2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Sustainability Management Control Systems.
Towards a Socially Responsible Planning and Control Framework
Erika Cresti
Department of Business Administration - University of Florence
Via delle Pandette, 9 50127 Florence. Phone (0039) 0554374735; Fax (0039) 0554374910
E-mail: erika.cresti@unifi.it
Contents – 1. Introduction – 2. The adoption of CSR principles as a new way of doing business – 3. From
disclosure to measurement: the role of Management Control Systems (MCS) and Performance Measurement
Systems (PMS) – 4. Sustainability performance management and measurement systems: a literature review – 5.
Towards a framework for the integration of CSR through planning and control process – 6. Discussion and
conclusion.
ABSTRACT
Today’s companies face new community expectations about the social role of business. They must pay attention
not only to the economic consequences of their activities, but also to social impacts, environmental impacts, and
stakeholders’ claims. In order to be considered socially responsible, companies must effectively implement
sustainability principles by aligning their strategy, structure, and management systems with stakeholders’ needs.
This means incorporating social, environmental, and stakeholder concerns into corporate strategy, company
management systems, business processes, and day-to-day decision making. This is the only way to remain
competitive in the current global environment and to ensure long-term business success. The role played by
management control systems is essential to fulfilling strategic objectives. This paper discusses the need to adopt
a “strategic approach” to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is to give substance and credibility to a
company’s commitment to sustainability principles by integrating economic, social, and environmental concerns
with the planning and control process. After reviewing the literature on sustainability performance management
and measurement systems, this paper offers a “socially responsible planning and control” framework as a
strategic path for the implementation of CSR concerns into the business organization.
1. INTRODUCTION
Today’s companies, as economic entities acting in a specific social and environmental
setting, face challenges from new community expectations about the role they play in society.
Communities are asking them to broaden their scope and the way they act, as well as to be
aware of the needs of a wider number of people, the so-called stakeholders (Freeman, 1984).
Companies, in this way, are in the middle of a complex web of relations with various and
different groups of people who have interest and influence in the way businesses act
(Atkinson A.A., Waterhouse J.H. and Wells R.B., 1997).
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
1
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
The growing concerns about firms’ environmental and social effects, the attention to
world climate change, the creation of a new, more responsible and critical consumer, and the
birth of a global society informed in real time, confront companies with new competitive
challenges. Firms have a duty that goes beyond the narrow borders of the creation of value
for the shareholders. They must pay attention not only to the economic consequences of their
activities, but also to social and environmental impact. Businesses should accept the idea that
they play more than just an economic role in society, that firms have a wider responsibility
for their own impact on society and on the natural environment. The key word, in the
international debate about the role of businesses in the society, is Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). This buzzword involves a new way of doing business that extends
legal and economic responsibilities to satisfy the legitimate social and environmental
expectations of multiple groups of stakeholders. Corporations should use their resources to
help alleviate a wide variety of social problems, to give more toward society’s well-being,
and to help address environmental preservation.
With the explosion of interest in this subject on the part of the business, academic and
policy communities, a huge number of definitions have been proposed (Carroll, 1999). There
is no agreed definition, but one of the most important and frequently used (Dahlsrud, 2008)
defines CSR as “…a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with stakeholders on a
voluntary basis” (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 6). This definition
encompasses the key features of the CSR concept. One key feature is CSR’s voluntariness:
companies should fulfil the stakeholders’ legitimate claims beyond the minimum legal
requirements. “Social responsibility begins where the law ends. A firm is not being socially
responsible if it merely complies with the minimum requirements of the law, because this is
what any good citizen would do” (Davis, 1973, p. 313). This is what Carroll (1979, 1991)
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
2
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
defined as discretionary and ethical responsibility. The boundary between governmental
regulation of business versus business self-regulation to achieve socially responsible
behaviour is both fleeting and confusing. Yet there is a general agreement that CSR should be
popularised but not imposed (Robins, 2008). Another key feature of CSR is its stakeholder
viewpoint and its multidimensional, balanced perspective (a focus on economic, social and
environmental outcomes of companies’ activities): these are the core issues of CSR
philosophy and practices, and they characterize how companies should implement principles
of social responsibility.
Through the integration of social, ethical and environmental concerns into business
activities (that is, through the adoption of CSR principles), companies provide a considerable
contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development goals (World Commission
on Environment and Development, 1987). In order that a company be defined as socially
responsible, it is required to be economically and financially reliable, to minimize negative
environmental impacts coming from carrying out its tasks and to act according to social
expectations1.
Economic, social and environmental concerns must be evenly integrated into the
company’s everyday operations. The adherence to CSR principles must be a proactive and
sincere commitment, not just a public relations exercise or a way to improve the company’s
image and reputation. For this purpose, the social and environmental issues, like the
economic one, should be integrated in the strategy as well as in the practices of the firm.
Companies have to undertake such a path for the effective implementation of the
sustainability principles, the path of aligning the strategy, structure and management systems
with stakeholders’ needs. In this effort, the role played by management control systems as a
means to fulfilling strategic objectives is essential.
1
The concepts of corporate social responsibility and sustainability will be used here synonymously.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
3
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
The purpose of this work is to analyse characteristics and role played by management
control systems, and in particular by performance measurement systems, for a real integration
of CSR principles into business practices. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows.
First, it presents an analysis of the growing interest in the implementation of the corporate
social responsibility principles and the integration of stakeholders’ concerns into the strategy
and actions of the company. Second, given the changes required by the implementation of a
sustainability strategy, the role of management control systems and performance
measurement systems, as levers to translate the strategy into action, will be outlined. Third,
an analysis of the main sustainability performance management and measurement models
found in the international literature will be done. Fourth, I will try to delineate a framework
for the integration of the CSR concerns into the company, involving the entire planning and
control process.
2. THE ADOPTION OF CSR PRINCIPLES AS A NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS
Today, a firm, to act and to operate legitimately, needs to respond to a variety of social,
ethical and environmental issues varying from safety and job stability expected by employees
to the focus on the environmental impact of production processes. Giving heed to all of these
questions as part of corporate operations and functions is critical to business success.
The debate on Corporate Social Responsibility took place roughly in the second half of
the 20th century with the publishing of Bowen’s book (1953), “Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman”. Bowen is considered the father of Social Responsibility. Since then, a fervent
debate has begun, and a large number of works have been published. The huge number of
CSR definitions proposed and theories, approaches and models suggested shows the attention
to this subject paid by the academic and business worlds, as well as by governments and
communities in general. From now on, CSR is expected to be an essential concept in business
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
4
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
language and practice because: “…it addresses and captures the most important concerns of
the public regarding business and society relationships” (Carroll, 1999, p. 292).
The adoption of CSR principles and the fulfilment of stakeholders’ expectations may be
justified by the company’s desire to behave as a good citizen, that is guided by high moral
and ethical principles. This view fits normative or ethical theories. On the other hand, CSR
adoption may be guided by the acknowledgement that paying attention to social and
environmental issues can result in superior economic performance and improved creation of
value in the long term. This view is compatible with instrumental or managerial theories
(Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Smith, 2003; Garriga and Melè, 2004). According to the
normative or ethical approach, firms must satisfy stakeholders’ needs and pay attention to
social and environmental concerns because of moral duties and ethical principles. The
relationship between business and society is embedded with ethical values (Hasnas, 1998).
Management should fulfil stakeholders’ expectations because it’s “the right thing to do”.
According to the managerial or instrumental theory, better stakeholder relations are
functional to better economic and financial performance and overall success. There could be
many other motivations, variously combined, driving the increasing concern with
stakeholders’ needs and social and environmental issues. Notably, the company’s desire to
receive the legitimacy to act from the community, the so-called “community licence to
operate”, is one of the main reasons to comply with CSR principles (Deegan, 2002).
Regardless of the reasons to be concerned about societal and environmental expectations,
the implementation of CSR principles in the organization entails several benefits. According
to Waddock (2003), an effective management of stakeholders’ relations is an essential
requirement for improving economic and financial performance. Increased employee
productivity and reduced staff turnover rely often on employee satisfaction with safety and
working conditions. A worker who is satisfied thanks to the job carried out, responsibilities
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
5
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
assigned and economic rewards and benefits received is usually more productive, and this
could lead, in the long run, to superior economic and financial results. Moreover, the more
motivating the working environment, the better the company’s reputation within the labour
market. This could affect its ability to attract and retain better talent, leading to better results
over time (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999). Better-quality products, services and production
processes concerned with environmental and societal expectations can result in increasing
customer fidelity, in higher rates of customer retention and satisfaction, and growth of market
share. This enhances brand value and company image, leading to better economic
performance over time. The establishment of trust-based and collaborative relationships with
suppliers is a potential source for long-run value creation. Giving attention to community
needs contributes to the establishment of a good environment for business activities. Finally
socially responsible behaviour decreases the risk profile associated with the company and
could lead to better relations with the capital market, governments and all other groups that
have a stake in the company.
Responsible management can result in good management (The Economist, 2005) and
consequently in better results for both society and company. It’s a win-win situation. This is
what Drucker termed “...to do good in order to do well, that is to convert social needs and
problems into profitable business opportunities” (Drucker, 1984, p. 59). If social and
environmental programs are put in place solely because “it’s the right thing to do”, they are
vulnerable to changes and uncertainty from bad economic performance or new management
priorities. However, if a company is concerned with social and environmental issues and
stakeholders’ needs in a comprehensive and determined way, CSR involvement can lead to
both long-term business success and social well-being. This is the so-called “business case”
for CSR (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002) that is “…a strategic
and profit-driven corporate response to environmental and social issues cause through the
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
6
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
organization’s primary and secondary activities” (Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger,
2005, p. 27).
Companies must understand the contribution of CSR initiatives to the creation of value in
the long term, identifying activities and projects that can ensure the greatest benefits to both
enterprise and society (Epstein and Roy, 2003a). This is the challenge to managing social,
environmental and economic issues, as well as stakeholders’ expectations, in a wellintegrated and balanced way. This is the only way for an effective and lasting commitment to
socially and environmentally responsible initiatives, as suggested by the several studies
searching for a causal relationship between financial and social-environmental performance
(Wood and Jones, 1995; Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Preston and O’Bannon, 1997; Waddock
and Graves, 1997; Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003).
Consequently, CSR is not to be considered a mere cost, but rather an investment that, if
well integrated into company operations and activities, as well as into governance, positively
influences economic performance and business success. Sustainability principles must be part
of good business management and not some peripheral afterthought or an “add-on” activity.
“CSR is about daily management of social and environmental issues in every department of a
company. Enterprises are not expected to adopt CSR practices for marketing or
philanthropic reasons but because CSR makes sense for their competitiveness. It should not
be just a public relation exercise, but should lead companies to reassess and reorganize their
core business activities, and ensure that they manage risk and change in a socially
responsible way” (Perrini, Pogutz and Tencati, 2006, p. 17).
Incorporating social and environmental issues, as well as stakeholders’ needs, into
corporate strategy (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Werther and Chandler, 2005; Molteni, 2006),
culture, management systems, business processes and day-to-day decision making is the only
way to remain competitive in the current global context and to ensure long-term business
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
7
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
success. Companies must be conscious of the strategic importance of developing systematic
and integrated responses to stakeholders’ expectations as being crucial to long term
competitive advantage and wealth creation.
In order that the implementation of CSR principles into business organization succeed, it
is necessary to adopt a convincing, wholehearted, integrated and balanced approach in the
management of the company. Only with this kind of commitment it is possible to obtain
meaningful and lasting results from the attention to sustainability issues and stakeholders’
concerns. For all of these reasons, a company must follow a path integrating CSR principles
into the organization, starting from the shifting of business culture, values, strategic priorities
and objectives, up to changing management systems and day-to-day activities. Essentially,
this means translating sustainability values into meaningful programs and putting them on the
business agenda. Social and environmental concerns, as well as stakeholders’ needs, must be
embedded in all business processes and functions, must shape the vision and the mission of
the newly responsible company committed with sustainability principles. Management
control systems (MCS) and performance measurement systems (PMS) in particular, play a
major role in the effective integration of sustainability concerns into business management
(Rouse and Putterill, 2003; Norris and O’Dwyer, 2004; Durden, 2008; Rahbek Pedersen and
Neergaard, 2008).
3. FROM DISCLOSURE TO MEASUREMENT: THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT
CONTROL SYSTEMS (MCS) AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
(PMS)
Developing a sense of social and environmental responsibility can go through a learning
curve, starting from defensive or compliant responses that evolve into strategic and
comprehensive conduct (Zadek, 2004: Mio, 2005). In order for CSR to be a structural
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
8
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
component of business management rather than a philanthropic or marketing ploy,
sustainability principles should become an integral part of corporate strategy and should be
embedded in the business organization and in the existing management systems. The
implementation of CSR frequently begins with the disclosure of economic, social and
environmental information within triple bottom line (TBL) external reports (Elkington,
1997). This reflects the growing interest shown by the academic and business world and the
large number of publications on social, environmental and sustainability accounting and
reporting (Mathews, 1997; 2004; Gray, 2002; Parker, 2005). The literature in the CSR area is
too focused on sustainability accounting for external reporting purposes, with still much left
to be said about the alignment of social and environmental external reporting with
management accounting and management control systems (Parker, 2005; Durden, 2008).
Despite the increase in social and environmental disclosure, the quality of these reports
has not improved much. Too often, they are mere public relations exercises aimed at
improving corporate reputation and image. They may not be evidence of a company's real
social and environmental commitment. This happens when sustainability is not well
integrated into business strategy and operations, nor into management systems. For this
reason, there has been a call for a more integrated, systematic and wholehearted approach to
CSR that makes stakeholders’ expectations, as well as social and environmental concerns,
one of the most important strategic priorities, consequently shaping the tools, systems and
activities that help company to translate strategy into action (Epstein, 2004).
Making disclosure of social responsibility information the first step toward implementing
sustainability principles might be termed a “communicational approach” to CSR (Bergamin
Barbato and Mio, 2004). For sustainability principles to become effective, and to show the
company’s authentic commitment to stakeholders’ concerns, this first stage must be followed
by a shift that involves corporate strategy, company processes, activities, and management
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
9
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
systems. According to Epstein: “If current activities are intended to be more than external
reporting for public relations purposes, then they must be part of a comprehensive
sustainability strategy that is driven through the organization” (Epstein, 2004, p. 25).
Social and environmental reporting could also be the beginning of increasing a
company’s commitment to sustainability concerns and stakeholders’ expectations. According
to Molteni (2007), CSR could be integrated into corporate strategy thanks to a path made up
of five development steps. In the first stage, called “informal CSR”, the social and
environmental initiatives carried out are usually sporadic and tied to the values, beliefs and
culture of entrepreneurs or managers (Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004; Perrini and Minoja,
2008). In the second stage, named “current CSR”, companies attempt typical social and
environmental activities such as the drawing up of ethical codes and sustainability reports, the
achievement of social and environmental certifications. At this point, the company should be
ready to move on to the third stage, called “systematic CSR”. In this phase, the top
management, persuaded by the managerial effectiveness of a social and environmental
orientation, could decide to redesign business activities and operations. The fourth stage,
“innovative CSR”, defines a more original approach, usually based on the establishment of
collaborative relationships with company stakeholders. In the meantime, the company seeks
to develop a more comprehensive approach to social and environmental issues for the
achievement of a long-lasting competitive advantage. This level, termed by the author as
“social-competitive synthesis”, is the best response to stakeholders’ needs and the best way to
balance the fulfilment of social-environmental objectives and economic-competitive goals
(Molteni, 2006). The last phase, “dominant CSR”, is the more radical and unusual approach
for the implementation of sustainability principles into the firm’s structure and processes.
Social and environmental issues and stakeholders’ expectations are the “heart” of the
company’s identity and strategy, affecting all business decisions. This could be possible only
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
10
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
in those companies with a heightened sustainability sensibility in which a deep cultural
change has occurred.
In order that a company be defined as socially responsible, an integrative and systematic
approach to CSR is required, including the alignment of external and internal sustainability
accounting information (Lamberton, 2005). In addition, it is required a balanced approach
between initiatives with a prevailing internal focus (such as changes in business vision and
mission, formulation of social and environmental strategic objectives, shifts in management
systems already in use) and activities with a more external focus (such as accountability
through disclosing social and environmental reports and the realisation of programs and
initiatives in favour of local community or of other relevant groups of stakeholders) (De
Colle and Gonella, 2002; 2003).
Before disclosing sustainability information, the company must be able to manage,
measure and monitor economic, social and environmental performance. Formulation and
communication of objectives, monitoring performance through measurement and motivating
employees to achieve company goals are the main tasks traditionally assigned to management
control systems (Merchant, 1985; Anthony and Govindarajan, 1998) through the
implementation of suitable performance management and measurement systems (Otley,
Broadbent and Berry, 1995; Otley, 1999).
The inclusion of stakeholders’ concerns into corporate strategy implies the
appropriateness of the systems employed to measure the achievement of the company’s
objectives. According to Epstein and Hanson (2006, p. XIII): “As companies move forward to
better integrate CSR into the fabric of the organization, the focus has become how to improve
the formulation of a social responsibility strategy and how to develop the plans, programs,
structures, systems, performance evaluations, rewards, and culture necessary to implement
the strategy effectively”. Traditional performance measurement systems, focused on
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
11
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
economic and financial values, must be intelligently integrated with social and environmental
impacts as well as measures of stakeholder satisfaction, in order to lead to a proactive
adoption of sustainability principles and to track potential improvements to sustainability
performance. Performance management and measurement systems can play an essential role
in incorporating economic, social and environmental targets into company mission, strategies
and actions, spreading the sustainability principles throughout the organization. A welldesigned PMS can help managers to formulate economic, social and environmental
objectives and to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability performance
and its business impact on stakeholders’ expectations. Embedding social and environmental
issues into corporate strategy as well as into management control systems is necessary for a
strategic, comprehensive, integrated and effective implementation of sustainability principles,
moving social responsibility commitment beyond mere public relations, philanthropy and
marketing exercises. As stated by Rahbek Pedersen and Neergaard (2008, p.10): “CSR is
unlikely to permeate the organisation unless social and environmental concerns are
integrated in the management frameworks and measurement tools of the business
mainstream”.
4. SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND MEASUREMENT
SYSTEMS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
In order for a company to reflect sustainability and stakeholder focus in daily activities and to
constantly monitor the attainment of social responsibility goals, a performance management
and measurement system should be put in place. Social and environmental concerns, as well
as stakeholders’ expectations, must be integrated with traditional financial and economic
goals, developing a multidimensional and balanced performance measurement system (PMS).
This allows sustainability performance to be appreciated in a holistic, systematic and
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
12
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
balanced sense, helping managers to guide decision-making and corporate behaviour. Since
the formulation and implementation of the sustainability strategy can lead to a remarkable
improvement in competitive and economic performance, companies should make use of
appropriate systems to manage, measure and monitor the strategic objectives and results
achieved in economic, social and environmental terms. A sustainability performance
management and measurement system could be defined as: “the measurement and
management of the interaction between business, society and the environment” (Schaltegger
and Wagner 2006a, p. 3). In order that sustainability goals become an effective and valid
motivating influence on employee behaviour, managers must also provide feasible objectiveparameters able to affect business decisions and employees’ conduct. This is essential for
inducing people in the company to accomplish strategic goals, because “What gets measured
and inspected, gets done”.
A socially responsible company must implement management, measurement and
communication systems that can really integrate economic, social and environmental
concerns in a well-balanced and consistent framework. As stated by Schaltegger and Wagner
(2006b, p. 682): “Management of sustainability performance in all of its perspectives and
facets requires a sound management framework which, on the one hand, links environmental
and social management with the business and competitive strategy and management and, on
the other hand, integrates environmental and social information with economic business
information”. For this reason, a theoretical groundwork in the most relevant contributions to
management and measurement systems attempting to integrate social, environmental and
economic concerns has been laid.
A growing number of scholars and managers agree on the relevance of identifying and
fulfilling stakeholders’ needs, expectations and desires. These shape performance
measurement systems’. For this purpose, the performance prism model was developed
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
13
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
(Neely, Adams and Kennerley, 2002)2. The framework is made up of five interrelated
components. First, the company must be able to identify stakeholders and their needs because
the starting point for deciding what to measure is the answer to this question: “Who are our
[company] key stakeholders and what do they want and need?” (Neely, Adams and
Kennerley, 2002, p. 160). Second, managers must comprehend that stakeholders’
contributions to the company are different from stakeholders' satisfaction. The former
highlights what a company expects to get from its stakeholders, the latter points out what
stakeholders need from the company to keep them on board. Third, the firm must formulate
strategies that suit both business and stakeholder expectations. This stage of the model leads
to the formulation of consistent performance measures helpful in tracking the achievement of
strategic objectives and in ensuring the desired employee conduct. In order for a company to
attain the successful implementation of strategy, managers must identify the right
performance drivers. This is the purpose of the two remaining components of the model.
Fourth, the company must recognize and monitor the more critical business processes. Fifth,
capabilities, knowledge, infrastructures and procedures needed for the operation of business
processes must be examined. Measurement needs to focus on these critical elements that
typify the business model and distinguishes a company from its competitors. Agreeing to
stakeholder theory, the performance prism puts the stakeholders’ explicit needs and
contributions in the middle of managers’ awareness. However, this says nothing about
assessing trade-offs among conflicting stakeholder expectations.
Socially responsible companies seek contributing to sustainable development goals
through the integrated and simultaneous achievement of good economic, social and
“Now – and increasingly in the future – the best way for organizations to survive and prosper in the long term
will be to think about the wants and the needs of all of their important stakeholders and endeavour to deliver
value to each of them. Simply focusing on a subset of seemingly more influential stakeholders – typically the
shareholders and customers – and ignoring the wants and the needs of the rest is short-sighted and naïve in
today’s information-rich society.” (Neely, Adams and Kennerley, 2002, p. 1).
2
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
14
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
environmental results. Many scholars have therefore suggested integrating sustainability
concerns using the balanced scorecard (BSC) model. Although BSC was developed to
implement strategies essentially aimed at maximize creation of shareholder value, the same
authors recognize the need to broaden the model to include stakeholders’ interests and needs:
“All stakeholder interests, when they are vital for the success of the business unit’s strategy,
can be incorporated in a Balanced Scorecard” (Kaplan and Norton, 2001, p. 35) or to include
additional perspectives related to sustainability principles (such as regulatory and social
processes) (Kaplan and Norton, 2004). However, according to them, the improvement of
economic and financial performance remains the primary business goal. Moreover, the model
leaves out some relevant stakeholders, such as suppliers and public authorities (Nørreklit,
2000). But if properly redesigned, the BSC model can be used by companies to implement a
sustainability strategy aimed at simultaneously attaining economic, social and environmental
objectives.
Different approaches to the design of a sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) have
been suggested (Johnson, 1998; Bieker, Dyllick, Gminder and Hockerts, 2001; Epstein and
Wisner, 2001; Figge, Hahn, Schaltegger and Wagner, 2002; Dias-Sardinha, Reijnders and
Antunes, 2002). First, economic, social and environmental issues, as well as stakeholders’
needs, could be included in some (partial approach) or all (transversal approach) pre-existing
perspectives through the identification of consistent strategic objectives, targets and
performance indicators3. Second, in order to strategically deal with sustainability concerns, an
additional non-market perspective could be added4. This “additive SBSC” could be
3
For instance, Novo Nordisk placed social and environmental indicators into some of the existing perspectives;
see “Customer & Society”, “People & Organisation” and “Internal Process” perspectives (Zingales and
Hockerts, 2002). Instead, Bristol-Myers Squibb identified social and environmental indicators for every preexisting perspective (Epstein and Wisner, 2001).
4
E.g., Royal Dutch Shell replaced the “Development and Growth” perspective with a new one called
“Sustainable Development” pertaining to the integration of social and environmental concerns (Zingales and
Hockerts, 2002). Another interesting example is represented by Hamburg Airport that has identified a fifth
perspective concerning its location. “The location perspective which is a specific addition to the conventional
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
15
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
implemented in companies actually exposed to sustainability issues or those in which CSR
concerns are strategic imperatives (Bieker, Dyllick, Gminder and Hockerts, 2001; Epstein and
Wisner, 2001). These two approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather they could be done
together. Finally, a company could build an appropriate scorecard to deal with social and
environmental aspects as new tool to complement the traditional BSC. This “derived
environmental and social scorecard” (Figge, Hahn, Schaltegger and Wagner, 2002) could be
useful for business units, departments or other functions truly committed and concerned with
strategically relevant social and environmental issues. The process of SBSC formulation can
lead to drawing a sustainability strategy map able to depict hierarchical causal chains for the
attainment of strategic goals.
The prominence of economic and financial goals, or the instrumental use of social and
environmental issues, as well as stakeholders’ needs, to improve the financial bottom line, is
one of the major drawbacks of the SBSC model. In order to overcome this weakness, Woerd
and Brink (2004) suggested an interesting framework, called “Responsive Business
Scorecard” (RBS). The purpose of the model is to improve, simultaneously, the results
achieved from all three sustainability perspectives (here called “People, Profit and Planet”)
and to integrate stakeholders’ expectations. According to a community-driven or synergydriven strategic orientation, the framework should balance economic, social and ecological
concerns as strategically relevant equals. The authors assessed the feasibility of the model in
two industries, but further research is needed in order to test the theoretical soundness of the
framework and its applicability to other sectors. Another notable framework for overcoming
SBSC’s shortcomings is represented by the DartBoards and Clovers of Sustainability model
(Bonacchi and Rinaldi, 2006; 2007). This multidimensional and multilevel model attempts to
Balanced Scorecard covers issues like legitimacy and legality of corporate activities as well as issues of politics
including the freedom of actions for Hamburg Airport and its role as an engine of regional growth.”
(Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006a, p. 9).
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
16
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
measure the three dimensions of sustainability, as well as stakeholders’ needs, through a set
of connected primary and secondary measures able to manage and balance different and
contrasting situations. The two managerial tools designed by the authors mark an interesting
and innovative approach among CSR performance measurement instruments, but due to
many conflicting claims and cause-effect assumptions, their effectiveness and practical
feasibility need to be more deeply tested within business contexts.
One of the main challenges facing socially responsible companies is translating
sustainability strategy into coherent action and daily decision-making, and forcing it into
every level of the business’s organization. For this purpose, Epstein and Roy (2001; 2003b)
suggested a framework that supports the formulation and implementation of a strategy aimed
at balancing economic, social and environmental concerns.
The framework is made up of five interrelated components and, according to the authors,
describes the drivers of corporate social performance. First, corporate and business-unit
sustainability strategies must be developed, and social and environmental potential impacts,
as well as stakeholders’ claims, must be identified. The second component, “sustainability
actions”, includes the formulation of a sustainability strategy consistent with the social and
environmental aspects of business activities, the development of plans and programs directed
to satisfy social and environmental concerns and stakeholders’ expectations, and the design
of appropriate managerial structures and systems. Thanks to these activities, the company
should be able to integrate sustainability issues into their business strategy as well as into
daily actions and operations, aligning strategy, structure and management systems. In this
context, the utmost importance of performance measurement and evaluation systems comes
out. During this stage of the model’s implementation, performance indicators to monitor
progress towards attaining sustainability goals must be developed. Third, the company must
assess the social and environmental performance achieved through the actions carried out.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
17
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Fourth, stakeholders’ reactions to the company’s strategies, plans and actions, must be
monitored, as they potentially affect short- and long-term business success. Finally, the
company should be able to evaluate the impacts of the previous components on long-term
financial performance and value creation, through a cost–benefit analysis. The feedback
process plays a significant role in the framework’s implementation, helping managers to
evaluate the model’s reliability and to highlight possible room for improvement.
In subsequent work, the framework has been modified and put forward again as the
“Corporate Sustainability Performance Pyramid” (CSPP) (Epstein and Wisner, 2006). The
most relevant contribution of the CSPP is how it points out the management levers required
to pass from the lower to the upper level of the performance pyramid. The two frameworks
presented here are still overly focused on the financial bottom line. The assumption of the
models is that the company takes cares more about social and environmental issues and
stakeholders’ claims because of their potential and ultimate impact on corporate profits and
long term competitive advantage. According to the authors, this situation is mutually
beneficial to the company's enduring success, stakeholders, society and environmental wellbeing. It helps to assure a durable corporate commitment to sustainability principles (Epstein
and Roy, 2003a).
Rouse, Putterill (2003) and Durden (2008) developed two interesting contributions
concerning the integration of MCS and PMS with social and environmental aspects, as well
as with stakeholders’ needs. The “integral framework for performance measurement” (IFPM)
proposed by Rouse and Putterill (2003) highlights the importance of stakeholders’
requirements and expectations when evaluating corporate performance in a balanced and
holistic way. According to the authors, stakeholders’ claims define the organisation’s
constraints and affect the company’s vision, mission and strategic goals. An appropriate
performance measurement system should encompass stakeholder contributions (considered as
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
18
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
the input of the company’s production processes) and stakeholder benefits (that are the values
company delivers to satisfy stakeholders’ expectations). One of the main merits of Rouse and
Putterill’s framework is the fitting together of the stakeholder’s view with a strategic analysis
of the company processes and activities. This is done through the adoption of a
comprehensive and balanced performance measurement system. This recognizes the need to
design management control systems that help the company to operate coherently, given
stakeholder needs and sustainability goals.
In order for a company to define itself as a socially responsible organisation, an
alignment of external sustainability disclosure and internal social and environmental
information is needed5. Starting from this assumption, Durden (2008) proposes a framework
that highlights the factors that the company should take into account to integrate
sustainability concerns into its MCS. First, a company should identify its relevant
stakeholders, including their expectations for corporate (social responsibility) goals. It is a
process of reciprocal influence. Afterwards the social responsibility goals should be
integrated into the MCS, linking formal and informal control systems. Both dimensions are
essential to ensuring a proper and workable MCS. The third component of the framework,
called “management actions”, points out the guiding role of MCS in company decisionmaking and operations. The integration of social and environmental goals into the MCS
should lead to the expected sustainability outcomes aligning with the information externally
reported to stakeholders. One of the main advantages of this framework is to highlight the
significance of aligning external and internal accounting information, as well as formal and
informal control systems, for a lasting and successful implementation of sustainability
principles.
“An organisation’s MCS should support and orientate managers in their pursuit of social responsibility and
stakeholder goals. In order for an organisation to operate in a socially responsible manner an integrative
approach is required where there is alignment and fit of both external and internal social information needs.”
(Durden, 2008, p. 677).
5
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
19
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Many of the management and measurement models examined here are still too focused
on the economic and financial dimension of performance; they consider social and
environmental concerns to be subordinate to economic results and to the maximization of
shareholder value. “It’s time to rebalance the scorecard” (Higgins and Currie, 2004, p. 297).
A well-balanced and multidimensional performance management and measurement system
must be developed in order for the corporate sustainability strategy to succeed6 (Cramer,
2002).
5. TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF CSR THROUGH
PLANNING AND CONTROL PROCESS
The proliferation of sustainability reports, aimed at promoting socially responsible practices,
has not been followed by a commensurate implementation of systems and processes for
appropriately managing CSR concerns. It is a paradox: on the one hand, an increasing
number of social and environmental reports are produced, on the other hand, this external
reporting does not include the planning and control tools needed to manage and monitor
sustainability, and which are needed before sustainability results can usefully be disclosed to
external stakeholders. In order to avoid purely “cosmetic” disclosures for the improvement of
a company’s reputation and image, social and environmental concerns should shape the
whole planning and control process. Socially responsible activities and operations must be
embedded into the strategic analysis process. They must be diffused throughout the
business’s organisation in order to modify existing management systems. Starting with this
“More than before, firms are now expected to account explicitly for all aspects of their performance, i.e. not
just their financial results, but also their social and ecological performance. Openness and transparency are the
new key words. This type of pressure is forcing an increasing number of firms to adopt ‘sustainable’ business
practices, which means establishing a systematic link between their financial profitability and their ecological
and social performance.” (Cramer, 2002, p. 99).
6
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
20
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
principle, it is possible to depict a “socially responsible planning and control” framework as a
strategic path for the implementation of CSR concerns into the business organization (Fig. 1).
Figure 1 – ABOUT HERE
First, economic, social and environmental issues must shape the company’s strategic
identity, consequently modifying the business vision and mission as well as corporate values
and culture. The “identity” phase is the first, crucial stage in the CSR implementation
process. Without a proper embedding of social and environmental concerns into the company
values and mission, an effective and lasting implementation of sustainability principles is
unlikely. The company should develop the strong socially responsible identity needed for an
authentic commitment to sustainability principles.
Second, to make the socially responsible identity widespread within the company, top
management must formulate an appropriate sustainability strategy. “Developing the right
CSR strategy requires an understanding of what differentiates an organization – its mission,
values and core business activities” (Smith, 2003, p. 68). For the CSR strategy to become
effective, managers should develop integrated and well-balanced social, environmental and
economic goals and embed them in the company’s business plan. By doing so, the company
assigns a strategic role to sustainability principles. During this stage, it is time to carry out
stakeholder engagement initiatives to satisfy stakeholder claims, thus further contributing to
the company’s lasting well-being.
Third, the dedicated adherence to CSR and the assignment of a strategic role to
sustainability principles entail the adjustment of the pre-existing management systems. This
change involves processes and systems of planning and control, of compensation and
evaluation, of incentive and rewarding, of information and communication. In particular,
thanks to the implementation of consistent and socially oriented planning and control
systems, the company’s strategic goals can be translated into sustainability metrics and
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
21
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
indicators, giving responsibility to the right organization members. Sustainability principles
will thereby spread to every level of the business’s organization, driving company decisionmaking and activities. Sustainability performance measures can help managers establish
whether they are going to reach the strategic goals they set out to achieve, and they can help
employees to track whether they are moving in the right direction. The assignment of
strategic relevance to social, environmental and economic concerns is a priority for an
authentic, socially responsible company.
Fourth, social, environmental and economic results must be measured through the
designed sustainability performance measures that are employed, on the one hand, for
internal decision-making purposes and, on the other hand, to report CSR performance to
external stakeholders. In doing so, internal accounting information and external disclosure
can be aligned to develop an integrated and balanced sustainability performance management
and measurement system.
Finally, analysis of the gap between sustainability goals and actual performance helps
provide the company with insights into areas that have potential room for improvement.
During this stage, the company can draw on stakeholders’ suggestions for implementing
sustainability initiatives aligned with the company’s strategic goals. The stakeholder
engagement process can strengthen the sustainability values now underpinning the business’s
identity, thus improving the company’s ethical commitment.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
An authentic, socially responsible company should voluntarily adopt a strategic and lasting
approach based on the establishment of fiduciary relationships with its stakeholders and a real
commitment to social-environmental concerns within the company’s processes and
operations. Frequently, the implementation of sustainability principles can turn out to be a
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
22
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
mere “public relations exercise” for the improvement of reputation and image. This can
involve the distribution of “poor” sustainability reports, or philanthropic activities, rather than
the real integration of social, environmental and economic concerns into the business.
If authentically integrated into a company’s identity, strategy, structure and management
systems, CSR could provide a possible source of long-term competitive advantage, affecting
the key factors of business success in the current competitive context. For this to happen, the
company should adopt a “strategic approach” to CSR. A socially responsible identity and
strategy must be developed; sustainability concerns as well as stakeholders’ needs must be
embedded into strategic goals, business processes and activities, and existing management
systems; social, environmental and economic performance measures must be developed and
monitored. In this process, well-designed sustainability performance management and
measurement systems play a major role. They help managers to identify opportunities for
simultaneous improvements in all three dimensions of sustainability in order to achieve a
strong contribution to CSR strategy implementation.
In summary, the literature review conducted revealed that only limited attention has been
given to the development of PMS focused on the simultaneous and balanced improvement of
social, environmental and economic concerns. Many of the frameworks analysed are too
focused on enhancing the financial bottom line, and are too complex to be implemented in
small-to-medium size enterprises (SMEs). Moreover, a global and comprehensive vision of a
strategic approach to CSR is still missing. For this reason, a strategic path for the
implementation and internalization of CSR principles was suggested. The proposed
framework is not intended as a replacement for any existing managerial tools. Rather, it
provides a possible inclusive path for the strategic implementation of sustainability concerns
into the company. It could be usefully adopted by SMEs, which are often distressed by lack
of human and financial resources. Furthermore, the use of the “socially responsible planning
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
23
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
and control” framework could give substance and credibility to a company’s commitment to
CSR principles. Future research could investigate the application of the suggested
framework, particularly in those SMEs interested in the implementation of a strategic and
comprehensive approach to CSR, in order to become authentic, socially responsible
companies.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
24
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Socially responsible planning and control framework
Identity
External
reporting
Feedback/
Improvement
Planning
Measurement
Management
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
25
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
REFERENCES
Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (1998). Management control systems. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Atkinson, A. A., & Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance
measurement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25-37.
Bergamin Barbato, M., & Mio, C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: verso un modello di governo
dell’impresa. In D.M. Salvioni (Ed.), Corporate governance e sistemi di controllo della gestione aziendale.
Milano: Franco Angeli, 145-184.
Bieker, T., & Dyllick, T., & Gminder, C. U., & Hockerts, K. (2001). Towards a sustainability balanced
scorecard linking environmental and social sustainability to business strategy. Working Paper, Institute for
Economy and the Environment, University of St. Gallen, Center for the Management of Environmental
Resources (CMER) – INSEAD.
Bonacchi, M., & Rinaldi, L. (2006). A performance measurement system for sustainability. In J. F. Manzoni, &
M. J. Epstein (Ed.), Performance measurement and management control: improving organizations and society.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of
Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society,
38(3), 268-295.
Commission of the European Communities (2001). Green paper. Promoting a European framework for
corporate social responsibility. Bruxelles.
Cramer, J. (2002). From financial to sustainable profit. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 9(2), 99-106.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. The Academy of
Management Journal, 16(2), 312-322.
De Colle, S., & Gonella, C. (2002). The social and ethical alchemy: an integrative approach to social and ethical
accountability. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(1), 86-96.
De Colle, S., & Gonella, C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: the need for an integrated management
framework. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2/3), 199-212.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
26
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
Dias-Sardinha, I., & Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2002). From environmental performance evaluation to ecoefficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards. Environmental Quality Management, 12(2), 51-64.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concept, evidence and
implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review,
26(2), 53-63.
Durden, C. (2008). Towards a socially responsible management control system. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 21(5), 671-694.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone
Publishing.
Epstein, M. J. (2004). The identification, measurement and reporting of corporate social impacts: past, present,
and future. In M. Freedman, & B. Jaggi (Ed.), Advances in environmental accounting and management – vol. 2.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1-29.
Epstein, M. J., & Hanson, K. O. (Ed.) (2006). The accountable corporation – vol. 3 corporate social
responsibility. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key performance
drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585-604.
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2003a). Making the business case for sustainability. Linking social and
environmental actions to financial performance. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9( Spring), 79-96.
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2003b). Improving sustainability performance: specifying, implementing and
measuring key principles. Journal of General Management, 29(1), 15- 31.
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental
Quality Management, 11(2), 1-10.
Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2006). Actions and measures to improve sustainability. In M. J. Epstein, & K.
O. Hanson (Ed.), The accountable corporation – vol. 3 corporate social responsibility. Westport: Praeger
Publishers, 207-234.
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.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of
Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 51-71.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
27
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society. Privileging
engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique. Accounting Organizations and Society,
27(7), 687-708.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance
debate. Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.
Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: a guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 8(1), 19-42.
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers personal values as drivers of corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44.
Higgins, J. M., & Currie, D. M. (2004). It’s time to rebalance the scorecard. Business and Society Review,
109(3), 297-309.
Johnson, S. D. (1998). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators: Application of the
balanced scorecard approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(4), 34-41.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: how balanced scorecard companies
thrive in the new business environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lamberton, G. (2005). Sustainability accounting – a brief history and conceptual framework. Accounting
Forum, 29(1), 7-26.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(June), 268-305.
Mathews, M. R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research. Is there a silver
jubilee to celebrate?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 481-531.
Mathews, M. R. (2004). Developing a matrix approach to categorise the social and environmental accounting
research literature. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 1(1), 30-45.
Mio, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility e sistema di controllo: verso l’integrazione. Milano: Franco
Angeli.
Merchant, K. (1985). Control in business organizations. Boston: Pitman Press.
Molteni, M. (2006). The social-competitive innovation pyramid. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 516-526.
Molteni, M. (2007). Gli stadi di sviluppo della CSR nella strategia aziendale. Impresa-Progetto, Rivista On Line
del DITEA, V.2.
Neely, A., & Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: the scorecard for measuring and
managing business success. London: Prentice Hall.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
28
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
Nørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard. A critical analysis of some of its assumptions.
Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65-88.
Norris, G., & O’Dwyer, B. (2004). Motivating socially responsive decision making: the operation of
management controls in a socially responsive organisation. The British Accounting Review, 36(2), 173-196.
Orlitzky, M., & Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A metaanalysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Otley, D., & Broadbent, J., & Berry, A. (1995). Research in management control: an overview of its
development. British Journal of Management, 6(Special Issue December), S31-S44.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control system research.
Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363-382.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research. A view from the commentary box.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842-860.
Perrini, F., & Minoja, M. (2008). Strategizing corporate social responsibility: evidence from an Italian mediumsized family-owned company. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 47-63.
Perrini, F., & Pogutz, S., & Tencati, A. (2006). Developing corporate social responsibility. A European
perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. The Academy of Management
Executive, 13(2), 37-48.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society. The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship. A typology
and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
Rahbek Pedersen, E., & Neergaard, P. (2008). From periphery to center: how CSR is integrated in mainstream
performance management frameworks. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(1), 4-12.
Robins, F. (2008). Why corporate social responsibility should be popularised but not imposed. Corporate
Governance, 8(3), 330-341.
Rouse, P., & Putterill, M. (2003). An integral framework for performance measurement. Management Decision,
41(8), 791-805.
Salzmann, O., & Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability:
literature review and research option. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27-36.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006a). Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement
and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3(1), 1-19.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006b). Managing sustainability performance measurement and reporting in an
integrated manner. Sustainability accounting as the link between the sustainability balanced scorecard and
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
29
2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-1
sustainability reporting. In S. Schaltegger, & M. Bennett, & R. Burritt (Ed.), Sustainability accounting and
reporting, Dordrecht: Springer, 681-697.
Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: whether or how. California Management Review, 45(4),
52-76.
The Economist, (2005). The good company. A survey of corporate social responsibility, accessed January 22nd,
2004, [available at http://www.economist.com/]
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
Waddock, S. A. (2003). Stakeholder performance implications of corporate responsibility. International Journal
of Business Performance Management, 5(2/3), 114-124.
Werther, W. B. Jr., & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance.
Business Horizons, 48(4), 317-324.
Woerd, F., & Brink, T. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2),
173-186.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical research on
corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2002). The business case for sustainable development,
Geneva,
accessed
February
2002,
[available
at
http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/rZNj49UF0okxGvdLfDte/business-case.pdf]
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our common future. The World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125-132.
Zingales, F., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Balanced scorecard and sustainability: examples from literature and
practice. Working Paper Series, INSEAD, Center for the Management of Environmental Resources.
June 24-26, 2009
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
30