Sustainable urban development: Can the balanced scorecard contribute to the strategic management of sustainable cities?

Abstract

This article aims to present, adapt, and propose the use of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a tool to support strategic management for sustainable cities. To achieve this goal, publications and 27 sustainable cities projects were also consulted, through project reports and programs from the cities themselves on the topic were consulted. A text mining analysis was applied to the results obtained in this literature review to find the main factors related to sustainable cities. To evaluate the findings of this first stage, consultations with specialists were carried out, specifically to assess the main factors. Based on the previous steps, and based on the original BSC, an adaptation of the tool was proposed, where its structure was changed to meet the needs of the strategic management of sustainable cities. It was concluded that creating a sustainable city requires understanding the difficulties faced by urban center managers with the implementation and management of institutional sustainable development practices. The BSC for sustainable cities can assist as a viable management strategic tool to more efficient use of resources in order to develop sustainable cities.

Conceptual frameworks in indicator‐based assessments of urban sustainability—An analysis based on 67 initiatives

“…Another aim of the present paper was to inquire into what is included and excluded in the indicator frameworks, and in doing so contribute to a discussion about the meaning of the concept of urban sustainability (Hamman et al, 2017; Næss, 1995; Silva Neiva et al, 2021). The first relevant observation is the pure number of cases using a particular logic for framework construction: out of the 66 frameworks analyzed, 52 used theme‐based logic, 34 domain‐based logic, 18 goal‐based logic, 5 systemic logic, 3 spatial logic and 3 epistemological logic.…”

“…To support the design of these frameworks, the analysis presented in the preceding results sections aims to make explicit the available options at the disposal of indicator set developers. The dedicated focus on the discussion and analysis of frameworks, and the unprecedentedly broad empirical sample of indicator initiatives that it draws from, permit the present article to make the following novel contributions compared to earlier scholarly work on the subject (Gallopín, 1997;Lyytimäki & Rosenström, 2008;Maclaren, 1996;Nathan & Reddy, 2012;Olalla-Tárraga, 2006;Pintér et al, 2005;Ramos et al, 2004) to a discussion about the meaning of the concept of urban sustainability (Hamman et al, 2017;Naess, 1995;Silva Neiva et al, 2021). The first relevant observation is the pure number of cases using a particular logic for framework construction: out of the 66 frameworks analyzed, 52 used theme-based logic, 34 domain-based logic, 18 goalbased logic, 5 systemic logic, 3 spatial logic and 3 epistemological logic.…”

“…Regarding the first level, the paper aims at making a contribution towards assessment practice by: (1) analyzing what types of conceptual frameworks are used in connection with urban sustainability indicator sets, based on a comprehensive empirical sample of 67 indicator initiatives; (2) characterizing the purposes that conceptual frameworks can fulfill in the context of an indicator‐based initiative; and (3) discussing which framework types are most suitable for serving which purposes . Regarding the second, conceptual level, the article aims at: (4) contributing to the discussion on the meaning of the concept of “urban sustainability” (see, e.g., Næss, 1995; Hamman et al, 2017; Silva Neiva et al, 2021) by critically analyzing what is included (or not) in the existing conceptual frameworks, that is, how the indicator initiatives de facto define this concept.…”

“…(2) characterizing the purposes that conceptual frameworks can fulfill in the context of an indicator-based initiative; and (3) discussing which framework types are most suitable for serving which purposes. Regarding the second, conceptual level, the article aims at: (4) contributing to the discussion on the meaning of the concept of "urban sustainability" (see, e.g., Naess, 1995;Hamman et al, 2017;Silva Neiva et al, 2021) by critically analyzing what is included (or not) in the existing conceptual frameworks, that is, how the indicator initiatives de facto define this concept.…”

Do open innovation practices in firms promote sustainability?

“…Sustainable value has been clearly postulated as a combination of three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social (United Nations General Assembly, 2015) or the "triple bottom line" (Elkington, 1998). Prior literature and practice have introduced different social reporting tools (Adams, 2004;Gray et al, 1995;Hansen & Große-Dunker, 2013;Tilt, 2010) and balanced scorecards (da Silva Neiva et al, 2021;Hansen & Schaltegger, 2018;Jay & Gerard, 2015) to measure sustainability at firm level. But these tools are very complex and time-consuming and are not applicable for survey and research purposes, as they are designed for accounting and quality checks (Adams, 2004;Gray et al, 1995;Tilt, 2010).…”