Literature Review

Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic FIIB Business Review

11(2) 147–161, 2022
2021 Fortune Institute of
Literature Review and Future International Business
Reprints and permissions:

Research Issues in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

DOI: 10.1177/23197145211049625
journals.sagepub.com/home/fib

Jitender Kumar1 , Neha Prince2 and H. Kent Baker3

Abstract
This study provides a systematic literature review on the balanced scorecard (BSC), highlights gaps in the literature and identifies areas
for further research. We review a sample of 114 BSC articles published in 14 accounting and 56 management journals between 1992
and 2021. Each article must either be in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC), Scopus-indexed or Academic Journal Guide
(AJG) list, or receive at least 100 citations, as reported by Google Scholar. We separate the BSC literature into 11 major themes,
examine the research methods, statistical tools used and identify the country affiliated with the authors. Companies typically use
the BSC as a performance measurement system instead of a management control system. The BSC is more compatible with private
versus public sector organizations. Successful implementation of the BSC requires support from the top management and effective
communication and coordination. Additionally, a cause-and-effect relationship should exist among its four perspectives—customers,
internal business, innovation and learning, and financial. BSC’s critics question its superiority over other performance measurement
tools. But the number of supporters is much higher than the opponents. Articles mainly focus on developed, not developing, countries
and tend to be conceptual papers rather than data-based empirical studies. The most commonly used statistical tool used is regression
analysis. Our review of BSC articles provides insights about BSC strategy, implementation, execution and control that should be of
interest to researchers and managers. However, this qualitative study uses judgment to identify BSC themes.

Keywords
Balanced scorecard (BSC), performance measurement, strategy map, strategy implementation, systematic literature review

Introduction umbrella that reflects their cause and effect relation.

Although businesses traditionally focus on quantitative
Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduced the balanced performance measures, they now recognize factors such as
scorecard (BSC) through an article in Harvard Business quality, service, customer satisfaction and internal
Review, which uses qualitative and quantitative data to processes. Many others like Gumbus et al. (2004), Anand
measure performance. Through different books and et al. (2005), Punniyamoorthy and Murali (2008), Soderberg
articles, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1993, 1996, 2000, et al. (2011), Park et al. (2017), and Nielsen et al. (2017)
2001a, 2001b, 2004, 2006) claim that the BSC evolved to appreciated BSC by highlighting different logics.
become a best performance measurement device, a strategy Despite its benefits, the BSC has attracted many critics.
implementation device, a strategic management system For example, Norreklit (2000) claims that the BSC makes
and a strategic control system. invalid assumptions, resulting in a gap between strategy
Apart from the proponents, Pandey (2005) claims that planned and strategy undertaken. Norreklit et al. (2012)
BSC is a simple, systematic and logical instrument for find that BSC is not well connected with managerial
performance measurement, monitoring and assessment. accounting research so that it missed practical scholarly
According to Awadallah and Allam (2015), the BSC brings features. Albertsen and Leug (2014) find that after the
financial and non-financial (e.g., customer, internal business passing of more than 20 years, the validity of BSC has not
process, and learning and growth) metrics under one yet been proved. BSC is more popular in some streams of

1 Department of Management Studies, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
2 Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
3 Department of Finance and Real Estate, Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, DC, USA.

Corresponding author:
Jitender Kumar, Department of Management Studies, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonipat, Haryana
131039, India.
E-mail: [email protected]
148 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

business management like accounting and operations. The BSC’s success is depends on a cause and effect
Additionally, Awadallah and Allam (2015) claim that most relationship among these four perspectives. Later, Kaplan
of the organizations in which BSC was applied either failed and Norton (1996) presented the BSC as a strategic
or were confronted with grave consequences. There is a management instrument to align short-term activities with
scarcity of stories concerning successful implementation long-term strategy and communicating strategy throughout
of BSC in different types of organizations. Success stories an organization. Then, Kaplan and Norton (2000) launched
motivate the organizations, where the performance systematic plan maps to align various viewpoints: learning
measurement system is not right (Hoque, 2014). and growth, internal business viewpoint, internal business
In summary, considerable confusion remains about the and customer viewpoint, and customer and financial
efficacy of BSC among researchers, practitioners, executives, viewpoint. Over time, they continued to modify the concept
and managers. Due to this confusion, many authors suggest (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, 1993, 2001a, 2008a, 2008b).
applying BSC with other performance measurement tools Today, businesses of all sizes in numerous industries use
such as total quality management (TQM), management by the BSC. As previously noted, the BSC attracts both
objectives (MBO), activity-based costing (ABC), Hoshin advocates and critics.
Kanri, standard costing and best worst model (BWM). This
study intends to show the present state of BSC research by Data Collection and Research
providing an organized literature review of the most
impactful BSC articles, based on citations, and identify
Methodology
future research issues. We provide a systematically Planning the Review
organized literature review of the most impactful BSC
articles, based on citations, and identify future research In the literature of financial performance measurement, we
issues. Our study differs in several ways from the other find that BSC is attracting considerable attention due to a
BSC’s literature reviews (Hansen & Schaltegger, 2016; huge number of publications in scholarly journals. For
Holmes et al., 2006; Hoque, 2014; Johanson et al., 2006; reflecting current status, we started an exploratory search
Lueg & Vu, 2015; Perkins et al., 2014; Sainaghi et al., using relevant keywords and their synonyms. Further, we
2013). First, we provide the most current and comprehensive also used combinations of keywords (trial and error) and
systematic review of BSC’s evolution between 1992 and accessing articles from the reference lists (snowball logic)
2021, so that readers can see the integrated picture of BSC for making our search robust. This step guides us in
and make the right decision regarding adoption of BSC. deciding the criteria for filtering the BSC publications and
Second, we examine BSC articles from accounting and designing the architecture of present study.
management journals along with their publishers. Third,
we classify the BSC literature into 11 themes to synthesize Data Collection
the literature, discuss the contribution of prominent authors,
To develop our sample of BSC articles, we searched online
the research methods used, and the year and country of
sources such as Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald,
publication. Fourth, we also review BSC-based case
Elsevier and Scopus for articles published between 1992
studies applied in particular organizations to know the real
and 2021. We used keywords such as balanced scorecard,
status of BSC adoption. Finally, we identify research gaps
BSC, strategy implementation and BSC, performance
in the available literature and suggest potential research
measurement, criticism of BSC and BSC adoption in
issues. Hence, our main contribution is to keep BSC in the
public and non-profit organizations in title, abstract and
spotlight and give direction to the potential users and
text. The search was restricted by language, document type
researchers.
and scope of the research. After removing the duplicity,
The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. The
191 documents were finally saved. We read all saved
first section examines the BSC concept and its evolution,
documents thoroughly and removed 57 documents
followed by discussing the data collection and research
published in conferences, books, articles not published in
methodology. Next, we provide an analysis and
Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) or Scopus, or
interpretation. Finally, we demonstrate the conclusions and
Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2018 indexed journals or
identify potential issues for future research.
articles with fewer than 100 citations reported by Google
Scholar. We used the aforementioned criteria as a filtering
The Balanced Scorecard Concept mechanism and measures of an article’s impact. Next, we
reviewed the title and article abstract and removed
Although quantitative measures once served as the primary 31 additional items, judging them as inappropriate. After
way to evaluate an organization’s performance, numbers reviewing the remaining articles’ references, we added
alone cannot fully measure performance. Therefore, 11 more items, bringing our final count to 114. Figure 1
Kaplan (2012) introduced the BSC to measure performance presents the process used for data collection.
from four viewpoints: (a) internal business, (b) customer, After analysing these 114 articles, we identified
(c) innovation and learning, and (d) financial viewpoint. 11 themes related to the BSC, based on the BSC’s evolution,
Kumar et al. 149

Figure 1. Data Collection Process

Source: The authors.

scope and usage, in various organizations. These themes are the American Accounting Association (AAA), Elsevier,
are (a) BSC conceptual development, (b) BSC for strategy Emerald, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley.
implementation, (c) BSC adoption in public and non-profit
organizations, (d) BSC in educational and healthcare Frequency Distribution of Management
organizations, (e) BSC literature reviews, (f) BSC and Journals and Publishers
other management tools, (g) BSC in human resources, (h)
case studies of BSC implementation, (i) BSC variants, (j) Table 2 lists 87 BSC articles from 56 management journals
BSC criticism, and (k) other BSC issues. and their respective publishers. It shows the following
distributions: eight (9.2%) items are each from the
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Analysis and Discussion Management, and Measuring Business Excellence; seven
(8.05%) from Harvard Business Review; four (4.6%) from
We categorize articles on the BSC in several ways to assist
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence; two
scholars and future researchers. First, we classify (2.3%) each from Long Range Planning, International
documents by (a) journal type and publisher, (b) sector- Journal of Educational Management, Journal of Intellectual
wise authors’ contribution, (c) research themes, (d) research Capital, Journal of Management Development, Management
methodology applied, (e) publication year, (f) country, and Decision, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vikalapa, and
(g) statistical techniques. International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Frequency Distribution of Accounting Industry/Sector-wise Author Contributions to

Journals and Publishers the Balanced Scorecard
Table 1 lists 27 BSC articles published in 14 accounting Soon after its launching in the early 1990s, the BSC has
journals and their publishers. The table shows that six become a worldwide phenomenon. Today, BSC research
(22.2%) articles are from the Journal of Accounting and tends to cluster in not only discipline-specific journals of
Organizational Change, four (14.8%) from Management accounting and management, but also in context-specific
Accounting Research, three (11.1%) from The Accounting journals. For example, managers apply the BSC in
Review, and two (7.41%) each from Accounting Horizons, manufacturing (Abdallah & Alnamri, 2015; Sim & Koh,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, and Journal of 2001), hospitality and tourism (Doran et al., 2002; Sainaghi
Cost Management journals. The most common publishers et al., 2013), education (Asan & Tanyas, 2007; Beard,
150 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of 27 BSC Articles in Accounting Journals

Number Journal Database/Publisher Number of Articles Percentage of Articles

1 Accounting Horizons AAA 2 7.41
2 Behavioral Research in Accounting AAA 1 3.70
3 The Accounting Review AAA 3 11.11
4 Accounting, Organizations and Society Elsevier 2 7.41
5 Management Accounting Research Elsevier 4 14.81
6 The British Accounting Review Elsevier 1 3.70
7 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Emerald 1 3.70
Journal
8 Journal of Applied Accounting Research Emerald 1 3.70
9 Journal of Accounting and Organizational Emerald 6 22.22
Change
10 Journal of Cost Management WG & L Financial Reporting 2 7.41
& Management Research
11 Journal of Accounting Education Taylor & Francis 1 3.70
12 European Accounting Review Taylor & Francis 1 3.70
13 Financial Accountability and Wiley 1 3.0
Management
14 Journal of Accounting Research Wiley 1 3.70
Total 27 100*
Source: The authors.
Note: *Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of 87 BSC Articles in Management and Other Journals

Number of Percentage
Number Journal Database/Publisher Articles of Articles
1 Decision Support Systems Elsevier 1 1.15
2 Long Range Planning Elsevier 2 2.30
3 Benchmarking: An International Journal Emerald 1 1.15
4 Business Process Re-engineering and Management Journal Emerald 1 1.15
5 Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Emerald 1 1.15
Journal
6 International Journal of Educational Management Emerald 2 2.30
7 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Emerald 8 9.20
Management
8 International Journal of Public Sector Management Emerald 1 1.15
9 International Journal of Bank Marketing Emerald 1 1.15
10 Journal of Intellectual Capital Emerald 2 2.30
11 Journal of Management Development Emerald 2 2.30
12 Management Decision Emerald 2 2.30
13 Managerial Auditing Journal Emerald 1 1.15
14 Measuring Business Excellence Emerald 8 9.20
15 The TQM Journal Emerald 1 1.15
16 Harvard Business Review Harvard Business Publishing 7 8.05
17 Working paper Harvard Business Publishing 1 1.15
18 Business & Professional Ethics Journal JSTOR 1 1.15
19 Indian Journal of Industrial Relations JSTOR 1 1.15
20 Journal of Managerial Issues JSTOR 2 2.30
21 Clinical Leadership and Management Review Others 1 1.15
22 International Journal of Business and Social Science Others 1 1.15
23 Foundations of Management Others 1 1.15
24 Planning for Higher Education Others 1 1.15
25 Strategic Finance Others 1 1.15
26 WCOB Faculty Publications Others 1 1.15
(Table 2 continued)
Kumar et al. 151

(Table 2 continued)
Number of Percentage
Number Journal Database/Publisher Articles of Articles
27 Decision Making: Applications in Management and Others 1 1.15
Engineering
28 California Management Review SAGE Journals 1 1.15
29 Cross Cultural Management SAGE Journals 1 1.15
30 German Journal of Research in Human Resource SAGE Journals 1 1.15
Management
31 Journal of Management Education SAGE Journals 1 1.15
32 Vikalpa SAGE Journals 2 2.30
33 *Handbook of Management Accounting Research Science Direct 1 1.15
34 Management International Review Springer 1 1.15
35 Management Review Springer 1 1.15
36 *Recent Advances in Information Systems and Technologies Springer 1 1.15
37 Journal of Business Ethics Springer 1 1.15
38 International Journal of Public Administration Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
39 Journal of Education for Business Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
40 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
Research
41 Total Quality Management and Business Excellence Taylor & Francis 4 4.60
42 Business Strategy and the Environment Wiley 1 1.15
43 Knowledge and Process Management Wiley 1 1.15
44 China Economic Review Elsevier 1 1.15
45 European Journal of Operational Research Elsevier 1 1.15
46 International Journal of Hospitality Management Elsevier 2 2.30
47 International Journal of Healthcare Quality Assurance Emerald 1 1.15
48 Management of Environment Quality: An International Journal Emerald 1 1.15
49 Rangelands Others 1 1.15
50 Higher Education Springer 1 1.15
51 International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
52 Journal of Higher Education, Policy and Management Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
Education
53 Journal of Management and Marketing in Healthcare Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
54 The Journal of the Operational Research Society Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
55 Intangible Capital Others 1 1.15
56 The EDP Audit, Control and Security Newsletter Taylor & Francis 1 1.15
Total 87 100
Source: The authors.
Note: *Articles published in books.

2009; Hladchenko, 2015; Papenhausen & Einstein, 2006), techniques applied, we classify the 114 BSC articles, into
health (Chang et al., 2008; Kollberg & Elg, 2011; Lin et al., 11 broad themes, based on our analysis and judgment (see
2014; Oliveira et al., 2020), retail banks (Zhoor & Sahaf, Table 5). The first two themes contain the most articles,
2018), insurance (Dwivedi et al., 2021), and retail (Thomas with 17 and 20, respectively.
et al., 1999). Managers apply the BSC in almost every
form of organization: profit-making enterprises (Joseph, • Theme 1. BSC conceptual development. This theme
2009), non-profit-making firms (Greiling, 2010; Gumbus includes articles focusing on the conceptual basis of
& Wilson, 2004), and public enterprises (Hamid, 2018; the BSC. The contribution of the BSC promoters is
Holmes et al., 2006; Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2017; Northcott already discussed in the second section of this
& Taulapapa, 2012; Sundin et al., 2010). article. Additionally, Lipe and Salterio (2000)
realize that each business enterprise should use a
Balanced Scorecard Research Themes scorecard that solely captures its business strategy.
Likewise, Lawrie and Cobbold (2004) discuss the
Following Hoque’s (2014) framework regarding
BSC’s progress from a performance measure to a
classification of management and accounting journals,
strategic management and control system. Although
industry/sector-wise author’s contribution, research
Ahn (2005) introduces a customized BSC based on
methodology, publication year, country and statistical
152 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

a company’s mission, vision, and objectives, Sim organizations. Similarly, Holmes et al. (2006) find
and Koh (2001) propose a theoretical model of the that only complex, mature, and transparent public
BSC for manufacturing firms. agencies can successfully implement the BSC.
According to Punniyamoorthy and Murali (2008), According to Greiling (2010), BSC can serve as an
the BSC offers a base for comparing target and instrument to measure performance instead of a
actual performance. Soderberg et al. (2011) management system. In Australia’s state-owned
introduce five steps of the BSC to implement an electricity company, Sundin et al. (2010) find that
effective strategy. But Shadbolt (2007) advises BSC can establish trade-offs between diverse
against treating the BSC as a substitute for a strategic objectives. Northcott and Taulapapa (2012)
manager’s capabilities and experience. In the words recognize oppositions and problems in adopting
of Nielsen et al. (2017), the BSC serves as an BSC among public sector units and declare that the
exclusive intellectual capital disclosure framework BSC is compatible only with private sector
that can create management disclosures for internal enterprises. On the contrary, Hamid (2018) finds
and external reasons. Contextually, Park et al. that a positive association exists between the BSC’s
(2017) find that developmental measure analysis financial perspectives and its competitive advantage
using BSC perspectives provides greater validity in in a state-owned port company.
developing corporate strategies. • Theme 4. BSC in educational and healthcare
• Theme 2. BSC for strategy implementation. This organizations. This theme involves adopting the BSC
theme focuses on implementing the BSC. Articles in colleges, universities, and healthcare organizations.
discuss the ‘dos and don’ts’ and critical success Aidemark (2001) reports that the BSC helps establish
factors for BSC implementation. Kaplan and Norton specific targets, reduces ambiguities in performance
(1996) conclude that managers have to build evaluation and assists hierarchy maintenance with
quantitative and qualitative measures consistent clan control. Later, Gumbus et al. (2004) assert that
with their business strategy. Later, Kaplan and internal communication and marketing are critical
elements for BSC’s successful implementation.
Norton (2001a, 2001b) discuss the journey of BSC
Likewise, Gumbus (2005) finds that the BSC enlarges
from a performance measuring device to a strategic
the conventional measures into three standpoints—
management technique and strategy maps.
focus on the buyer, employee learning and
Anand et al. (2005) and Hu et al. (2017) reveal that
development, and operational efficiency—to ensure a
BSC’s implementation requires a causal relationship
fair approach to measure performance in a university
among its four standpoints: customer, internal
institute. Importantly, Papenhausen and Einstein
business, innovation and learning, and financial.
(2006) conclude that support from administrators,
Previously, Papalexandris et al. (2004) discuss BSC
faculty. And staff is imperative to implement the BSC
functioning in a software development organization
in a college successfully.
and identify obstacles, shortcomings and critical Kollberg and Elg (2011) find that attaining a balance
success factors. Similarly, Pandey (2005) discusses among perspectives, organizational goals, and
essential issues for the BSC’s successful execution, improvement techniques is essential for a successful
such as support from top management, BSC implementation in a healthcare organization.
communication, and a cause and effect relationship. In England’s healthcare industry, Rodgers (2011)
Likewise, Atkinson (2006) and Gomes and Romao identifies the major factors influencing a BSC’s
(2017) emphasize the importance of effective success. Umashankar and Datta (2007), Yu et al.
communication and strategy execution. On different (2009), and Hladchenko (2015) discuss BSC’s
grounds, Malmi (2001), Papalexandris et al. (2004), structure, along with several critical success factors,
Bose and Thomas (2007), Ismail (2007), Abdallah needed for BSC implementation in higher education
and Alnamri (2015), and Kshatriya et al. (2017) institutions of different nations. Finally, Oliveira
explore strategy implementation issues using the et al. (2020), identify nine bureaucratic features in
BSC in various companies. Tapinos et al. (2011) find Portuguese local health units. They conclude that
that an organization’s strategy process differs between BSC execution requires knowledge and discipline
those using and not using the BSC. Finally, Cokins and invites neo-bureaucratic order through a cultural
(2020) claims that the BSC can help implement a change.
strategy using key performance indicators. • Theme 5. BSC literature reviews. This theme involves
• Theme 3. BSC adoption in public and non-profit BSC literature reviews. Kaplan (2012) presents his
organizations. This theme considers BSC adoption viewpoints about BSC commentaries. After analysing
in government and not-for-profit enterprises. 114 articles published between 1992 and 2012,
Gumbus and Wilson (2004) offer a guide to the BSC Hoque (2014) finds incompatibility between the BSC
implementation process in government and non-profit and other management control techniques like
Kumar et al. 153

budgeting, which leads to some hesitation in its example, Kaplan and Norton (1993) link strategy to
implementation. Likewise, Perkins et al. (2014) performance measures and illustrate BSC’s
report that efficient and effective management is development with examples. Similarly, Letza (1996)
possible with BSC by offering clear answers to find that the BSC model is inapplicable to some
critical questions. business situations. He highlights several issues for
Lueg and Vu (2015) review BSC implementation BSC’s successful implementation. Later, Martinsons
cases that guide managers to identify blind spots. In et al. (1999) conclude that a balanced information
their review of 69 articles, Hansen and Schaltegger system scorecard can lead to a healthy strategic
(2016) find that modifying the original BSC to management system. Likewise, Schobel and Scholey
include social, environmental, and ethical issues can (2012) note that well-structured strategies play a
lead to a more sustainable BSC. Finally, Monteiro crucial role in achieving objectives. By contrast,
and Ribeiro (2017) see BSC’s potential as a useful Butler et al. (1997) report that managers from
environment administration tool in public and Rexam Custom in Europe view the BSC as
private organizations. inappropriate with their organization’s culture.
• Theme 6. BSC and other management tools. This Many researchers discuss BSC’s implementation in
topic involves the association between BSC and other various industries (Gumbus & Lyons, 2002; Gumbus
management techniques like MBO and TQM. & Johnson 2003; Joseph, 2009; Sainaghi et al.,
According to Dinesh and Palmer (1998), the BSC is 2019; Yemeshvary & Upadhyay, 2012). Similarly,
another version of MBO that may or may not Chavan (2009) identifies the challenges that limit its
overcome MBO’s failures. Maiga and Jacobs (2003) implementation. By contrast, Kaplan and Norton
view the BSC as a complement to ABC for (2006) advocate using the BSC as a strategy
organizational performance improvement. But implementation device to add value as an alternative
Chiarini (2016) compares Hoshin Kanri and BSC to changing an organization’s structure.
• Theme 9. BSC variants. This theme involves various
with corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies.
forms of the BSC, such as a competency-based BSC
Mehralian et al. (2017) discuss how TQM can
(Agrawal, 2008), sustainable BSC (Figge et al.,
positively influence the BSC’s four perspectives. In
2002) and gender-based BSC (Floeter & Wizk,
the views of Supino and Busco (2019), combining
2007). According to Ittner et al. (2003), the high
standard costing with the BSC can help identify
level of prejudice in bonus plans and rewards, based
an organization’s most favourable scenario.
on the BSC, allows managers to give more weight to
Contextually, Bénet et al. (2019) propose a business
financial measures and rapid changes in evaluation
model and a strategic map to overcome the limitations
criteria. Similarly, Kaplan and Wisner (2009) note
of BSC’s weak strategic fundamentals. By conducting
that managers must design performance measures
a study on an insurance organization, Dwivedi et al. compatible with the BSC and consider how they
(2021) suggest the combination of BSC and BWM. communicate their strategic objectives. Finally,
They claim that integrating these two models may Mamabolo and Myres (2019) recommend creating
help to measure business performance and monitor performance measurement models as reporting
the efficacy of adopted strategies. devices to improve an organization’s performance.
• Theme 7. BSC in human resources department. This • Theme 10. BSC criticism. Despite the BSC’s potential
theme concerns adopting the BSC by the human benefits, it has critics. Norreklit (2000) questions its
resources department for incentive management and basic assumptions and finds no causal relationship
performance evaluation practices. For example, among its four perspectives. Later, Norreklit (2003)
Budde (2007) finds that improving the credibility of concludes that the BSC attracts attention because of
incentive contracts involves limiting informal its persuasive rhetoric. Yet, it lacks a strong
incentives. Likewise, Burney and Swanson (2010) theoretical base and is not a strategic control model.
study how the BSC (perspective framework and Marr and Adams (2004) challenge Kaplan and
strategy link) can affect a manager’s job satisfaction. Norton for adding intangible assets in the BSC
Consequently, Gonzalez et al. (2012) find a link through a learning and growth viewpoint. Although
between managers’ mental models and a printing Norreklit et al. (2012) claim that advocates suggest
firm’s strategy maps. After examining 253 Spanish that the BSC can provide solutions to many
firms, Perramon et al. (2015) report that using the management problems, it does not lend itself to
BSC is an excellent method to recognize value scholarly research. Finally, Albertsen and Leug
creation by investing in human resources. (2014) identify that negligible number of enterprises
• Theme 8. Case studies of BSC implementation. have linked the BSC with compensation.
This theme includes case studies examining BSC • Theme 11. Other BSC issues. This category includes
implementation in various organizations. For matters not covered in the other 10 themes.
154 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

Thomas et al. (1999) find that the BSC offers an Table 3. Classification of Research Methods Used in the BSC
individualized and flexible management tool for Articles
retail organizations. Surprisingly, Gardiner (2001)
Number of Percentage of
claims that following BSC ethics forces executives
Rank Methods Articles Articles
to assume their social responsibility and leads to
continuous improvement. But Kasurinen (2002) 1 Conceptual 27 23.68
2 Case studies 26 22.81
revises the accounting change model by specifying
3 Empirical 18 15.79
the barriers that may create hurdles, delay or even
4 Exploratory 16 14.04
stop change. Later, De Wall (2003) interview Robert 5 Literature reviews 14 12.28
S. Kaplan about the BSC, its various dimensions, 6 Descriptive 7 6.14
criticisms, and future. 7 Experimental 6 5.26
Gumbus et al. (2003) examine the linkage between Total 114 100
the BSC and the capital budgeting process. Similarly, Source: The authors.
Rich (2007) reports that performance measures are Note: The percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
not equally weighted in the BSC due to subjectively
biased managers. Ismail (2007) identifies obstacles in
the way of adopting BSC in private companies of Gumbus and Wilson (2004), Gumbus et al. (2004),
Egypt. Similarly, across Swedish manufacturing Ahn (2005), Atkinson (2006), Punniyamoorthy and
business enterprises, Ax and Greve (2017) investigate Murali (2008), Dechow (2012), Kaplan (2009),
the transmission of BSC. Asiaei and Bontis (2019) Nielsen et al. (2017), Gomes and Romao (2017) and
find that BSC’s sustainability can improve corporate Bénet et al. (2019).
social performance by mediating the relationship • Case studies. Bose, and Thomas (2007), Asan and
between CSR and corporate performance. Finally, Tanyas (2007), Chang et al. (2008), Beard (2009),
Bouamama et al. (2021) examine medium-sized Sundin et al. (2010), Kollberg and Elg (2011),
enterprises in France and find that they do not use Taylor and Baines (2012), Chiarini (2016), Saiaghi
BSC’s four aspects. et al. (2018), and Dwivedi et al. (2021).
• Exploratory articles. Sim and Koh (2001), Malmi
Research Methods Used in the Balanced (2001), Papalexandris et al. (2004), Anand et al.
Scorecard Articles (2005), Ismail (2007), Yu et al. (2009), Tapinos et al.
(2011), Philbin (2011), Lin et al. (2014), Abdallah
Table 3 classifies BSC articles into seven research methods: and Alnamri (2015), and Oliveira et al. (2020).
(a) conceptual, (b) descriptive, (c) exploratory, (d) empirical, • Empirical articles. Kaplan and Norton (2001b),
(e) cases, (f) experimental and (g) literature reviews. Papenhausen and Einstein (2006), Kaplan (2009),
Greiling (2010), Northcott and Taulapapa (2012),
• A conceptual article covers basic BSC concepts. Hladchenko (2015), Hamid (2018), Zhoor and Sahaf
• A descriptive article discusses the BSC and its (2018), Mamabolo and Myres (2019), and
execution. Bouamama et al. (2021).
• An exploratory article examines primary data, using • Literature reviews. Johanson et al. (2006), Holmes
surveys, focus groups, and expert interviews. et al. (2006), Kaplan (2012), Hoque (2014),
• An empirical article contains various tests, using Albertsen and Lueg (2014), Awadallah and Allam
secondary data. (2015), Hansen and Schaltegger (2016), Monteiro
• A case study provides extended examples of strat- and Ribeiro (2017), and Quesado et al. (2018).
egy implementation by organizations. • Descriptive articles. Reisinger et al. (2003),
• An experimental article is a study in which the Umashankar and Datta (2007), Soderberg et al.
experimenter controls and manipulates conditions. (2011) and Kshatriya et al. (2017).
• A literature review is a comprehensive summary of • Experimental article. Lipe and Salterio (2000),
previous BSC work. Gumbus (2005), Cardinaels and van Veen-Dirks
(2010), and Hu et al. (2017).
As Table 3 shows, the 27 conceptual articles (23.68%) rank
the highest of the seven methodologies, followed by 26
(22.81%) case studies, 18 (15.79%) empirical, 16 (14.04%) Classification of the Balanced
exploratory, 14 (12.28%) literature reviews, 7 (6.14%) Scorecard Articles by Year
descriptive, and 6 experimental (5.26%). The methodology
used appears below the name of the few authors: As Figure 2 shows, only nine (7.89%) of the BSC articles
in our sample appeared between 1992 and 1999. Between
• Conceptual articles. Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996, 2000 and 2009, interest in the BSC increased as indicated
2000, 2005), Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin (2000), by the 55 (48.25%) articles in our sample. Thus, 5.5 articles,
Kumar et al. 155

Figure 2 Distribution of BSC Articles by Publication Year

Source: The authors.

on an average appeared yearly in our sample during the Table 4. Classification of BSC Articles by Country
2000s. The number of published articles peaked at nine in
2012. The publication of the remaining 50 articles (43.86%) Number of Percentage of
Rank Country Articles Articles
occurred between 2010 and 2021, averaging nearly 4.17
papers a year. 1 The USA 34 29.82
2 The UK 11 9.649
3 India 10 8.772
Classification of the Balanced Scorecard 4 Australia 6 5.263
Articles by Country 5 Germany 6 5.263
6 Italy 5 4.386
Table 4 classifies BSC articles by author-affiliated country.
7 Denmark 4 3.509
Although authors from many different countries publish 8 Sweden 4 3.509
BSC articles, the three dominant author-affiliated countries 9 Portugal 4 3.509
are the USA, with 34 items representing 29.82% of the 10 Austria 3 2.632
total, followed by the UK with 11 (9.649%) and India with 11 Canada 3 2.632
10 (8.772%). As Table 4 shows, most BSC studies are from 12 China 3 2.632
developed countries. The BSC appears to be an emerging 13 The Netherlands 3 2.632
issue in some developing nations. 14 New Zealand 2 1.754
15 Finland 2 1.754
16 Spain 2 1.754
Analysis of Statistical Techniques 17 Others 12 10.53
Based on our analysis of the 114 articles, we classify Total 114 100
41 (35.96%) as qualitative (conceptual and literature Source: The authors.
review) because they do not use any statistical techniques. Note: Others include Egypt, France, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia,
The remaining 73 (64.04%) articles use various quantitative Norway, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand and Turkey.
methods such as regression analysis in 29 (25.43%); t-tests
in 19 (16.66%); correlation in 8 (7.02%); structural equation successfully implement the BSC. Later, Northcott and
modelling (SEM) in 8 (7.02%); analysis of variance Taulapapa (2012) determine that the BSC is more
(ANOVA) in 4 (3.51%); and factor analysis, the Wilcoxon compatible with the private sector organizations and
rank test, and discriminant analysis in 2 each (1.75%) articles. recognize challenges and problems in executing the BSC
Our review of these articles suggests mixed views about in the public zone. Others like Norreklit (2000, 2003),
the BSC. Some authors other than BSC proponents such as Norreklit et al. (2012), Albertsen and Lueg (2014), and
Lipe and Salterio (2000), Gumbus et al. (2004), Ahn
Awadallah and Allam (2015) find little evidence supporting
(2005), Anand et al. (2005), Punniyamoorthy and Murali
BSC implementation. Overall, the supporters outnumber
(2008), Soderberg et al. (2011), Dechow (2012), Park et al.
(2017), Kshatriya et al. (2017), Hamid (2018), Supino and the critics by a wide margin.
Busco (2019), and Mamabolo and Myres (2019) are found
to appreciate BSC. A small number are critics. For example, Conclusions
Dinesh and Palmer (1998) state that BSC is another variant
of MBO. Likewise, Holmes et al. (2006) conclude that We examine a sample of 114 BSC articles published
only complex, mature and transparent public agencies can between 1992 and 2021. Of these articles, 27 appear in 14
156 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

Table 5. Major BSC Themes

Number Themes Number of Articles Percentage of Articles

1 BSC conceptual development 17 14.91
2 BSC for strategy implementation 20 17.54
3 BSC adoption in public and non-profit organizations 6 5.26
4 BSC in educational and healthcare organizations 16 14.03
5 BSC literature reviews 11 9.65
6 BSC and other management tools 7 6.14
7 BSC in human resources 5 4.39
8 Case studies of BSC implementation 13 11.40
9 BSC variants 6 5.26
10 BSC criticism 3 2.63
11 Other BSC issues 10 8.77
Total 114 100*
Source: The authors.
Note: *Total may not equal 100 due to rounding.

accounting journals, and the remaining 87 appear in 56 Regarding the statistical techniques used in BSC studies,
management journals. Over that period, the BSC increased researchers use various methods, but regression analysis is
in popularity, especially among Fortune 500 companies the most popular. The reasonably small number of empirical
(Gumbus, 2005). In this context, Brain and company assert studies may reflect researchers’ difficulty in obtaining
that 57% of the global organizations have applied BSC as BSC data.
a performance measurement system (Rigby & Bilodeau, Although some authors have tried to explore superior
2005). Likewise, Holmes et al. (2006) and Northcott and performance measures along with or without BSC such as
Taulapapa (2012) claim that companies should use BSC as competency-based BSC, sustainable BSC, gender-based
a management control device instead of a performance BSC, BWM, Hoshin Kanri, no one model replaces the
measurement tool. BSC victory stories are rare in the BSC.
public sector but common in the private sector. Successful
BSC implementation requires top management support.
Many authors doubt BSC’s superiority, relative to other Future Research Issues
performance measurement tools. Norreklit (2000, 2003) Our analysis of the literature reveals many facts about BSC.
and Norreklit et al. (2012) question the fundamental Some issues require future research.
relationship between the BSC’s four perspectives (internal
business, customer, learning and growth, and financial) and • Industry/sector. As Table 5 reports, some BSC
its assumptions. According to Hoque (2014), compatibility themes receive little attention. In particular, few
with traditional managerial control techniques like budgeting studies have focused on BSC implementation in the
may improve the effectiveness of BSC. Despite similar agricultural and allied sectors despite their
criticisms, organizations continue to implement the BSC importance in many countries. Limited studies also
especially in developed nations, and it is still in its infancy exist in some parts of the industrial and service
stage in developing nations. Many still question its efficacy, sectors. According to Northcott and Taulapapa
despite being introduced in 1992. Finally, BSC has emerged (2012), empirical research on the BSC mainly
slowly, and critics are far below in their appreciation. focuses on the private sector in New Zealand. A
According to Abdullah et al. (2013) the BSC must focus need exists for performance booster due to the poor
on future performance in addition to the historical and performance of public sector enterprises. Thus,
present performance. Furthermore, they suggest that these areas may merit additional study.
performance evaluation criteria must be consistent for • Empirical studies. Our evidence identifies relatively
scattered organizations. Given the objections and criticism few empirical studies. They seldom examine BSC’s
by several authors like Pandey (2005), Hoque (2014), implementation, control, and evaluation. More
Albetsen and Leug (2014). And Awadallah and Allam research is also needed to explore the factors
(2015) find that shortage of stories of successful BSC contributing to BSC’s success or failure. Pandey
implementation in different types of organizations. Finally, (2005) suggests that the assumption of BSC that it is
there is very little empirical evidence of BSC’s superiority compatible with strategy, which leads to better
when compared to traditional financial performance communication and motivation resulting in better
measures.
Kumar et al. 157

performance, needs to be empirically tested. combining the BSC model with system dynamics to
Furthermore, Perkins et al. (2014) conclude that support strategic decision-making. Researchers
there is little empirical evidence that the BSC leads could investigate whether combining the BSC with
to more understanding about the business other management techniques may lead to more
environment, resulting in reduced cost of business effective implementation.
operations. Identifying mediating and moderating • Critical success factors. Few studies explore the
variables between the BSC and performance and the factors contributing to BSC implementation. Lawrie
different BSC perspectives is an other promising and Cobbold (2004) suggest that there is a huge
area. Few studies use statistical techniques such as gap between the theories and practice of strategic
factor analysis, SEM, and discriminant analysis. control methods and performance management.
• The BSC and compatibility with other management Integration of these two can reflect extraordinary
control techniques. Hoque (2014) reports that results. Lueg and Vu (2015) review BSC’s critical
integrating the BSC with other management success factors. They state that support from high-
controlling techniques is problematic. This situation level management is underrated, and the speed of
may explain why organizations use multiple implementation is overrated. Researchers need to
identify the factors associated with successful BSC
measures in a single scorecard. Future researchers
implementation. Future researchers could, therefore,
can examine the BSC’s linkage with other
examine whether these critical success factors are
management control techniques such as budgeting,
effective.
marginal costing, and standard costing.
• Case studies of BSC implementation. Norreklit Declaration of Conflicting Interests
(2000, 2003) and Norreklit et al. (2012) find no The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
support for a cause and effect relation among the to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
BSC’s perspectives. The authors report that the BSC
is incompatible with managerial accounting research Funding
due to its main assumptions. Kaplan (2009, 2012) The authors received no financial support for the research,
proposes subdividing the BSC into financial and authorship and/or publication of this article.
non-financial measures to align information,
communication, and strategy with effective ORCID iDs
management. Johanson et al. (2006) believe that Jitender kumar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7728-7714
innovation and learning depend on the well-being of
H. Kent baker https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6428-8611
human resources. Yet, the lack of understanding of
the BSC model is a drawback because it creates a
References
gap between decision-makers and others in an
Abdallah, W. M., & Alnamri, M. (2015). Non-financial
organization. Given these objections, researchers
performance measures and the BSC of multinational
need to provide more case studies.
companies with multi-cultural environment: An empirical
• Viable alternatives to the BSC. Asan and Tanyas investigation. Cross Cultural Management, 22(4), 594–607.
(2007), and Chiarini (2016), suggest combining the https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-12-2013-0195
BSC and Hoshin Kanri to implement educational Abdullah, I., Umair, T., & Naeem, B. (2013). Developments
programmes. Hoshin Kanri is a method of seven on balanced scorecard: A historical review. World Applied
steps used in strategic planning in which strategic Sciences Journal, 21(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.5829/
goals are communicated to all the employees in the idosi.wasj.2013.21.1.2314
company and then set into action. Awadallah and Agrawal, S. (2008). Competency based balanced scorecard model:
An integrative perspective. Indian Journal of Industrial
Allam (2015) suggest using the performance prism
Relations, 44(1), 24–34.
(PP) instead of the BSC. The PP is a management Ahn, H. (2005). How to individualise your balanced scorecard?
structure that exhibits an organization’s complexities Measuring Business Excellence, 9(1), 5–12. https://doi.
and the diversity and reciprocity of stakeholder org/10.1108/13683040510588792
relationships. It has five perspectives—stakeholders’ Aidemark, L. -G. (2001). The meaning of balanced scorecards
satisfaction, stakeholders’ contribution, processes, in the health care organisation. Financial Accountability
strategies, and capabilities—rather than four in the and Management, 17(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/
BSC. Benet et al. (2019) address BSC’s criticism 1468-0408.00119
Albertsen, O. A., & Lueg, R. (2014). The balanced scorecard’s
regarding its lack of tactical basics. The researchers
missing link to compensation: A literature review and
propose a structure with three management systems: an agenda for future research. Journal of Accounting
business model, strategic map, and the BSC. Supino and Organizational Change, 10(4), 431–465. https://doi.
and Busco (2019) present a case study emphasizing org/10.1108/JAOC-03-2013-0024
158 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

Anand, M., Sahay, B.S. & Saha, S. (2005). Balanced scorecard in Chiarini, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility strategies
Indian companies. Vikalpa, 30(2), 11–25. using the TQM—Hoshin Kanri as an alternative system to
Asan, Ş. S., & Tanyaş, M. (2007). Integrating Hoshin Kanri the balanced scorecard. The TQM Journal, 28(3), 360–376.
and the balanced scorecard for strategic management: Cokins, G. (2020). The strategy map and its balanced scorecard.
The case of higher education. Total Quality Management EDPACS, 61(3), 1–16.
and Business Excellence, 18(9), 999–1014. https://doi. De Wall, A. A. (2003). The future of the balanced scorecard:
org/10.1080/14783360701592604 An interview with Professor Robert S. Kaplan. Measuring
Asiaei, K., & Bontis, N. (2019). Using a balanced scorecard Business Excellence, 7(1), 30–35.
to manage corporate social responsibility. Knowledge and Dechow, N. (2012). The balanced scorecard: Subjects, concept
Process Management, 26(4), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ and objects—A commentary. Journal of Accounting
kpm.1616 and Organizational Change, 8(4), 511–527. https://doi.
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for org/10.1108/18325911211273509
the balanced scorecard? Management Decision, 44(10), Dinesh, D., & Palmer, E. (1998). Management by objectives and
1441–1460. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610715740 the balanced scorecard: Will Rome fall again? Management
Awadallah, E. A. & Allam, A. (2015). A critique of the balanced Decision, 36(6), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/002517498
scorecard as a performance measurement tool. International 10223529
Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(7), 91–99. Doran, M. S., Haddad, K., & Chow, C. W. (2002). Maximizing
Ax, C., & Greve, J. (2017). Adoption of management accounting the success of balanced scorecard implementation in the
innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality and
perceived outcomes. Management Accounting Research, Tourism Administration, 3(3), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/
34(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007 J149v03n03_05
Banker, R. D., Chang, H., & Pizzini, M. J. (2004). The balanced Dwivedi, R., Prasad, K., Mandal, N., Singh, S., Vardhan, M., &
scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures Pamucar, D. (2021). Performance evaluation of an insurance
linked to strategy. Accounting Review, 79(1), 1–23. https:// company using an integrated balanced scorecard (BSC) and
doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.1.1 best-worst method (BWM). Decision Making: Applications
Beard, D. F. (2009). Successful applications of the balanced in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 33–50. https://doi.
scorecard in higher education. Journal of Education for org/10.31181/dmame2104033d
Business, 84(5), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. (2002). The
84.5.275-282 sustainability balanced scorecard—Linking sustainability
Bénet, N., Deville, A., & Naro, G. (2019). BSC inside a strategic management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the
management control package. Journal of Applied Accounting Environment, 11(5), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339
Research, 20(1), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11- Floeter, S., & Wizk, V. (2007). The gender balanced scorecard—
2016-0109 A management tool to achieve gender mainstreaming in
Bose, S., & Thomas, K. (2007). Applying the balanced scorecard organisational culture. German Journal of Research in
for better performance of intellectual capital. Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(4), 486–489.
Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Gardiner, C. (2001). Scorecard ethics. Business and Professional
14691930710830819 Ethics Journal, 21(3), 129–150.
Bouamama, M., Basly, S. & Zian, H. (2021). How do contingency Gomes, J., & Romao, M. (2017). Balanced scorecard: Today’s
factors influence the content of balanced scorecards? An challenges. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
empirical study of French intermediate-sized enterprises. 569(1), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56535-4
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 17(3), González, J. M. H., Calderón, M. Á., & González, J. L. G. (2012).
373–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-04-2020-0048 The alignment of managers’ mental models with the balanced
Budde, J. (2007). Performance measure congruity and the scorecard strategy map. Total Quality Management and
balanced scorecard. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(3), Business Excellence, 23(5–6), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1
515–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00246.x 080/14783363.2012.669546
Burney, L. L., & Swanson, N. J. (2010). The relationship between Greiling, D. (2010). Balanced scorecard implementation in
balanced scorecard characteristics and managers’ job German non-profit organisations. International Journal of
satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(2), 166–181. Productivity and Performance Management, 59(6), 534–554.
Butler, A., Letza, S.R. & Neale, B. (1997). Linking the balanced https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401011063939
scorecard to strategy. Long Range Planning, 30(2), 242–253. Gumbus, A. (2005). Introducing the balanced scorecard: Creating
Cardinaels, E., & van Veen-Dirks, P. M. G. (2010). Financial metrics to measure performance. Journal of Management
versus non-financial information: The impact of information Education, 29(4), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525
organization and presentation in a balanced scorecard. 62905276278
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(6), 565–578. Gumbus, A., & Lyons, B. (2002). The balanced scorecard at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.05.003 Philips electronics. Strategic Finance, 84(5), 45–49.
Chang, W. C., Tung, Y. C., Huang, C. H. & Yang, M. C. (2008). Gumbus, A., & Johnson, S. D. (2003). The balanced scorecard
Performance improvement after implementing the balanced at Futura industries. WCOB Faculty Publications. https://
scorecard: A large hospital’s experience in Taiwan. Total digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wcob_fac/95
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 19(12), Gumbus, A. & Wilson, T. (2004). Designing and implementing
1143–1154. a balanced scorecard: Lessons learned in non-profit
Chavan, M. (2009). The balanced scorecard: A new challenge. implementation. Clinical Leadership and Management
Journal of Management Development, 28(5), 393–406. Review, 18(4), 226–232.
Kumar et al. 159

Gumbus, A., Lyons, B., & Bellhouse, D. E. (2003). Aligning capital Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001a). Commentary—
investment decisions with the balanced scorecard. Journal of Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
Cost Management, 17(2), 34–38. measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting
Gumbus, A., Lyons, B., & Wilson, T. (2004). Designing a strategy Horizon, 15(1), 87–104.
to effectively communicate the balanced scorecard. Journal of Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001b). Commentary—
Cost Management, 18(2), 35–39. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
Hamid, N. (2018). The relationship between balanced scorecard measurement to strategic management: Part II. Accounting
perspective and competitive advantage of infrastructure assets Horizon, 15(2), 147–160.
of state-owned port in Indonesia. Journal of Management Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The office of strategy
Development, 37(2), 114–126. management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 1–21.
Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a
balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. new strategy without disrupting your organization. Harvard
Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193–221. https://doi. Business Review, 84(3), 100–109.
org/10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3 Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008a). Mastering the management
Hladchenko, M. (2015). Balanced scorecard—A strategic system. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 62–77.
management system of the higher education institution. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008b). The execution premium:
International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), Linking strategy to operations for competitive advantage.
167–176. Harvard Business School Press.
Holmes, J. S., de Piñeres, S. A. G., & Kiel, L. D. (2006). Kaplan, S. E., & Wisner, P. S. (2009). The judgmental effects of
Reforming government agencies internationally: Is there a role management communications and a fifth balanced scorecard
for the balanced scorecard? International Journal of Public category on performance evaluation. Behavioral Research in
Administration, 29(12), 1125–1145. Accounting, 21(2), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2009.
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: 21.2.37
Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future
Kasurinen, T. (2002). Exploring management accounting change:
research. British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59. https://doi.
The case of balanced scorecard implementation. Management
org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003
Accounting Research, 13(3), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1006/
Hu, B., Leopold-Wildburger, U., & Strohhecker, J. (2017).
mare.2002.0191
Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit
Kollberg, B., & Elg, M. (2011). The practice of the balanced
improve performance. European Journal of Operational
scorecard in health care services. International Journal of
Research, 258(2), 664–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
Productivity and Performance Management, 60(5), 427–445.
2016.09.026
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111140374
Ismail, T. H. (2007). Performance evaluation measures in the
Kshatriya, A., Dharmadhikari, V., Srivastava, D., & Basak, P. C.
private sector: Egyptian practice. Managerial Auditing Journal,
22(5), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710750775 (2017). Strategic performance measurement using balanced
Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (2003). Subjectivity scorecard: A case of machine tool industry. Foundations of
and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from Management, 9(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-
a balanced scorecard. Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758. 2017-0006
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725 Lawrie, G., & Cobbold, I. (2004). Third-generation balanced
Johanson, U., Skoog, M., Backlund, A., & Almqvist, R. (2006). scorecard: Evolution of an effective strategic control tool.
Balancing dilemmas of the balanced scorecard. Accounting, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(6), 842–857. https:// Management, 53(7), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/174
doi.org/10.1108/09513570610709890 10400410561231
Joseph, G. (2009). Mapping, measurement and alignment of Letza, S. R. (1996). Business the design and implementation
strategy using the balanced scorecard: The Tata steel case. of the balanced business scorecard: An analysis of three
Accounting Education, 18(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/ companies in practice. Business Process Re-Engineering and
10.1080/09639280802436731 Management Journal, 2(3), 54–76.
Kaplan, R. S. (2009). Conceptual foundations of the balanced Lin, Z., Yu, Z. & Zhang, L. (2014). Performance outcomes of
scorecard. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 3, balanced scorecard application in hospital administration in
1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(07)03003-9 China. China Economic Review, 30(C), 1–15.
Kaplan, R.S. (2012). The balanced scorecard: Comments on Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard:
balanced scorecard commentaries. Journal of Accounting and Judgmental effects of common and unique performance
Organizational Change, 8(4), 539–545. measures. Accounting Review, 75(3), 283–298. https://doi.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard— org/10.2308/accr.2000.75.3.283
Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, Lueg, R., & Vu, L. (2015). Success factors in balanced scorecard
70(1), 71–79. implementations—A literature review. Management Revue,
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced 26(4), 306–327. https://doi.org/10.1688/mrev-2015-04-Lueg
scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134–147.
Maiga, A., & Jacobs, F. (2003). Balanced scorecard, activity-
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard
as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, based costing and company performance: An empirical
74(1), 75–85. analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(3), 283–301.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies:
strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), A research note. Management Accounting Research, 12(2),
167–176. 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0154
160 FIIB Business Review 11(2)

Mamabolo, A., & Myres, K. (2019). Performance measurement Perramon, J., Rocafort, A., Bagur-Femenias, L. & Llach, J. (2015).
in emerging market social enterprises using a balanced Learning to create value through the balanced scorecard
scorecard. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 65–87. model: An empirical study. Total Quality Management and
Marr, B., & Adams, C. (2004). The balanced scorecard and Business Excellence, 27(9–10), 1121–1139.
intangible assets: Similar ideas, unaligned concepts. Philbin, S. P. (2011). Design and implementation of the balanced
Measuring Business Excellence, 8(3), 18–27. scorecard at a university institute. Measuring Business
Martinsons, M., Davison, R., & Tse, D. (1999). The balanced Excellence, 15(3), 34–45.
scorecard: A foundation for the strategic management of Punniyamoorthy, M., & Murali, R. (2008). Balanced score for the
information systems. Decision Support Systems, 25(1), balanced scorecard: A benchmarking tool. Benchmarking: An
71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00086-4 International Journal, 15(4), 420–443.
Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., Nooriparto, G., & Rasekh, H. R. Quesado, P., Guzmán, B. A., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2018).
(2017). TQM and organizational performance using the Advantages and contributions in the balanced scorecard
balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of implementation. Intangible Capital, 14(1), 186–201.
Productivity and Performance Management, 66(1), 111–125. Reisinger, H., Cravens, K. S., & Tell, N. (2003). Prioritizing
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2015-0114 performance measures within the balanced scorecard
Modell, S. (2012). The politics of the balanced scorecard. Journal framework. Management International Review, 43(4),
of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), 475–489. 429–437.
https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911211273482 Rich, V. (2007). Interpreting the balanced scorecard: An
Monteiro, S., & Ribeiro, V. (2017). The balanced scorecard as a investigation into performance analysis and bias. Measuring
tool for environmental management: Approaching the business Business Excellence, 11(1), 4–11.
context to the public sector. Management of Environmental Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2005). Management tools and trends.
Quality: An International Journal, 28(3), 332–349. https://doi. Bain and Company.
org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2015-0201 Rodgers, M. C. (2011). Organizational critical success factors
Nielsen, C., Lund, M., & Thomsen, P. (2017). Killing the
influencing balanced scorecard systems in UK healthcare.
balanced scorecard to improve internal disclosure. Journal of
Journal of Management and Marketing in Healthcare, 4(3),
Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 45–62.
174–179. https://doi.org/10.1179/1753304x11y.0000000007
Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a
Sainaghi, R., Phillips, P., & Corti, V. (2013). Measuring hotel
critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management
performance: Using a balanced scorecard perspectives’
Accounting Research, 11(1), 65–88.
approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Norreklit, H. (2003). The balanced scorecard: What is the score?
34(1), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.008
A rhetorical analysis of the balanced scorecard. Accounting,
Sainaghi, R., Phillips, P., & d’Angella, F. (2019, May).
Organizations and Society, 28(6), 591–619.
The balanced scorecard of a new destination product:
Norreklit, H., Norreklit, L., Mitchell, F. & Bjornenak, T. (2012).
The rise of the balanced scorecard—Relevance regained? Implications for lodging and skiing firms. International
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 216–230. https://doi.
490–510. org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.011
Northcott, D., & Taulapapa, T. M. (2012). Using the balanced Schobel, K., & Scholey, C. (2012). Balanced scorecards in
scorecard to manage performance in public sector education: Focusing on financial strategies. Measuring
organizations: Issues and challenges. International Journal Business Excellence, 16(3), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/
of Public Sector Management, 25(3), 166–191. 13683041211257385
Oliveira, H. C., Rodrigues, L. L., & Craig, R. (2020). Bureaucracy Shadbolt, N. M. (2007). The balanced scorecard: A strategic
and the balanced scorecard in health care settings. International management tool for ranchers. Rangelands, 29(2), 4–9. https://
Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 33(3), 247–259. doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2007)29[4:TBSASM]2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2019-0121 Sim, K. L., & Koh, H. C. (2001). Balanced scorecard: A rising
Pandey, I. M. (2005). Balanced scorecard: Myth and reality. Vikalpa, trend in strategic performance measurement. Measuring
30(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920050105 Business Excellence, 5(2), 18–27.
Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., & Prastacos, G. P. (2004). Soderberg, M., Kalagnanam, S., Sheehan, N. T., & Vaidyanathan, G.
Implementing the balanced scorecard in Greece: A software (2011). When is a balanced scorecard a balanced scorecard?
firm’s experience. Long Range Planning, 37(4), 351–366. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.05.002 Management, 60(7), 688–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/1741040
Papenhausen, C., & Einstein, W. (2006). Implementing the 1111167780
balanced scorecard at a college of business. Measuring Stewart, A., & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (2000). The balanced
Business Excellence, 10(3), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/ scorecard. Beyond reports and rankings. Planning for
13683040610685757 Higher Education, 38(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Park, S., Lee, H., & Chae, S. W. (2017). Rethinking balanced e362972004-004
scorecard (BSC) measures: Formative versus reflective
Sundin, H., Granlund, M., & Brown, D. A. (2010). Balancing
measurement models. International Journal of Productivity
multiple competing objectives with a balanced scorecard.
and Performance Management, 66(1), 92–110. https://doi.
European Accounting Review, 19(2), 203–246. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2015-0109
Perkins, M., Grey, A., & Remmers, H. (2014). What do we org/10.1080/09638180903118736
really mean by balanced scorecard? International Journal of Supino, E., Barnabè, F., Giorgino, M. C., & Busco, C. (2020).
Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 148–169. Strategic scenario analysis combining dynamic balanced
Kumar et al. 161

scorecards and statistics. International Journal of Productivity Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K. (2007). Balanced scorecards in
and Performance Management, 69(9), 1881–1902. https:// managing higher education institutions: An Indian perspective.
doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2018-0326 International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1),
Tapinos, E., Dyson, R. G., & Meadows, M. (2011). Does 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710716821
the balanced scorecard make a difference to the strategy Yemeshvary, A., & Upadhyay, A. (2012). Balanced scorecard–
development process? Journal of the Operational Research
fostering learning organizations towards achieving strategic
Society, 62(5), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.99
results: A case study of oil PSU in India. Development and
Taylor, J., & Baines, C. (2012). Performance management in UK
universities: Implementing the balanced scorecard. Journal of Learning in Organizations, 26(4), 13–16.
Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 111–124. Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., & Ijab, M. T. (2009). The e-balanced
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.662737 scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic staff performance.
Thomas, R., Gable, M., & Dickinson, R. (1999). An application Higher Education, 57(6), 813–828.
of the balanced scorecard in retailing. International Review Zhoor, A., & Sahaf, M. A. (2018). Investigating causal linkages in
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 9(1), 41–67. the balanced scorecard: An Indian perspective. International
https://doi.org/10.1080/095939699342679 Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(5), 184–207.

About the Authors

Jitender Kumar is an Associate Professor at Department of Management Studies, Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram
University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, (India). He completed his PhD from
Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar (Haryana) in
2012. He has been enjoying the profession of teaching and research for last more than 12 years. He has
attended more than 30 conferences/seminars of national and international level and has more than 15 published
research papers. He can be reached at [email protected], Mobile no. +91-9466207077

Neha Prince is pursuing PhD from Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal
(Sonepat). She has qualified NET-JRF exam conducted by UGC. She can be reached at neha.lucky05@gmail.
com

H. Kent Baker is University Professor of Finance at the Kogod School of Business at American University
in Washington, DC. He is an award-winning author/editor of 39 books and about 200 refereed journal articles.
Professor Baker is a recognized authority in behavioral finance, dividend policy, and survey research
methodology. He can be reached at [email protected]