The Reverse Side of the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard

In 2008 the Schleswig-Holstein State Forest Agency (SHLF) developed within a participative development process a "Sustainability Balanced Scorecard" (SBSC). The SBSC includes a compilation of 17 goals and management rations in the three dimensions of sustainability, which derive from the business strategy (economy, ecology and social aspects). Internally, businesses can make use of the scorecard to improve leadership; however, the system can especially assist in communicating sustainable management to stakeholders. To examine the impacts on the external business environment, which was the objective of the study, different topics such as "structure", "building trust", "corporate image" and involvement of stakeholders" were analyzed. Therefore, a standardized questionnaire was designed and distributed among the stakeholders of the SHLF. Conclusively, most of the impacts, which have identified on a theory basis, could be found within the analyzed business environment. Most stakeholders believe that the SHLF consider sustainability issues in their entrepreneurial decision-making processes (Tab. 2). Thus, the results show a strong tendency towards a positive sustainability image. Also, in general a certain amount of trust could be detected that is given by all the stakeholders to the SHLF. The results also reveal that the chosen three-pillar structure of the SBSC (economic, ecological and social dimension) meets the expectations of almost all stakeholder groups (Tab. 4). The same applies for the relevance of the selection of the strategic goal included in the SBSC (Tab. 8). In this case study, even the balance between the three dimensions, in contrary to former findings, was approved by most part of the interviewees (Tab. 9). Generally speaking, this instrument can be seen as an appropriate communication measure. However, the results indicate shortcomings of the approach as well. The use of the SBSC does not lead to significant positive differentiation to other forest enterprises (Tab. 3). In addition, it becomes visible that the form of participation, which focused on questionnaires, does not lead to a substantial feeling of being part of the processes. A relevant part of the respondents, who were invited twice to participate in the past, did not remember these past participatory activities (Tab. 6). The results concerning the knowledge of the management instrument SBSC as such support this finding. Despite the fact that this instrument was introduced twice in the context of the participatory processes mentioned above, a high share stated that the present study was the first time the term SBSC was observed (Tab. 5). Hence, there is mixed experience as to whether the specific interests of the individual stakeholder groups were considered (Tab. 7). Consecutively, it can be stated that the derivation of strengths and weaknesses of the approach is a clear indication of the meaningfulness of a systematic evaluation of the implementation and the future development of such kind of management system.