IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i14p7110-d1989168.html

Resource Allocation Using the Balanced Scorecard and Cooperative Game Theory: An Axiomatic Framework for Sustainable Strategic Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Mathias Yaksic

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago 9170124, Chile)

  • Luis Quezada

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago 9170124, Chile
    Program for the Development of Sustainable Production Systems (PDSPS), Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago 9170124, Chile)

  • Jorge Zamorano

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago 9170124, Chile
    Program for the Development of Sustainable Production Systems (PDSPS), Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Santiago 9170124, Chile)

Abstract

Allocating scarce budgetary resources across the strategic objectives of the balanced scorecard (BSC) and the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) is a central problem in sustainability-oriented strategic management. Existing approaches typically operate at the level of aggregated perspectives, rely on subjective weighting schemes, or ignore the causal structure of the strategy map. This article formalizes the problem as a cooperative game in which each strategic objective is a player and the value of every coalition combines the individual performance of its members with the synergies arising from the causal relationships of the strategy map, estimated through the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). The Shapley value is adopted as the allocation rule. The resulting game is shown to be superadditive and convex, the Shapley value belongs to the Core, and the rule satisfies exhaustiveness, fairness, sensitivity to the strategy map, monotonicity, and convergence to the proportional rule. Computational experiments and sensitivity analyses support the robustness of the model. In an illustrative case—a sustainability balanced scorecard with ten objectives organized in five perspectives, whose dedicated sustainability perspective hosts a carbon-emission and an employee-safety objective, and a budget of USD 1M—the framework shifts 2.7 % of the total budget relative to a proportional allocation (individual objectives change by up to 12.3 % ), funds employee safety above financial cost reduction for any synergy weight γ ≥ 0.15 , keeps the combined share of the sustainability objectives stable within 0.6 percentage points across the entire synergy range, and grants seed funding to sustainability objectives that enter the map without a measured baseline, providing a transparent and auditable basis for sustainable budget allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathias Yaksic & Luis Quezada & Jorge Zamorano, 2026. "Resource Allocation Using the Balanced Scorecard and Cooperative Game Theory: An Axiomatic Framework for Sustainable Strategic Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-32, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:14:p:7110-:d:1989168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/14/7110/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/14/7110/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:14:p:7110-:d:1989168. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.