Analyzing Shanghai Enterprises' Incorporation of Sustainability Measures into Strategic Performance Systems

WORLD ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & APPLIED SCIENCES-MARCH-SEPTEMBER 2013 EDITION

International Journal of Business & Management

MARCH 2013 VOL.1, No,1

Analyzing the current incorporation of social, environmental
and economic measures into business strategic performance
measurement systems: the case of Enterprises operating in
Shanghai

Jing Zhou (Corresponding author)
Fudan University, School of Management
Starr Building 670 Guoshun Road, Shanghai, P.O Box 200433 China
E-mail: Zhoujing1985@yahoo.cn
Li Xu
Fudan University, School of Management
Starr Building 670 Guoshun Road, Shanghai, P.O Box 200433 China
E-mail:xiaoli_xu@hotmail.com
Accepted 4 March 2013

Abstract:
We theorize about the incorporation of social, environmental and economic dimensions into strategic
performance measurement systems .81Chinese companies were surveyed for the analysis. Along with
the increasing of social responsibility pressure, numbers of enterprises are promoting environmental,
social and economic performance as strategic sustainability measures. Although the addition of
sustainability measures to enterprise’s long term business strategy has long time been a major
preoccupation of literature. Some empirical researches have examined if these nonfinancial measures
are effectively incorporated into strategic performance measurement systems. In this research, we will
examine why the incorporation of sustainability measures into enterprise business strategy vary across
enterprises operating in Shanghai.
Keywords: Sustainability measures, Shanghai enterprises, Enterprise strategic performance
measurement systems.

1. Introduction
The beginning of 21th century observed unprecedented important changes in enterprise long term
strategy and management towards sustainable concerns, the incorporation of sustainability measures
as enterprise strategy, and adopting sustainability as entire part of an enterprise’s business strategy in
order to obtain important benefits (Epstein 2008).This tendency has been confirmed by S.Gates and
C.Germain(2010)who demonstrated that number of enterprises are developing new strategy
approaches in relationship with attempts to incorporate sustainability measures into business strategies
such as the balanced scorecard (BSC).According to Marcus Wagner, Tobias Hahn ,Frank Figge ,Stefan
Schaltegger (2001) social, environmental, and economic performance have become increasingly
important for business. To the level that environmental, social and economic problems are shown in
the transactions of markets, many enterprises have implemented environmental, social and economic
management strategies during the last ten years. These strategies have rarely been incorporated with
49


the general management strategy of an enterprise. The role of enterprises in achieving sustainability
has been discussed both on instrumental ( Bennett & James, 1999) and strategic level ( Roome,
1998) .If enterprises are to achieve at the same time improvements of the environmental ,social and
economic performance of businesses , this lack of integration turns out to be a major obstruction. The
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that is“a network-based organization that pioneered the world’s
most widely used sustainability reporting framework”, shows that environmental, social and economic
performance (sustainability measures) are evolving in some of Asian countries such as China. And
number of these countries is incorporating sustainability measures in enterprises long term
performance strategies (OECD-DAC, 2011).Some empirical studies have examined if sustainability
measures are integrated into enterprises performance measurement systems which are crucial for the
implementation of business strategy.
This paper has two main objectives. The first objective is to investigate to what degree Enterprise
operating in Shanghai (China) incorporate sustainability measures in their performance measurement
systems (PMS) and align them with long term business strategy. The second objective is to evaluate
the determinants which explain why these practices vary across these enterprises.
2. Literature review
2.1 Strategic performance measurement system
Strategic performance measurement system determines both the scope and focus of management
accounting. Particularly the requisite is that practice of management accounting should reflect the
choices of strategies made in enterprises for management accounting to be consistent. The process of
SPMS has four important steps. Identifying:
1. The enterprise’s primary goals ( as established by its owners)
2. The role the enterprise’s stakeholders play as the enterprise pursues its primary objectives
3. The requirements of each stakeholder in exchange for pursuing its role in supporting the enterprise’s
strategy.
4. How to evaluate the enterprises objectives and stakeholder roles.
The process of PMS starts with the specification of enterprises primary objectives. In
profit-seeking enterprises, the primary objectives are financial
In not-for-profit enterprises the primary objectives reflect the objectives of the enterprise’s
members
For the purpose of strategic performance measurement the enterprise’s objective can be mainly
financial, social, or a mix of both social and financial objectives. But, if there are primary objectives
that can conflict, the enterprises planners should identify rules that instruct how decision-makers
should make trade-offs among the objectives (Anthony A. Atkinson, 1998)
Finally, Strategic performance measurement systems have three characteristics in common:
1. They integrate financial measures that capture the short-term consequences of managers’ decisions
regarding asset utilization, revenue growth and cash flows problems (Kaplan & Norton, 2001a)
2. They enhance financial measures with nonfinancial measures (that indicate operational
achievements likely to drive future financial performance);
3. They are created to achieve multiple objectives (cost determination and value creation)
2.2 Enterprise Social Responsibility (ESR) and Sustainability
The concept of ESR has been first developed by Bowen (1953). In this research, we define ESR
as a complete set of programs, practices and policies that are incorporated into specific business
operations, decision-making and supply chains processes throughout an enterprise, aiming to instruct
responsibility for past and actual actions as well as future influences (Business for Social
Responsibility, 2008). The Brundtland Commission report (1987) defines the ESR as “meeting current
needs without compromising the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs”. A
sustainable corporate contributes to sustainability by bringing social economic and environmental
benefits simultaneously (by achieving the triple bottom line) (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Enterprises
have been developing new policies and strategies and redelimiting their action domains, roles, and
interdependency (Van Marrewijk, M. & Hardjono, T.2003).
ESR and sustainability have gradually converged and nowadays they include similar aspects and
are often utilized as comparable terms (Mazon, 2004).
50


First, both ESR and sustainability concepts include different levels of analysis and different
stakeholders (suppliers, clients, community members, shareholders, employees, partners.). Secondly,
these concepts deal with problems related to environmental, social, and economic. The economic
dimension is not centralized to short-term performance indicators (return on investment), but also
refers to aspects that contribute to long-term financial success (enterprise’s reputation and
relationships).
Managing ESR and sustainability implies seeking equilibrium between long and short-term
factors, and among the interests of a larger group of stakeholders than those applied by traditional
management (Raynard and Forstarter, 2002).ESR and sustainability have come represent an important
aspect of enterprise strategy, with an increasing number of enterprises trying to monitor, improve and
determine the environmental and social influences of their activities. Despite such interest, effective
integration of sustainability into performance measurement systems and management faces many
obstacles, raising the need for new research.
2.3 The triple bottom line
After the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), many definitions of
sustainability have been made and this concept has been interpreted in different ways. Most of these
definitions are based upon the concept of triple bottom line (or three-pillar): social, environment and
economy (P., J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004). According to the Portland state
university (2011) “The triple bottom line term is a phrase that originated in the corporate sector as a
way to think about the social, environmental and economic, value that is added (or destroyed) by an
investment”. In others words the meaning behind the “three pillar” is that the health and success of an
enterprise not only can be estimated by the economical dimension but also is influenced by social and
environmental determinants. Triple bottom line model has been developed by Elkington,
J.,(1998).Nowadays number of business companies are implementing this model in their business
strategy, and utilizing the terminology in their annual press releases. According to Russel (2008) an
active sustainability policy can be advantageous for an enterprise in terms of image and the way the
enterprise is profiled in a market.
Enterprises developed a need for a model that could help them to integrate the sustainability in their
business in a way that was beneficial in according to the triple bottom line.
2.4 Incorporating environmental, social and economic dimensions into strategic PMS
Enterprises are progressively inclined to incorporate social and economic dimensions into their
business strategies, to respond to increasing pressure of employees, consumers, and other important
stakeholders and also to examine opportunities for building competitive advantage (Bielak, Bonini, &
Oppenheim, 2007). Management researchers are aiming to identify a set of determinants for
promoting effective incorporation of sustainability into enterprises practices.
Leadership has been recognized as a fundamental alternative, promoting the commitment of
enterprise as a whole (Environmental Protection Agency of United States, 2001).
Marrewijk (2004) in his study, describes a set of ideal types of enterprises, and develops a system of
values and associated institutional structures (governance and the role of leadership).
Fineman (1996) debates the role of leadership in the process of change, highlighting that
leadership appears to play an important role in the enterprise adoption of sustainability practices.
Others determinants such as communication and training (institutional mechanisms) have been
recognized as promoters of sustainability initiatives. Stone (2006) demonstrates that, in order to
achieve a high degree of organizational commitment, well-defined training and communication plans
are key determinants in promoting a clear understanding of the role of sustainable practices for
enterprise strategy and objectives.
Tregidga and Milne (2006) investigate enterprise reports in order to understanding the development of
the discourse of sustainability. They mainly debate the role of reporting and communication
mechanisms in creating enterprise sustainability initiatives.
Bansal (2003) affirms that organizational commitment to sustainability is promoted when top
management buy the concept (but also when lower organizational levels engage in sustainability)
Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) link perception of management of stakeholders' pressures with more
proactive undertakings towards environmental commitment.
51


Sharma and Henrique (2005) suggest an analysis associating different types of stakeholder
influence strategies with different sustainability practices adopted by enterprises.
The literature review proposes that even if researchers are aiming to identify and understand the
factors that might influence the incorporation of sustainability by enterprise. Few studies have
suggested a more centralized view of these factors. Basu and Palazzo (2008)’s article is one of the rare
articles that consider internal and external impacts, suggesting a group of cognitive, linguistic and
conative aspects in order to identify an enterprise’s intrinsic orientation toward the choice of ESR .
The cognitive aspect has to do with dimensions including enterprise orientation, identity and
legitimacy, managerial beliefs and values regarding the choice of sustainability (USEPA, 2001). The
linguistic aspect includes organizational modes of justification and is associated to considerations of
transparency and communication (Marrewijk, 2004; Stone, 2006; Tregidga and Milne 2006). The
conative aspects involves the way enterprises tend to operate, including coherence among strategic
policies and levels of commitment (Marrewijk, 2004; Sharma and Henriques, 2005)。
2.5 Performance measurement system and sustainability management
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) was created as a new approach to performance measurement
(PMS) because of problems of past orientation and short-termism in corporate management (Figge F,
Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M., 2001a.). The Balanced Scorecard is found on the assumption that
the efficient utilization of investment capital is not the sole factor for enterprise competitive
advantages, but factors such as intellectual capital, customer orientation, knowledge, become very
important .Norton and Kaplan proposed then a new performance measurement system approach
centered on enterprise strategy in four perspectives(figure1): financial, customer, internal business
processes, and learning and growth (Kaplan and Norton, 2001).
The balanced scorecard’s purpose is to contribute and to transform “soft factors” and intangible
assets into long-term financial success explicit .The balanced scorecard’s four perspectives can be
summarized as follows (Kaplan & Norton, 2001,Weber & Schaffer, 2000)
(1) The financial perspective shows if the transformation of a strategy leads to ameliorated economic
success.
(2) The customer perspective determines the customer or the market segments in which the enterprise
competes.
(3) The internal process perspective defines internal business processes that enable the firm to meet
the customers’ expectations in the target markets.
(4) The learning and growth perspective identifies the infrastructure necessary for the achievement of
the objectives of qualification, motivation and goal orientation of employees, and information
systems.
Beside the four perspectives of the balanced Scorecard, a fifth aspect (society) can integrate social and
environmental aspects that show nonmarket societal mechanisms (sociocultural mechanism).
Figure 1: Four perspectives to integrate sustainability into the balanced scorecard
Source: Kaplan, R. S. and Norton D. P. (1992, Jan-Feb) ‘The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That
Drive Performance’, Harvard Business Review, Vol.70, No.1, pp.71-79
Thus the new approach is to create a balanced scorecard devoted to social and environmental
problems that cover the traditional balanced Scorecard. This choice of a balanced scorecard focused
on sustainability (social and environmental) is very important for enterprises management departments
that are devoted to social and environmental and issues.
There are many possibilities to incorporate sustainability measures into performance
measurement systems, but enterprises’ current practices and the determinants that explain their
procedures remain uninvestigated. Sustainability management with the balanced Scorecard aims to
focus on the problem of enterprises contributions to sustainability in a centralized way. It assumes that
for enterprises to contribute to sustainable development, it’s very important that enterprise
performance improves simultaneously in social, economic and environmental dimensions (Figge F,
Hahn T, Schaltegger S.,Wagner M., 2001a).
In a balanced scorecard all aspects appropriate for accomplishing a permanent competitive
advantage should be incorporated. In the four perspectives of the balanced scorecard, therefore, the
enterprise’s activities important for long-term business success are included and causes are connected
52


to effects.

FINANCIAL
“To succeed financially,
how should we appear to
our shareholders?”

CUSTOMER
“To achieve our vision,
how should we appear
to our customer?”

VISION AND
STRATEGY

INTERNAL
BUSINESS PROCESS
“To satisfy our
shareholders and
customers, what business
process must we excel?”

LEARNING AND
GROWTH
“To achieve our vision,
how should we sustain
our ability to change and
improve?”

In the formulation of a balanced scorecard all the objectives and measures are estimated from the
long-term strategic financial objectives in a top-down process.
This structure of the balanced scorecard ensures that all business activities are associated to the
successful application of the business strategy. This particularity of the balanced scorecard can also be
utilized for the management of social and environmental dimensions. The capacity of the balanced
scorecard to incorporate the three dimensions of sustainability gives the opportunity to integrate the
management of social and environmental dimensions into normal business activities.
The link between the three performance aspects of sustainability (environmental, social and
economic) must be taken into account. Incorporating the three aspects of sustainability into business
management offers three principal advantages (Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M. 2001a):
(1) Sustainability management that is economically sound is not menaced by economic crisis because
it is not only achieved as long as the enterprise is successful.
(2) Enterprises that want to promote their social and environmental management sometimes direct
themselves towards competitors.
(3) An inclusion of social and environmental and dimensions into business management confirms that
enterprise sustainability management take into account all three aspects of sustainability.
There are three possibilities to incorporate social and environmental dimensions in the balanced
scorecard. Firstly, environmental and social dimensions can be incorporated in the current four
perspectives. Secondly, an additional perspective can be added to consider social and environmental
53


dimensions. Third, a particular social and environmental scorecard can be conceived (Deegen T., 2001,
Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M. 2001a).
Environmental and social aspects can be classified under the four current bsc perspectives
(Deegen T., 2001). This signifies that social and environmental dimensions are included in the four
perspectives through particular performance drivers for which leading indicators as well as objectives
are conceived (Kaplan and Norton, 2001).
The approach of the incorporation of social and environmental dimensions by classifying them under
the four perspectives is very important for social and environmental dimensions that are already
incorporated in the market system.
3 Methodology
3.1 Data collection
We conducted an empirical study of large enterprises operating in Shanghai. We identified a
sample of 250 enterprises. But only 81 companies showed interest in the study which represented
32.4% responses. The type of enterprises chosen for the study are: manufactured enterprises, service
enterprises, and distribution enterprises(Table 6,figure 4).We used the strategy of independent
contingency variables(ICV) in the survey instrument developed by Edward J. Garrity, G. Lawrence
Sanders (1998) to assess enterprise strategy. Respondents were asked to rate on a five-point likert
scale to what extent they agreed with a number of statements relating to enterprise principal strategic
orientation (Sinkovics, Rudolf R, Roath, Anthony S.,2004,citing Gatignon and Xuereb ,1997 ,define
strategic orientation as the specific approach a firm implements to create superior and continuous
performance. Strategic orientation provides a foundation of guidelines upon which to continuously
improve a company's performance).The statistical method we used to determine enterprises strategies
in the overall sample is Factor Analysis(It can be defined as a statistical technique used to
describe variability among observed variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved
variables called factor). We have chosen three dimensions (1.the strategy of product differentiation
according to service and product quality; 2. strategy according to cost leadership; 3.the strategy of
product differentiation based on innovation) with eigenvalues higher than 1 (3.21, 1.79, and 1.3).And
the percentage of variance explained by each dimension is 32.15%, 17.9%, and 10.30%.
The respondents were also asked to indicate the type of business strategy or performance
measurement systems they use to conduct performance, their business sector, and if their enterprise is
classified as multinational company.
We additionally asked them to indicate on a five-point likert scale to what extent they think the
performance measurement system includes both performance and sustainability dimensions (financial
PM, internal processes, innovation and learning, customers, and sustainability).
We used SPSS software for performing data analysis.
3.2 Results
The results of the data analysis show that among the financial PM, internal processes, innovation
and learning, customers, and sustainability categories, only the sustainability measure is (on average)
less present in the performance measurement systems (table 1, figure 2).However, the results in table 2
show that sustainable practices are more present in multinational enterprises. Moreover, manufactured
enterprises are more likely to promote “sustainable lifestyles” than are both distribution and service
enterprises. The results obtained also show that nationality (Chinese or foreign) is not a determinant of
the presence of sustainability measures in performance measurement systems.
Figure 2: Performance Measures average level of presence

54


Figure 3: Mean level of alignment between core business strategy and sustainability

Figure 4: Repartition of types of enterprises interviewed

Table 1: Performance Measures average level of presence

Financial
Customer
Internal process
Innovation and learning
Sustainability

Measures level of presence
4.35
2.65
2.90
2.45
1.70

55

Table 2: Comparison tests of
mean level of presence and
Standard Deviations of


Sustainability Indicators

Contingency variable
Classified as multinational enterprise
Not classified as multinational enterprise
Manufactured company
Distribution enterprise
Service enterprise
Chinese enterprises
Foreign companies

Mean level
of sustainability
indicator
1.85
1.80
1.87
1.53
1.87
1.53
1.89
2.00

N
35
46
47
17
47
17
60
21

Standard
Deviation
1.15
1.06
1.08
0.89
1.08
0.89
1.09
1.14

Mean
Difference
0.12*
0.34*
0.34*
0.11

*P< 0.5
Table 3: Correlations between level of presence of sustainability measures in PMS and the type of
strategy.
Strategy of quality

Strategy of cost leadership

Strategy of innovation

Sustainability dimensions'
level of presence

-0.33

-0.24

0.42

P<0.05, correlations are significant

Table 4: Mean level of alignment between core business strategy and sustainability
Measures
Level of alignment with strategy
Sustainability
5.00
Innovation and learning
3.80
Internal processes
4.08
Customer
4.66
Financial
4.70
Table 5: comparison tests mean of core business strategy and sustainability (by contingency variables)
Contingency variable
Classified as multinational enterprise
Not classified as multinational enterprise
Distribution enterprise
Service enterprise
Chinese enterprises
Foreign companies

Mean level
of sustainability
indicator
2.40
2.15
2.45
2.12
2.45
2.12
2.13
2.18

N
35
46
47
17
47
17
60
21

Standard
Deviation
1.45
1.20
1.55
1.10
1.55
1.10
1.12
1.19

Mean
Difference
0.25*
0.33*
0.33*
0.05

*P< .01
Table 6.Repartition of types of enterprises interviewed

Enterprises

Number of enterprises

Percentages

Manufactured enterprises
Service enterprises

49
22

60.49%
27.16%

Distribution enterprises
Total

10
81

12.34
100%

The results in table 3 show that there is no link between the presence of sustainability dimensions
in performance measurement systems and business strategy.
The table 4 and figure 3 show that among the categories of PMS, sustainability measures are the
56


most correlated to enterprise strategy. This result has been confirmed by Rodney Mc Adam and Brian
Bailie (2002). They demonstrated that “performance measures associated to strategy are more
effective. Also, the alignment between the measures, measurement framework and the strategy must be
continually reviewed and treated as a dynamic and complex issue, rather than a linear mechanistic
relationship”.
The results in table 5 show that the alignment between core business strategy and sustainability is
more correlated with multinational enterprises and with manufactured enterprises.
4 Discussions and Conclusion
In investigating to what degree enterprises operating in Shanghai incorporate sustainability
measures in their performance measurement systems (PMS) and align them with long term business
strategy, we found that among the performance measurement categories, only the sustainability
measures appear to be faintly present in strategic performance measurement system and are not fully
aligned with business strategies(figure 1,table 2).The alignment of SPMS with business strategies
depend on each enterprise objectives .Nowadays only few enterprises align PMS with business
strategies. As the results suggest, in China, both multinational and manufactured enterprises align the
most SPMS with their business strategies.
We also found that multinational enterprises and manufactured enterprises influence the
incorporation of sustainability measures into business strategic performance measurement systems.
Others reasons that explain the incorporation of sustainability measures are: the high impact nature
of these enterprises operations on the environment ;the need to be responsible to environment and
build trust with important stakeholders(NGOs and local communities ); high competition ; the need to
influence business leaders; the need to make difference between them and competitors in order to
increase market share and improving profitability, the requirement of shareholder to monitor and
to report sustainability measures internally and externally in order to enhance enterprise valuation’s
prospect.
Additionally, the development of ethical investing(also known as sustainable,
socially-conscious .It describes an investment strategy which seeks to maximize both financial return
and social good. Ehical investors favor enterprise practices that promote environmental stewardship,
consumer protection and diversity) and its shareholder activism to get the best sustainability reporting
constitute the main reason why multinational enterprises are more likely to integrate sustainability
reporting into performance measurement systems (S.Gates and C. Germain ,2010).
We did not find any relationship between the presence of sustainability measures and enterprises
nationality and business strategy. Generally, performance measurement systems require that the
performance measures must emanate from enterprise’ strategic objectives, because sustainability
aspects just now starting to be implemented into many enterprise’ strategic objectives, the relationship
between the process of business strategic planning and the formulation of PMS should be nearby to
not dissociate the PMS from enterprise’ sustainability strategy
Based on
Gabriele Rosani and German Rueda (2011)’s recommendation, when building
performance strategic measurement system there are important problems that we need to pay
attention .The first problem is related to whether the performance measurement system is an
instrument for strategy formulation or implementation. The second problem refer to whether the most
appropriate approach to sustainability aspects is to treat them collectively or in separately such as
social, environmental, and economic. The third problem is related to whether sustainability activities
and measures must be controlled by a separate unit in the enterprise.
Finally, aligning enterprise sustainability measures with Strategic PMS constitute one of the most
complex challenges enterprises are facing. While this important topic has broad implications that
touch the enterprises daily operations as well as its budgeting, planning, and processes of goal-setting ,
at the end of the day if employees have not produced enough goods( or services), enterprises will
“take a hit” to the bottom-line and fall sadly short of goal achievement. Developing (or implementing)
a strategic PMS will help enterprise to keep employees committed to a enterprise's business system
and objectives .Responsibility for implementing a strategic PMS lies with the enterprise management
department function.
According to Althea DeBrule (2011), for successfully building a strategic performance measurement
57


system, it’s important to:
1. Associate PM to enterprise business planning (tie resulting performance metrics to enterprise
business result).
2. Design training programs and worker orientation and to help employees become more
conscientious about how their work influence the enterprise's bottom line.
3. Reexamine the program of current worker performance management .Remember integrating
multiple-rater, 360-degree feedback and transfer into the PMS
4. Involve employees in the PMS project.
5 Implement competency models and use them as a basis for connecting PMS with other people
management processes.
6. Disassociated performance evaluation from professional development.
Performing a measurement system can be a difficult task. The system becomes visible to the overall
enterprise and its reliability is authenticated at this point. Operation must be very well projected and
stakeholders’ involvement is important at this step.
To answer to the question “where to start for incorporating sustainability measures into strategic
performance measurement system?” Gabriele Rosani and German Rueda (2011) argue that, “decision
makers in any enterprise can create added value (AV) for their stakeholders by determining and
implementing sustainability strategies”.
Peter Drucker (Globally renowned management consultant) argues: “you can’t manage what you don’t
measure”. The first step for integrating sustainability into strategic PMS is therefore to create an
appropriate enterprise sustainability scorecard. Managers need to understand the impact their
enterprises have across the value chain. Integrating sustainability into enterprise strategic PMS
ultimately gives enterprise a competitive advantage lowers short-term costs and enhances potential
long-term revenue.
Enterprises managers could be helped to balance sustainability objectives with their profit and revenue
goals by integrating social, environment and economic measures into their enterprise’s strategic
performance measurement systems. Otherwise, organization’s management runs the risk that its
sustainability goals will remain separated from operations (S.Gates and C. Germain (2010)..
Future research could examine how both manager administrator and labor force manage sustainability
measures.
References
Atkinson, A.A. (1998).Strategic Performance Measurement and Incentive Compensation,
European Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 5, Oct, pp. 552-561
Althea DeBrule(2011),from
http://www.ehow.com/how_4470888_develop-strategic-performance-measurement-system.html
Bansal (2003). From issues to actions: the importance of individual concerns and organizational
values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510-527.
Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking’.The
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.
values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510-527.
Bielak, D., Bonini, S.M.J., & Oppenheim, J.M. (2007). CEOs on strategy and social issues. McKinsey
Quarterly, 8-12
Bennett M, James P. (1999). Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and
Social Performance. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
BSR Conference (2008). Sustainability: Leadership Required November 4-7, 2008 . Grand Hyatt .
New York.
Brundtland Commission (1987).World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED).
Oxford University Press in.
Business for Social Responsibility(2008).Independent auditors ‘report financial statements and single
audit reports and schedules independent auditors report, financial statements and single audit reports
and schedules.From http://www.bsr.org/pdfs/about/2008_BSR_FS.pdf
Deegen T.,(2001). Ansatzpunkte zur Integration von Umweltaspekten in die “Balanced
58


Scorecard”Center for Sustainability Management: Luneburg.
Dyllick and Hockerts(2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Env. 11,
130–141 .Wiley InterScience.
Edward J. Garrity, G. Lawrence Sanders (1998). Information systems success measurement. Idea
Group Inc (IGI), 1998 - Idea Group Inc (IGI) P101-102
Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making Sustainability Work: Best practices in managing and measuring social
and environmental impacts, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
Forester, J., 1999: The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Frank Figge,Tobias Hahn,Stefan Schaltegger and Marcus Wagner(2002). The sustainability balanced
scorecard .Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the
Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 269–284 (2002)
Frank Figge,Tobias Hahn,Stefan Schaltegger and Marcus Wagner(2001b). The Sustainability Balanced
Scorecard – a tool for value-oriented sustainability management in strategy focused organizations.
Conference Proceedings of the 2001 Eco-Management and Auditing Conference. ERP Environment:
Shipley; 83–90.
Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M. (2001a).Sustainability Balanced Scorecard.
Wertorientiertes Nachhaltigkeits management mit der Balanced Scorecard.Center for Sustainability
Management: Luneburg.
Fineman (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17(3), 479-500.
Henriques and P. Sadorsky (1999).”The relationship between environmental commitment and
managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance”, Academy of Management Journal, February, 42
(1): 87-99.
Gabriele Rosani and German Rueda(2011) . Incorporating Sustainability into Strategy. Tefen
Tribune.Winter Issue, 2011
Kaplan R, Norton D.,(2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization: how Balanced Scorecard
Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press:Boston
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and
managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 8799.
Mazon, R. (2004). Uma abordagem conceitual aos negocios sustentaveis: manual de negocios
sustentáveis. Sao Paulo: FGV-EAESP.
Marrewijk, M. van (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.
Marcus Wagner, Tobias Hahn ,Frank Figge ,Stefan Schaltegger (2001)
The sustainable balanced scorecard linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business
Strategy and the Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 269–284
N., A. & Adams, C. (2000) .“Perspectives on Performance: The Performance Prism”, In Handbook of
Performance Measurement (ed. Bourne, M.), Gee Publishing, London.
OECD-DAC (2011). Enterprise Development and Economic Transformation:
Creating the Enabling Environment. 16-17 February 2011 African Union Conference Centre and
Hilton Hotel, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Portland state university (2011) .From
http://www.pdx.edu/cupa/initiative-triple-bottom-line-development.
Peter Drucker (1954).Drucker, Peter F., “The Practice of Management”.HarperBusiness book . ISBN
0060110953
Raynard,P.,Forstarter,M.(2002).Corporate Social Responsibility:Implications for Small and.Medium
Enterprises in Developing Countries. United Nations Industrial Development .Strategy and the
Environment 11(2), 130–141 (2002)
S.Gates and C. Germain (2010).Integrating sustainability measures into strategic performance
measurement systems: an empirical study. Spring 2010, Vol 11, No. 3
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian
forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159-180.
59


Roome (1998). Sustainability Strategies for Industry: the Future of Corporate Practice. Island:
Washington, DC.
Stone (2006). Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisational change agents. II.
Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14(1), 15-30.
Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: a
longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 15(4), 219-241.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). An organizational guide to pollution
prevention. Retrieved July 18, 2007:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/P2/printguid.pdf
USEPA. (2001). Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-1999. Office of
Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; EPA 236-R-01-001.
Van Marrewijk, M. & Hardjono, T. (2003). European corporate sustainability framework for managing
complexity and corporate transformation. Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (2-3), 121-132.
Weber J, Schaffer U.,(2000). Balanced Scorecard and Controlling: Implementierung, Nutzen fur
Manager und Controller – Erfahrungen in deutschen Unternehmen.Gabler: Wiesbaden.
P., J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A., (2004). Conceptualizing sustainability
assessment, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy. Murdoch University. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, Science Direct.
Elkington, J., (1998). Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. CT: New Society Publishers
Russel, J., (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: What It Means for the Project Manager. PMI
Global Congress Proceedings. Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sinkovics, Rudolf R, Roath, Anthony S (2004).Strategic orientation,capabilities,and performance in
manufacturer-3PL relationships,Journal of Business Logistics.
Rodney Mc Adam and Brian Bailie (2002).Business performance measures and alignment impact on
strategy. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Volume 22

60

Analyzing Shanghai Enterprises' Incorporation of Sustainability Measures into Strategic Performance Systems

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

Similaire à Analyzing Shanghai Enterprises' Incorporation of Sustainability Measures into Strategic Performance Systems

Similaire à Analyzing Shanghai Enterprises' Incorporation of Sustainability Measures into Strategic Performance Systems (20)

Plus de World-Academic Journal

Plus de World-Academic Journal (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Analyzing Shanghai Enterprises' Incorporation of Sustainability Measures into Strategic Performance Systems