IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i2p541-d132339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Types on Environmental Investment Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Suaad Jassem

    (Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business & Accountancy, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Anna Azmi

    (Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business & Accountancy, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Zarina Zakaria

    (Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business & Accountancy, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Abstract

Investment decision-making based on aspects of sustainability is gaining importance among organizations around the globe. In this context, there is a need for quality investment decisions, which require sufficient knowledge among organizational managers about managing sustainability information to achieve environmental objectives that meet stakeholder expectations. This has led to the emergence of organizational performance measuring tools such as the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard, which integrates the environmental perspective into the traditional Balanced Scorecard. Using experimental research method, the objective of this study is to investigate the indirect effect of Eco-efficiency knowledge and Sustainability Balanced Scorecard knowledge as mediators influencing the relationship between Sustainability Balanced Scorecard types and their impact on environmental investment decision-making. Findings of the current research are based on 60 respondents who were randomly assigned to one of the following two types of Sustainability Balanced Scorecard architecture: (1) environmental data embedded within the traditional Balanced Scorecard perspectives; and (2) standalone environmental data as an additional fifth perspective along with the traditional Balanced Scorecard architecture. The traditional Balanced Scorecard without any information on environmental perspective is included in the experiment as the control condition. The findings indicate that the combined effect of eco-efficiency knowledge and Sustainability Balanced Scorecard knowledge has a significant positive influence on the relationship between the Balanced Scorecard type versus Sustainability Balanced Scorecard type and environmental investment decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Suaad Jassem & Anna Azmi & Zarina Zakaria, 2018. "Impact of Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Types on Environmental Investment Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:541-:d:132339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/541/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/541/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rashidi, Kamran & Farzipoor Saen, Reza, 2015. "Measuring eco-efficiency based on green indicators and potentials in energy saving and undesirable output abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 18-26.
    2. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui & Pizzini, Mina, 2011. "The judgmental effects of strategy maps in balanced scorecard performance evaluations," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 259-279.
    3. Eugen Nicolăescu & Cristina Alpopi & Constantin Zaharia, 2015. "Measuring Corporate Sustainability Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Gerui (Grace) Kang & Amy Fredin, 2012. "The balanced scorecard: the effects of feedback on performance evaluation," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(7), pages 637-661, June.
    5. Susanna Falle & Romana Rauter & Sabrina Engert & Rupert J. Baumgartner, 2016. "Sustainability Management with the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard in SMEs: Findings from an Austrian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    6. W-H Tsai & W-C Chou & W Hsu, 2009. "The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for selecting socially responsible investment: an effective MCDM model," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(10), pages 1396-1410, October.
    7. Lipe, Marlys Gascho & Salterio, Steven, 2002. "A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard's information organization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 531-540, August.
    8. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dewi Tamara & Feronia Budiman, 2022. "New Index ESG Leaders & Investment Decisions in Indonesia Relating to ESG Principles," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(1), pages 1-64, December.
    2. Mwambo, Francis Molua & Fürst, Christine & Nyarko, Benjamin K. & Borgemeister, Christian & Martius, Christopher, 2020. "Maize production and environmental costs: Resource evaluation and strategic land use planning for food security in northern Ghana by means of coupled emergy and data envelopment analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Ramin Gharizadeh Beiragh & Reza Alizadeh & Saeid Shafiei Kaleibari & Fausto Cavallaro & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Romualdas Bausys & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainability Performance Assessment for Insurance Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1, January.
    4. Ivo Hristov & Antonio Chirico & Andrea Appolloni, 2019. "Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Jau-Yang Liu, 2018. "An Internal Control System that Includes Corporate Social Responsibility for Social Sustainability in the New Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.

    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. Jassem Suaad & Zakaria Zarina & Che Azmi Anna, 2020. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Architecture and Environmental Investment Decision-Making," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 193-210, January.
    2. Ivo Hristov & Antonio Chirico & Andrea Appolloni, 2019. "Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Davood Askarany & Hassan Yazdifar, 2018. "The Diffusion of Balanced Scorecard from the Perspective of Adopters: Evidence from Australia," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 14, pages 71-82, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Carlos Suárez-Gargallo & Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez, 2021. "How the Balanced Scorecard Is Implemented in the Spanish Footwear Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Muhammad Rafiq & Saif Maqbool & José Moleiro Martins & Mário Nuno Mata & Rui Miguel Dantas & Shumaila Naz & Anabela Batista Correia, 2021. "A Study on Balanced Scorecard and Its Impact on Sustainable Development of Renewable Energy Organizations; A Mediating Role of Political and Regulatory Institutions," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Hyung Jong Na & Kun Chang Lee & Seung Uk Choi & Seong Tae Kim, 2020. "Exploring CEO Messages in Sustainability Management Reports: Applying Sentiment Mining and Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Iman Adeinat, 2019. "Mediating Effects between Perspectives in Strategy Maps," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Suárez-Gargallo, Carlos & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2023. "A comprehensive bibliometric study of the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Chiara Mio & Antonio Costantini & Silvia Panfilo, 2022. "Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: A systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 367-384, March.
    11. Ivo Hristov & Antonio Chirico, 2019. "The Role of Sustainability Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in Implementing Sustainable Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    13. Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Rashidah Abdul Rahman & Saeid Homayoun, 2020. "Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    16. Hall, Matthew, 2010. "Accounting information and managerial work," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Rolf Uwe Fülbier & Thorsten Sellhorn, 2023. "Understanding and improving the language of business: How accounting and corporate reporting research can better serve business and society," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(6), pages 1089-1124, August.
    18. Kwon, He-Boong & Lee, Jooh, 2019. "Exploring the differential impact of environmental sustainability, operational efficiency, and corporate reputation on market valuation in high-tech-oriented firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Marcelo Royo-Vela & Jonathan Cuevas Lizama, 2022. "Creating Shared Value: Exploration in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    20. Laima Gerlitz & Christopher Meyer, 2021. "Small and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Network and Nexus of Europe’s Twin Transition: The Way towards Sustainable and Digital Port Service Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:541-:d:132339. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.