. (2006). Strategic performance management. In Badiru, A. B. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and systems engineering, (pp. 12–1 to 12–22). Boca Raton, FL: Crc Press.

  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Bureaucracy and innovation revisited: Effects of contingency factors, industrial sectors, and innovation characteristics. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, K. (2011). Technology transfer under the clean development mechanism: An empirical study of 1000 CDM projects. Norwich: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • DE Vries, H. J., Bayramoglu, D. K., & van der Wiele, T. (2012). Business and environmental impact of ISO 14001. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 29(4), 425–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehning, B., & Stratopoulos, T. (2003). Determinants of sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Blass, V. D. (2010). Measuring corporate environmental performance: The trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delquié, P. (1993). Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science, 39(11), 1382–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delquié, P. (1997). ”Bi-matching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Science, 43(5), 640–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, G. P. M., Heras, I., & Casadesús, M. (2008). Shedding light on causation between ISO 9001 and improved business performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(7), 687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2005). Managing and controlling environmental performance: Evidence from Mexico. Advances in Management Accounting, 14, 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. A. (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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(23), 5330–5339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasperados, A., El-Harem, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(4–5), 286–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasperados, A., El-Harem, M., & Horner, M. (2009). The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum, 33(3), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasperados, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics, 80, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, S., & Germain, C. (2010). Integrating sustainability measures into strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical study. Management Accounting Quarterly, 11(3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEMI. (2007). The metrics navigator. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genaidy, A. M., Sequeira, R., Tolaymat, T., Kohler, J., Wallace, S., & Andrinder, M. (2010). Integrating science and business models of sustainability for environmentally-challenging industries such as secondary lead smelters: A systematic review and analysis of findings. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(9), 1872–1882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Benito, J., Lannelongue, G., & Queiruga, D. (2011). Stakeholders and environmental management systems: A synergistic influence on environmental imbalance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(14), 1622–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosden, E. (2013). BP warns gulf spill costs will exceed $42.4bn as compensation costs rise. The telegraph. Accessed 30/6/2014 from www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10210318/bp-warns-gulf-spill-costs-will-exceed-42.4bn-as-compensation-costs-rise.html.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2013). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines: Implementation manual. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. W. (2010). Compression: Meeting the challenges of sustainability through vigorous learning enterprises. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Dick, G. P. M. (2011). ISO 14001 certification and financial performance: Selection-effect versus treatment-effect. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAS. (2012). IAS 38—intangible assets. London: International Accounting Standards Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC. (2000). The business charter for sustainable development: Principles for environmental management. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifinedo, P., & Nahar, N. (2009). Interactions between contingency, organizational it factors, and ERP success. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(1), 118–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (1999). ISO 14031: Environmental management—environmental performance evaluation— guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2010). ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2013). Guide for addressing sustainability in standards. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasch, C. (2009). Environmental and material flow cost accounting: Principles and procedures. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandampully, J. (2002). Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation: The role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanji, G. K. (2002). Performance measurement system. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2010). Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14(6), 1546–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, A. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”: The grand illusion. California Management Review, 53(2), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazanjian, R. K., & Drazin, R. (1987). Implementing internal diversification: Contingency factors for organization design choices. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 342–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (2002). Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research, 50(6), 935–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, D., Owen, J. R., & van de Graaff, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, mining and “audit culture”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1222–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2003). Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(2), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D., & Wijsman, K. (2013). Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, S. M. C., Sardinha, I. M. D., & Reijnders, L. (2012). The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: The case of the automobile industry sector in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2012). Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: An analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25(complete), 14–26.

  • Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2–3), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macalister, T. (2013). BP hit by new $34bn deepwater horizon claim. The Guardian. Accessed 30/6/2014 from www.Theguardian.com/business/2013/feb/05/bp-deepwater-horizon-charge-rises.

  • Marginson, D., & Mcaulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margonelli, L. (2010). Obama’s BP oil spill commission gets it wrong. The Atlantic. Accessed 6/30/2014 from www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/obamas-bp-oil-spill-commission-gets-it-wrong/66965/.

  • Marimon, F., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., del Pilar Rodríguez, M., & Alejandro, K. A. C. (2012). The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, A. L. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International, 34(2), 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mckeen, J. D., Guimaraes, T., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1994). The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: And investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcwilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, R., Hui, W. S., Kamal, I., Rahman, A., & Aziz, R. A. (2007). Strategic performance measurement system and organisation competitive advantage. In R. Maelah (Ed.), Sustaining competitiveness in a liberalized economy: The role of accounting (pp. 94–116). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J., & Pell, M. B. (2010). Renegade refiner: OSHA says BP has “systemic safety problem”. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/05/17/2672/renegade-refiner-osha-says-bp-has-systemicsafety-problem. Accessed 30 June 2014.

  • Murovec, N., Erker, R. S., & Prodan, I. (2012). Determinants of environmental investments: Testing the structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37(complete), 265–277.

  • Nawrocka, D., & Parker, T. (2009). Finding the connection: Environmental management systems and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring business success. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2006). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring business success. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Kennerley, M., & Adams, C. (2007). Performance measurement frameworks: A review. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Unifying theory and integrating practice (pp. 143–162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M., & Kennerley, M. (2000). Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(10), 1119–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehrt, C. (1996). Timing and intensity of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 535–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, F., & Rapp, B. (2005). Understanding competitive advantage: The importance of strategic congruence and integrated control. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation And Development.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padmanabhan, M., & Beckmann, V. (2009). Institutions and sustainability: Introduction and overview. In V. Beckmann & M. Padmanabhan (Eds.), Institutions and sustainability: Political economy of agriculture and the environment—essays in honour of Konrad Hagedorn (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2000). Environmental costing: A path to implementation. Australian Accounting Review, 10(3), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: The need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 296–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio stamp: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • POJASEK, R. B. (2011). ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility. Environmental Quality Management, 20(3), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1996, November–December). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 61–78.

  • Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 375–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pueyo, A., García, R., Mendiluce, M., & Morales, D. (2011). The role of technology transfer for the development of a local wind company industry in Chile. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4274–4283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuters. (2014). BP PLC (BP.L). Accessed 30/6/2014 from www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=bp.l.

  • Schneider, M., Holzer, A., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2008). Understanding the CDM’s contribution to technology transfer. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2930–2938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SFI. (2010). Requirements for the SFI 2010–2014 program. Washington, DC: Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organization theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kournousis, F. (2010). Assessing non-financial reports according to the global reporting initiative guidelines: Evidence from greece. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2009, August). Short on time: The role of time in business sustainability. Chicago, IL: Academy of Management Proceedings.

  • Stapleton, L. M., & Garrod, G. D. (2008). Policy preceding possibility? Examining headline composite sustainability indicators in the United Kingdom. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starke, F., Eunni, R. V., Fouto, N. M. M. D., & de Angelo, C. F. (2012). impact of ISO 9000 certification on firm performance: Evidence from Brazil. Management Research Review, 35(10), 974–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. (2011). Valuing corporate responsibility: How do investors really use corporate responsibility information. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. H., & Sullivan, P. H. (2000). Valuing intangibles companies: An intellectual capital approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 328–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tietenberg, T. (1998). Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environmental & Resource Economics, 11(3–4), 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 175–190). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toman, M. A. (1994). Economics and “sustainability”: Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics, 70(4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonchia, S., & Quagini, L. (2010). Performance measurement: Linking balanced scorecard to business intelligence. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Chemical Safety, Hazard Investigation Board. (2014). Explosion and fire at the Macondo well: Investigation report (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Chemical Safety Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdini, E., & Arbore, A. (2013). Competitive strategies: Managing the present, imagining the future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warhurst, A. (2005). Future roles of business in society: The expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, 37(2/3), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (n.d.). Eco-efficiency: Learning module. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

  • Wicks, A. C. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration of business and society research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M., Pinske, J., & Illge, L. (2012). Case studies on trade-offs in corporate sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(2), 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, N., Sushil, S., & Sagar, M. (2013). Performance measurement and management frameworks: Research trends of the last two decades. Business Process Management Journal, 19(6), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngblood, A. D., & Collins, T. R. (2003). Addressing balanced scorecard trade-off issues between performance metrics using multi-attribute utility theory. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Applied Science and Management, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

    Jonathan Pryshlakivsky

  2. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada

    Cory Searcy

Authors
  1. Jonathan Pryshlakivsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cory Searcy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Pryshlakivsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pryshlakivsky, J., Searcy, C. A Heuristic Model for Establishing Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems. J Bus Ethics 144, 323–342 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2806-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2806-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation