IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v15y2006i5p296-308.html

Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Perrini
  • Antonio Tencati

Abstract

Corporate sustainability, that is the capacity of a firm to continue operating over a long period of time, depends on the sustainability of its stakeholder relationships. This new stakeholder view of the firm goes beyond previous work on the triple bottom line and balanced scorecard. Companies need appropriate systems to measure and control their own behaviour in order to assess whether they are responding to stakeholder concerns in an effective way and to communicate the results achieved. These sustainability accounting systems should have the purpose of broadening and integrating the traditional financial approaches to corporate performance measurement, taking stakeholder needs into due account. This article presents the sustainability evaluation and reporting system (SERS), an integrated methodology aimed at monitoring and tracking from a qualitative and quantitative viewpoint the overall corporate performance according to a stakeholder framework, in line with small and medium‐sized enterprises' managerial requirements. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Perrini & Antonio Tencati, 2006. "Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 296-308, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:15:y:2006:i:5:p:296-308
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.538
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.538?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. Pontus Cerin, 2002. "Characteristics of environmental reporters on the OM Stockholm exchange," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(5), pages 298-311, September.
    3. Stefan Schaltegger & Marcus Wagner, 2006. "Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting," International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19.
    4. Frank Figge & Tobias Hahn & Stefan Schaltegger & Marcus Wagner, 2002. "The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard – linking sustainability management to business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(5), pages 269-284, September.
    5. Pontus Cerin, 2002. "Communication in corporate environmental reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 46-65, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Satish Kumar & Weng Marc Lim & Riya Sureka & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Umesh Bamel, 2024. "Balanced scorecard: trends, developments, and future directions," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(8), pages 2397-2439, August.
    2. Kittiya Yongvanich & James Guthrie, 2006. "An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental accounting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 309-321, September.
    3. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    4. Mathew Kevin Bosi & Nelson Lajuni & Avnner Chardles Wellfren & Thien Sang Lim, 2022. "Sustainability Reporting through Environmental, Social, and Governance: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Krisana Visamitanan & Nuttapol Assarut, 2024. "Impact of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Firm Performance," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 25(5), pages 1336-1355, October.
    6. Länsiluoto, Aapo & Järvenpää, Marko, 2010. "Greening the balanced scorecard," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 385-395, July.
    7. Ivo Hristov & Antonio Chirico & Francesco Ranalli & Riccardo Camilli, 2022. "La pianificazione della sostenibilit? nelle aziende familiari: il ruolo dei key value drivers," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(3), pages 109-134.
    8. Burritt, Roger & Schaltegger, Stefan, 2014. "Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 327-343.
    9. Cory Searcy, 2012. "Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 239-253, May.
    10. Regina F. Bento & Lasse Mertins & Lourdes F. White, 2017. "Ideology and the Balanced Scorecard: An Empirical Exploration of the Tension Between Shareholder Value Maximization and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(4), pages 769-789, June.
    11. Erlin Trisyulianti & Budhi Prihartono & Made Andriani & Kadarsah Suryadi, 2023. "A conceptual framework for a value‐based sustainability balanced scorecard," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 1536-1552, June.
    12. Radosław Wolniak, 2019. "The Level of Maturity of Quality Management Systems in Poland—Results of Empirical Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Minh Hue Nguyen & Anh Chi Phan & Yoshiki Matsui, 2018. "Contribution of Quality Management Practices to Sustainability Performance of Vietnamese Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-31, January.
    14. Massimiliano Bonacchi & Leonardo Rinaldi, 2007. "DartBoards and Clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(7), pages 461-473, November.
    15. Thomson, Ian & Grubnic, Suzana & Georgakopoulos, Georgios, 2014. "Exploring accounting-sustainability hybridisation in the UK public sector," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 453-476.
    16. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2016. "The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 193-221, January.
    17. Giorgia Nigri & Mara Del Baldo, 2018. "Sustainability Reporting and Performance Measurement Systems: How do Small- and Medium-Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Harry Bremmers & Onno Omta & Ron Kemp & Derk‐Jan Haverkamp, 2007. "Do stakeholder groups influence environmental management system development in the Dutch agri‐food sector?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 214-231, March.
    19. Schaltegger, Stefan & Burritt, Roger L., 2010. "Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders?," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 375-384, October.
    20. Robert Strand, 2013. "The Chief Officer of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Study of Its Presence in Top Management Teams," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(4), pages 721-734, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:15:y:2006:i:5:p:296-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.