Abstract
Purpose
Business intelligence (BI) is a combination of computer systems and managerial processes to support decision-making. The balanced scorecard is a kind of business intelligence tool for performance measurement and management control aimed at balancing financial and non-financial as well as short- and long-term measures. The sustainable balanced scorecard is a modification of the original balanced scorecard developed to expressly consider governance, social, environmental and ethical issues, and therefore to allow sustainability concepts to be included within the strategy and the management of the organization. However, although the sustainable balanced scorecard is one of the most suitable tools for integrating sustainability within management, there are few examples of how to develop and implement it which can be used as reference models. To help solve this problem, this paper proposes a methodology for the development of a sustainable balanced scorecard, considering different phases such as planification, analysis, design or computer tool implementation, and describes the findings of three case studies.
Design/methodology/approach
The research was conducted using the qualitative multiple-case study method. This made it possible to establish the methodological issues regarding the performance and reporting of this study. Therefore, the research method for the conceptualization and execution of the case studies was divided into seven phases: definition of research goals and questions; proposed theoretical model; identification of units of analysis; case selection; definition of research methods and resources; fieldwork; data collection, classification of information and triangulation; formulation of the enhanced theory, model or methodology; and verification of the rigour and quality of the study.
Findings
Paper shows a methodology organized in phases, activities and tasks that allow a sustainable balanced scorecard to be planned, designed, built, computerized and controlled in order to integrate sustainability within the management systems of organizations.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the currently emerging sustainable balanced scorecard literature and practice and, more generally, to research on sustainability measurement and management. The methodology for sustainable balanced scorecard development and implementation showed in this paper contributes to the management and information systems theory because it makes it possible to overcome the shortcomings identified to date: it considers all the sustainability dimensions; it describes all the project life-cycle activities; it encourages stakeholders' participation; and it has been proved to work in real situations.
Keywords
Citation
Chalmeta, R. and Ferrer Estevez, M. (2023), "Developing a business intelligence tool for sustainability management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 188-209. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2023-0232
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Ricardo Chalmeta and Maria Ferrer Estevez
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Business intelligence (BI) is a combination of computer systems, knowledge management, and managerial processes for data gathering, storage, analysis, and visualization to offer complex internal and competitive organizational information to support both operative and strategic decision-making (Nuseir, 2021). BI facilitate non-expert computer users to analyse and visualise linked data, thus generating actionable information by means of reporting, OLAP analysis, dashboards or data mining (Corrales-Garay et al., 2022). Thanks to this information, organizations can track their performance comparing indicators with business objectives and competitors, analyse consumer behaviour, discover problems and predict success, which allows them to make better decisions to improve processes and results (Al-Okaily et al., 2023).
BI implementation must be addressed from two perspectives: the technological view and the managerial view (Attar-Khorasani and Chalmeta, 2023). The technological view is focused on the tools, software and computer to find, collect, organize and access a wider range of information from disparate data sources. On the other hand, the managerial view is focused on the coordination and management of the processes to offer timely, actionable, high-value and accurate business insights from data stored in different information sources (inside and outside the company) (Chee et al., 2009).
The balanced scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) is a kind of BI tool (Nuseir, 2021; Olszak et al., 2022) that allows strategy to be translated into action. It is structured in four perspectives (financial, customers, processes and training). In developing the BSC, a hierarchical structure is employed to define long-term strategic objectives and to calculate the indicators with which to measure the degree of achievement of the objectives, for each perspective. The top-down process of the BSC ensures that all the business processes and action plans are aligned with the achievement of the business strategy. This feature of the BSC, together with its relative simplicity to deal with organization intangibles, makes it suitable to manage the concepts of sustainability (Figge et al., 2002).
There is a great discussion in the literature about how to integrate sustainability into management. It is being covered by the new business management style called Re-engineered 4th Generation Management (Hallioui et al., 2022), a new businesses generation oriented towards sustainability and customer, to make businesses more contemporary in a landscape of Industry 4.0 (Smiari et al., 2020), circular economy (Tjahjadi et al., 2023), smart cities, competitiveness and diverse stakeholders (Addazi and Ciccozzi, 2021).
As pointed out by Baumgartner (2014) and Gond et al. (2012), to develop sustainability strategies managers need to be perfectly aware of the consequences of their decisions. This requires an accurate calculation of key performance indicators and the evaluation of their alignment with the goals. Hence, the BSC is a suitable performance measurement and management control tool for implementing the dimensions of sustainability in the strategic management of organizations (Küçükbay and Sürücü, 2019).
The sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) is an evolution of the BSC (Mamudu et al., 2023), combining the four classical BSC perspectives with sustainability ethical, environmental, social, governance and other concerns, as well as sustainability objectives and performance measures. There are four possible ways to do this (Mio et al., 2021): to integrate sustainability concepts within the four classic BSC perspectives; to incorporate sustainability concepts within the customer perspective; to define a new perspective; or to develop a new BSC with only the sustainability dimensions.
The SBSC can support companies in the implementation of a sustainable strategy, which involves promoting sustainability management and decision-making, supporting regulatory data requirements and meeting stakeholders' information demands (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006). However, although the SBSC is a suitable business intelligence tool for integrating sustainability and strategy in businesses (Hansen and Schaltegger, 2016) and is attracting growing interest from academia and practitioners (Hansen and Schaltegger, 2018), there is a need for research on SBSC frameworks and methodologies to support their development and application (Shreyanshu et al., 2023; Mio et al., 2021).
This scarcity of research on SBSC development is especially relevant in universities (Fuchs et al., 2020). Universities play a fundamental role in sustainable and inclusive development based on the transfer of knowledge and innovation through their curricula and research projects (Filho et al., 2023; Hurtado et al., 2019). Universities are aware that sustainability is a factor of university quality and creates a favourable reputation and enhances employees' commitment, morale and productivity in internal business processes (Saeidi et al., 2015). Universities worldwide are changing their mission, vision, infrastructure (Mac-lean et al., 2022; Lee and Lee, 2021) and educational practices to better cope with growing concerns about social and environmental issues and to respond to growing public demand for a sustainable society (Lin et al., 2016). Indeed, the top universities in the international rankings are now increasingly institutionalizing sustainability practices within their curricula, research, business process, outreach and assessment (Salvioni et al., 2017).
Therefore, it is important to know the lessons learned from universities' experiences in adopting the SBSC as a support for the integration of sustainability in their strategy and day-to-day management. This understanding will foster the adoption of sustainability by university managers around the world.
To support university managers in the management of sustainability using an SBSC, this paper describes an exploratory study conducted on the lessons learned by three universities that included sustainability within their strategic definition and implementation using the SBSC. The findings obtained make it possible to identify key aspects in the process of employing the SBSC as a tool for integrating sustainability in the management of the university. The study seeks to contribute to the recent, scarcely investigated research challenge concerning how organizations address sustainability through performance measurement tools, such as the SBSC (Wu et al., 2021; Yaakub and Mohamed, 2020).
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the research method used to carry out the research. Section 3 presents the findings obtained from the multiple-case study conducted at three universities with the aim of obtaining a methodology that can be used to develop an SBSC. Lastly, Section 4 discusses the results and shows the conclusions.
2. Research methodology and findings
The research was conducted using the qualitative multiple-case study method, which has been developed by different authors. In this research, the recommendations set out by Yin (1994) for inductive analysis of qualitative data were followed, together with the recommendations detailed by Walsham (1995) for improving an existing theory using interpretive case studies in the information systems field. This made it possible to establish the methodological issues regarding the performance and reporting of this study.
Therefore, the research method for the conceptualization and execution of the case studies was divided into seven phases:
Definition of research goals and questions.
Proposed theoretical model.
Identification of units of analysis. Case selection.
Definition of research methods and resources.
Fieldwork. Data collection, classification of information and triangulation.
Formulation of the enhanced theory, model or methodology.
Verification of the rigour and quality of the study.
In the following sections, the results obtained in each phase of the application of the research method are outlined.
2.1 Definition of research goals and questions
The goals of this case study were: (a) to test a methodology to integrate sustainability concepts into the management systems of educational institutions using a sustainable BSC; (b) to analyse the findings in order to determine the improvement offered by the methodology; (c) to improve the initial methodology with the aid of the lessons learned and the conclusions drawn from the case study; and (d) to develop practical examples that can be used as reference models in other implementations.
A research question, which will be evaluated while the case study is being carried out, was developed:
How can universities incorporate sustainability within their management system, thereby aligning their strategy and action plans with sustainability?
2.2 Proposed theoretical model
Firstly, to gain a better understanding and clearer vision of the topic, a literature review was carried out. Then, the theoretical model that would be applied to different universities was defined. The theoretical model is a methodology organized in phases, activities and tasks that allows a sustainable BSC (Table 1) to be planned, designed, built and controlled in order to integrate sustainability within the management systems of educational institutions. The phases are typical of the development of an information system, but the activities and tasks are specific to the development and implementation of an SBSC.
2.3 Identification of units of analysis: Case selection
Following Walsham's (1995) proposal concerning the generalization of a theory from an interpretative investigation of case studies, the proposed theoretical model was applied to three universities to integrate sustainability into their management systems using a sustainable BSC.
In accordance with the purposive sampling approach for the identification and selection of information-rich cases with the most effective use of limited resources (Patton, 2002), the criterion of selecting only universities was adopted. This selection was made because it satisfied the following criteria: (1) Universities stated their availability, interest, cooperation and access to required information, which are necessary requirements to participate in this kind of research (Palinkas et al., 2015); (2) In the multiple-case study method, the cases need to have a standard variable, for example a set of companies in the same industry (Diop and Liu, 2020). In this case, the three case studies belong to the same business activity: the research and education field; (3) Proposed theoretical model application to these universities had the potential capacity to generate the necessary enhancement of the basic theory, which is another necessary requirement (Crowe et al., 2011); (4) Homogeneous and typical case sampling, like the one used in this study offer greater depth in the findings. Therefore, the results of the theoretical model application to the three universities can be used as reference models for academics and practitioners interested in improving the sustainability of other universities, a business activity where there is a scarcity of research on SBSC implementation; and (5) The homogeneity of the case studies makes it easier to arrange meetings, creates templates for gathering data and simplifies the process of analysing the findings.
University 1 (UNI 1) is a young Spanish university founded at the beginning of the 1990s. It has around 15,000 students, 1500 teachers and 480 employees. University 2 (UNI 2) is a Spanish university also founded at the beginning of the 1990s, with around 161,231 students, 1500 teachers and 1400 employees. Finally, University 3 (UNI 3) is a South American university founded at the beginning of the 1990s with around 22,000 students, 1300 teachers and 500 employees.
2.4 Definition of research methods and resources
After selecting the three universities, the fieldwork was prepared and begun. To carry out the application of the proposed theoretical model, mixed work teams were set up, whose members were the authors and staff of the participating universities. Throughout seminars and meetings, department managers and middle management staff of the different universities related to the project were informed of the goal of the project, the phases of the proposed theoretical model and the aspects related to sustainability that had to be worked on in each of those phases.
After executing each phase of the methodology, data were collected through interviews using a combination of templates and questionnaires, as well as copies of the reports and documents used in the universities. Interviews were carried out after executing each phase to solve any problems and/or apply the improvements suggested before starting execution of the next phase. The objectives of the interviews at each phase were to analyse the findings, to obtain feedback from the experience of the interviewees, to detect problems and errors encountered, and to collect proposals for improving the methodology. The questions asked in the interviews were adapted to the specific characteristics of each phase and were the same for each interviewee.
2.5 Fieldwork: Data collection, classification of information and triangulation
Data collection consisted in gathering the results of applying the proposed theoretical model in each of the universities. The next step was to classify the different suggestions for improving the proposed theoretical model put forward by each of the mixed work groups as a result of their experience.
In accordance with Yin (1998), multiple data sources (primary data from semi-structured interviews and questionnaires) and secondary data (from universities' documents and information disclosure on the web and social networks) were chosen to ensure the research could be replicated theoretically. Other sources used in qualitative studies, such as images and videos, were not used because they were considered of lesser value.
Following the principle of triangulation, the criterion adopted in this research was that of incorporating into the initial SBSC methodology any proposal for improvement reviewed and agreed on by the members of the mixed work teams.
2.6 Formulation of the enhanced theory, model or methodology
Next, the most important improvements suggested by the three universities are shown, organized according to the activities displayed in Figure 1, together with examples of the application of the methodology.
2.6.1 Project planning activity
The first activity consists of project planning and aims to create project teams, determine the scope, carry out a project plan and create a communication plan.
2.6.1.1 Team building
In the three cases, the first proposal is to create a coordinating team and several organizational units made up of personnel from the university itself. Each team and individual member must know their roles, responsibilities and objectives. To this end, an analysis of the organizational structure of the university is carried out and the key units of the university that must participate in the project are identified. In addition, the profiles required to undertake the project are identified, namely, specialists in finance, human resources, computer engineering and quality management. In the case of UNI 3, profiles specialized in CSR and sustainability, and workers' representatives are also included.
In the three cases, the teams will have access to training and information actions to promote the skills and commitment of the participants that make up the team. Voluntary participation and transparent selection of team members are also promoted. There should be a balanced representation of men and women in the teams. UNI 2 highlights the importance of the involvement of senior management as of this initial phase for the success of the project.
Finally, the stakeholders that must be taken into account are defined. UNI 3 defines stakeholders classified on three levels, according to the model proposed by Jancic (1999): (1) stakeholders with whom an unavoidable relationship is maintained: students, employees and suppliers; (2) stakeholders with whom a necessary relationship is maintained: media, environment, other universities, local population, companies, public administration, alumni; and (3) stakeholders with whom a desirable relationship is maintained: neighbours' associations, sports associations, NGOs, social action groups, cultural action groups. UNI 1 also includes the creation of a Stakeholders Committee that will actively collaborate in the development of various project activities and in the validation of project results.
2.6.1.2 Project scope
The scope of the project is broken down in financial, social and environmental terms. UNI 3 also emphasizes the need to consider the academic, research and management fields of the university.
2.6.1.3 Project Plan
In the three cases, the project plan includes objectives, responsibilities, phases, activities and timing.
2.6.1.4 Communication plan
In the case of UNI 1 and UNI 2, the communication plan is internal to disseminate the project to all internal university stakeholders. However, in the case of UNI 3, an internal and an external communication plan are defined. In addition to the communication plan, it is defined who will be responsible for preparing and disseminating the communication material, and the communication mechanisms and channels to be used (meetings, emails, web content, etc.).
Table 2 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the project planning activity.
2.6.2 Business re-design activity
2.6.2.1 Mission, vision, values and organizational strategy
In all three cases, the mission, vision, values and organizational strategy were re-defined from a triple bottom line perspective, including economic, environmental and social aspects, and considering the relevant stakeholders.
In the case of UNI 1, it was considered essential that the Stakeholders Committee created in the first phase actively participated in the re-definition of the university mission, vision, values and strategy.
UNI 2 included within its mission facilitating access to university education as much as possible – always in favour of sustainability.
UNI 3 included within its vision being socially recognized for its university social responsibility.
2.6.2.2 Internal and external analysis of the university and the identification of the key success factors
The three universities used a SWOT analysis (Table 3). In the comparison, although all the universities consider different sustainability aspects, little emphasis is placed on the environmental dimension.
In addition to the SWOT analysis, UNI 1 used other techniques such as the PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal) analysis, and the Porter (1985) value chain analysis.
In UNI 3 the SWOT analysis was complemented with another technique, the CAME (correct, confront, maintain, export) analysis.
Examples of critical success factors identified are: (1) The quality and the social and environmental commitment of the teaching provided; (2) Efficiency in economic, social and environmental management; and (3) Having a socially responsible research and development (R&D) programme.
Table 4 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the Business Re-Design activity.
2.6.3 Strategic balanced scorecard design activity
In this activity, the strategic map of the university is built, which includes the strategic objectives organized by perspectives and their relationships; the indicators proposed to measure the degree of achievement of the strategic objectives; and the cause-effect relationships between the indicators.
Each university has considered different perspectives to classify the indicators:
UNI 1 establishes four perspectives: knowledge transfer, transparency and accountability, governance, and relations with the environment and society.
UNI 2 establishes five perspectives: funders, customers and suppliers, internal processes, employees and training, and society and environment.
UNI 3 defines seven perspectives: financial, customers and suppliers, processes, technology, training and labour relations, social, and environmental. Once the perspectives have been defined, in all three cases the strategic objectives and the indicators for their measurement are identified.
Regarding the definition of indicators, UNI 2 uses a template to detail the characteristics of each indicator, the maximum and minimum acceptable values for the indicator, the frequency of measurement, the degree of importance, as well as the corrective actions in the event that the indicator is out of range.
Regarding the representation of the strategic map:
UNI 2 uses a table that includes perspectives, objectives and indicators, without showing the relationships between the different objectives.
However, UNI 1 and UNI 3 have made a graphic model that organizes the perspectives hierarchically, and establishes the relationships between the different strategic objectives of each perspective.
Figure 1 shows an example of part of the strategic map of a university, showing the definition of objectives and indicators by perspective, and the cause-effect relationships between the indicators.
Table 5 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the strategic BSC design activity.
2.6.4 Business process Re-engineering activity
In this phase, the university's business processes are analysed and a redesign is carried out, incorporating the necessary improvements to achieve the previously defined strategic sustainability objectives.
In all three cases, templates are used to collect different aspects of the process, such as the name of the process, description, type of process, objectives, indicators, critical factors for success, inputs, outputs, relationship with other processes, deficiencies and improvement plans.
In UNI 1, a graphic modelling of the processes is also carried out to facilitate their understanding and analysis.
In UNI 3, templates are also proposed to document the improvement actions.
In the case of UNI 1 and UNI 3, a proposal was put forward to define a periodic evaluation system based on internal and external audits, and internal stakeholders' satisfaction surveys.
Examples of the business processes identified and improved at the three universities are: Teaching, Research, Research transfer, Student placement assistance, Human resources management, Technological development, Purchases, Design of the training offer, and Infrastructure and equipment.
Table 6 shows a summary of the proposals put forward to improve the Business Process Re-Engineering activity.
2.6.5 Tactical and operational balanced scorecard design activity
In this phase, the objectives and indicators at the operational level and their cause-effect relationships are defined. To this end, the three universities define a set of responsibility centres (for example, office of the rector, administration and services staff, teaching staff, etc.) and establish tactical and operational objectives. All these objectives are aligned with the previously defined strategic objectives, establishing a hierarchy of objectives. In addition, the indicators that will make it possible to measure its degree of compliance are defined. Table 7 shows an example of this hierarchy of indicators.
In all three cases, it stands out that each unit and person in the university must know the importance of their work in achieving the strategic objectives of the university. Therefore, they can also participate in defining the indicators at the tactical and operational level.
Table 8 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the tactical and operational BSC design activity.
2.6.6 Balanced scorecard validation activity
In this phase, the entire system of indicators, the goals established, and the cause-effect relationships are validated, making any adjustments that might be required. To validate the relationship between indicators and to define the goals:
UNI 1 uses data from previous periods, and the participation of the Stakeholders Committee.
UNI 2 proposes the participation of stakeholders through dialogue tables for validation through a triangulation analysis of the indicators and their relationships.
UNI 3 uses data from previous periods and proposes the periodic validation of the BSC and its indicators, so that the cause-effect relationship can be verified and, where appropriate, modified.
Table 9 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the BSC validation activity.
2.6.7 Implementation of business intelligence system activity
Digital tools are needed to facilitate the implementation of SBSCs (Olawumi and Chan, 2022). They automatically allow the collection and processing of data to calculate the indicators, and their subsequent visualization.
In all three cases, the implementation of the BI computer system requires a project led by a person in charge of the information systems department.
Also, in all three cases, the purchase of an existing BSC BI software package is chosen. To select it, at UNI 2 the functional requirements that must be fulfilled were previously defined and classified in seven areas: administration, monitoring, decisional, alert, general, human resources and technological (Table 10).
In all cases, it is necessary to develop the ETL processes (extraction, transformation and loading) to obtain data from the source systems (for example, the ERP of the university) and to load them in a data warehouse.
Table 11 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the computer system implementation activity.
2.6.8 Human resources implementation activity
In all three cases, emphasis is placed on the importance of human resources (HR) training for correct change management, the use of the BSC BI software, the execution and management of the university business project, and obtaining information from the stakeholders to support decision-making.
At UNI 1, two communication and training plans are established, one for the SBSC development and the other for change management. Therefore, all university units and employees are aware of the SBSC implementation and adapt their work to the new strategic, tactical and operational objectives.
UNI 2 points out the need to extend training to all relevant stakeholders.
In the case of UNI 3, they implement a communication and change management plan, establish a group of specialists to support university staff in the use of the BSC BI software, promote staff training and introduce a continuous improvement system based on users' suggestions (for example, a suggestions box).
Table 12 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the human resources implementation activity.
2.6.9 Project monitoring and continuous improvement activity
At UNI 1, the monitoring phase begins with the establishment of a plan for communicating the project results to the stakeholders. A strategy monitoring committee is then established to periodically analyse the indicators, identify risks and define improvement action plans.
In the case of UNI 2, in the different associated centres such as schools and faculties, there is a person in charge of monitoring the SBSC. They are responsible for analysing the result of the indicators, assessing deviations and making proposals for improvement when appropriate. The results will be made public on the university website. Suggestions for improvement from the various internal and external stakeholders will be taken into account to draw up action plans.
In UNI 3, different monitoring periods are defined at the strategic and operational levels. In the first case, the indicators will be evaluated every six months and in the second case, monthly. The strategic objectives and the indicators to measure them will be valid for a maximum of 4 years, coinciding with the strategic plans of the university. After this period, their validity will be reviewed. In the case of the operational objectives and the indicators to measure them, a validity period of one year is established. After this period, its continuity will be reviewed.
Table 13 shows a summary of the proposed improvements to the project monitoring and continuous improvement activity.
2.7 Verification of the rigour and quality of the study
Lastly, findings were evaluated to check their degree of confidence and validity using the model developed by Yin (1998). This model proposes four tests to ensure the consistency and reliability of research based on case studies: construct validity, internal validity, external validity and the reliability tests. Therefore, to ensure the validity of the results, each of the four tests was checked according to Yin’s (1998) recommendations. Construct validity has been proved because data collection was carried out using multiple data sources, and the final methodology was decided by agreement from the members of the different team works. Internal validity has been proved because triangulation was applied to the analysis of the information gathering from semi-structured interviews, direct observations and review of documentation. External validity has been proved applying the methodology to more than one case. This has proved its theoretical replication, a fundamental issue in external validity achievement. Finally, reliability has been proved because a strict protocol has been followed for data collection, the Walsham (1995) protocol. Therefore, the study can be repeated with the same results. So, the validity and quality of the study that was carried out can thus be confirmed.
3. Discussion
Existing SBSC research lacks a systematic methodology that can be used by universities to integrate sustainability concepts into their management systems, along with practical examples that can be used as reference models. Therefore, this study contributes to the development of SBSC since the proposed methodology covers the following gaps in current SBSC applications in universities:
Existing SBSC methodologies focus only on specific sustainability issues such as supporting university green marketing strategies (Fuchs et al., 2020), to implement and monitor environmental education programmes in universities (Guerra et al., 2018), to foster industrial academic cooperation (Lin et al., 2016) or to achieve university economic sustainability (Yaakub and Mohamed, 2020) instead of adopting a holistic approach that would enable them to improve all the environmental, social and economic university performance. Therefore, they offer limited sustainability information to effectively address the stakeholders' needs (Nejati and Nejati, 2013). This is the first contribution of the methodology proposed in this study. The methodology addresses a comprehensive vision of the concept of sustainability, considering all sustainability dimensions in the project planning, business re-design, BSC design, business process reengineering, human resources and technology development.
It is necessary to develop methodologies to guide the implementation of SBSC throughout the whole project life cycle. Existing methodologies consider only part of the SBSC project life cycle, such as in the work by Hurtado et al. (2019), who focus only on the university key performance indicators design. This is the second contribution of the proposed methodology. The methodology covers this gap in the literature since it guides practitioners in SBSC implementation, considering, aligning and integrating different aspects that must be taking into account in the SCRM project such as project planning, business re-design, BSC design, business process reengineering, human resources and technology.
Finally, there is a lack of empirical verification (Hubbard, 2009). This is the third contribution of this study. The methodology has been tested and debugged by means of a study of three real-life cases.
Therefore, the methodology for SBSC development and implementation showed in this study contributes to the management and information systems theory because it makes it possible to overcome the three above mentioned shortcomings identified to date in sustainability management implementation in universities. Thus, it considers all the sustainability dimensions; it describes all the project life-cycle activities; it encourages stakeholders' participation; and it has been proved to work in real situations.
On the other hand, findings demonstrate that the classical BSC, which has been widely proved and tested in real business situations, can be used to integrate sustainability aspects into the strategy and the management system of universities, thereby aligning their strategy objectives and action plans with sustainability (answer to the research question in Section 3.1), which is in line with claims made by other authors (Al-Bahi et al., 2021; Leal Filho et al., 2018; Mohd et al., 2018), but it needs to be modified to address stakeholder and sustainability aspects simultaneously.
3.1 Impact of the research in the universities
The application of the methodology has led to changes in the values and organization of the different universities where the methodology was applied. These changes are summarized in a greater commitment from the governing bodies to social and environmental sustainability; the improvement of transparency and accountability; the analysis and reduction of the environmental impact posed by the establishment and development of an infrastructure like that of the university on the territory and its biodiversity; the enhancement of well-being, quality of life and coexistence within the university community; the utilization of the institution's physical, human and scientific resources in a collaborative manner to serve the nearest society and those communities most in need; and in the necessity of establishing mechanisms to identify and respond to the interests and expectations of stakeholders.
As a consequence, new objectives, action plans to achieve them, and indicators, which were not previously present in the performance measurement systems of the three universities, have been proposed. They are mainly related to the governance, social and environmental sustainability dimensions. However, they also will have positive financial impact in the universities in the medium term because some of them lead to increased incomes and to the reduction of costs such as energy costs.
Table 14 shows a compilation of the new objectives, action plans and indicators related to sustainability due to the application of the methodology. They are measurable results of the benefits of applying the methodology.
3.2 Limitations
This research is based on three cases within a specific sector. The small sample size and case method approach limits the ability to generalize the findings. Therefore, the results may not be necessary generalizable to other business and industry settings. Some case specific features such as the sector or company size might influence the generalizability. Nonetheless, the preliminary results, the use of primary data (interviews and questionnaires) and secondary data (documents), and the rich understanding of the phenomenon provided by the three in-depth real case studies suggest that it could be considered as a representative case of companies of the time and its findings sufficiently generalizable. On the other hand, another limitation is that any quantitative positive or negative financial impact was observed during the research.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, the authors have presented a methodology that enables university managers to implement the three sustainability dimensions in their day-to-day university management, using a sustainable BSC. The proposed methodology describes all the phases, activities and tasks of the whole university SBSC project life cycle, integrating the improvement of the university sustainability strategy; fulfilling the stakeholders' requirements and needs, and at the same time encouraging and involving them in the establishment of the university's objectives and action plans; the re-engineering of the university business processes; the development of the computer system for the calculation and visualization of indicators; and human resources training.
Findings can be useful for academics, who can complement the methodology by new theoretical contributions, and can adapt the methodology for the application to other business sectors. It can also be helpful for practitioners (university managers, computer engineers, sustainability managers) who can use the methodology and the examples of the application of the methodology to the three case studies as a guide for SBSC development in other universities.
Finally, future research should be led to avoid the main paper limitation, the necessity to prove the generalization of the findings. To do so, more cases with similar and different contexts would provide more insights about the cross-sectional application of the proposed methodology. Only analytical generalization is claimed rather than any statistical generalization. On the other hand, quantitative analysis of the financial impact of a sustainable BSC implementation could be addressed.
Figures
Figure 1
Example of the strategic map of a university, and the cause-effect relationships
Proposed theoretical model
| Phase | Activity | Task |
|---|---|---|
| BI planning | Project planning | Creation of project teams |
| Project scope and objectives | ||
| Project activities and resources | ||
| Project communication plan | ||
| BI analysis and design | Business re-design | Internal and external analysis of the organization |
| Mission, vision, values, strategy | ||
| Identification of critical success factors | ||
| Strategic balanced scorecard design | Definition of perspectives, objectives and indicators, at a strategic level | |
| Strategic cause-effect map | ||
| Business process re-engineering | Process analysis. AS-IS model | |
| Process redesign. TO-BE model | ||
| Determine the key business processes for success | ||
| Business processes improvement plan | ||
| Tactical and operational balanced scorecard design | Definition of indicators at the operational level | |
| Indicators cause-effect map | ||
| Balanced scorecard validation | Indicators system validation | |
| Cause-effect relationships validation | ||
| BI implementation | BI computer system implementation | BI software implementation and integration with other enterprise systems |
| Human resources | Training seminars | |
| BI control | Project monitoring and continuous improvement | Monitoring of the achievement of the BSC goals |
| Action plans |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the project planning activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creation of project teams | Definition of a coordinating multidisciplinary team (CT) | Management Staff | – |
| Definition of multidisciplinary teams at the operational level (OT) | CT | ||
| Definition of objectives per team | CT and OT | Meeting | |
| Definition of roles and responsibilities per team and member | OT | ||
| Definition of dialogue mechanisms between the different teams | CT | – | |
| Training actions in the team prior to the start of the project | |||
| Stakeholder mapping | |||
| Creation of a Stakeholders Committee (SC) | Management Staff | ||
| Definition of the scope of the project | Definition of the economic scope | Management Staff, CT and SC | Round table |
| Definition of the social scope | |||
| Definition of the environmental scope | |||
| Definition of the organizational scope (academic, research and management) | Management Staff and CT | Meeting | |
| Realization of the project plan | Definition project goals | Management Staff, CT and SC | Round table |
| Timing of the phases and activities of the project including those responsible in each case | CT | – | |
| Create a project communication plan | Internal communication plan | – | |
| External communication plan | |||
| Definition of communication managers and channels |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Comparison of the SWOT of each university
| SWOT | DIM | UNI 1 | UNI 2 | UNI 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | ECO |
|
| |
| SOC |
|
|
| |
| ENV | ||||
| E&R |
|
|
| |
| W | ECO |
|
| |
| SOC |
|
| ||
| ENV | ||||
| E&R |
|
|
| |
| O | ECO |
|
| |
| SOC |
|
| ||
| ENV |
| |||
| E&R |
|
|
| |
| T | ECO |
|
|
|
| SOC |
|
|
| |
| ENV | Weather conditions in winter | |||
| E&R |
| |||
Note(s): S: Strengths; W: Weaknesses; O: Opportunities; T: Threats; DIM: Dimension; ECO: Economic; SOC: Social; ENV: Environmental; E&R: Education and research
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the business re-design activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vision, mission, values and strategy | Redefinition of the vision, mission, values and organizational strategy from the triple bottom line | Management, CT and SC | Round table |
| Internal and external analysis of the company | Analysis economic perspective | Round table, SWOT, PESTEL, CAME and value chain analysis | |
| Analysis social perspective | |||
| Analysis environmental perspective | |||
| Identification of critical factors for success | Critical factors for economic success | Management and CT | – |
| Critical factors for social success | |||
| Critical factors for environmental success |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the strategic balanced scorecard design activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Define objectives and indicators by perspective at the strategic level | Inclusion of social and environmental perspectives | Management, CT and SC | Round table |
| Definition of strategic objectives based on the triple bottom line | |||
| Definition of indicators for each strategic objective | Management and CT | Template | |
| Cause-effect strategy mapping | Detect, define and represent cause-effect relationships using a graphic model | CT | – |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the business process re-engineering activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis and re-design of processes: AS-IS →To-BE | Business process modelling | CT | Templates, modelling |
| Process improvement plan | Establishment of a periodic evaluation system | Internal and external audits, satisfaction surveys |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Example of the hierarchy of indicators
| Strategic | Tactical | Operational | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal | Promote the environmental responsibility of the university | Improve waste management on university campuses | Reduce waste generated Reduce consumption of paper in administrative posts |
| Indicator | Percentage of waste generated according to type (paper, plastic, glass, organic) | Number of waste disposal points established per campus | Number of orders for paper placed per year by the university centre |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the tactical and operational balanced scorecard design activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of objectives and indicators at the tactical and operational level | Definition of responsibility centres | Management and CT | – |
| Definition of the levels to be included in the scoreboard according to the project objectives and the structure of the university | CT and OT | ||
| Cause-effect strategy mapping | Detect, define and represent cause-effect relationships using a graphic model | CT | – |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the balanced scorecard validation activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validation of the indicator system | Identification of relevant indicators | CT and SC | – |
| Periodic validation of relevant indicators | |||
| Validation of cause-effect relationships | Historical data/subjective estimations | CT, OT and SC | Computer program Triangulation |
| Stakeholder opinions |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Software functionalities of the balanced scorecard BI software
| Aspects | Functional requirements |
|---|---|
| Administration |
|
| Monitoring |
|
| Decisional |
|
| Alert |
|
| General |
|
| Human resources |
|
| Technological |
|
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the computer system implementation activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design, implement/parameterize BI software | Definition of requirements | CT | Template |
| Integrate the application with ERP and other systems | Creation of a data warehouse | – | |
| Develop ETL processes |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the human resources implementation activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training seminars for HR | Establishment of a training team (TT) | Management | – |
| Definition of a training plan for SBSC development and another for change management, including stakeholders | |||
| Development of a BI software management guide for the implementation of the SBSC | TT | ||
| Establishment of dialogue mechanisms to obtain feedback and implement improvements in the user experience of the BI software |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Improvements to the project monitoring and continuous improvement activity
| Task | Improvements | Who | How |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring of the achievement of the SBSC goals | Establishment of an evaluation team (ET) | Management | ؎ |
| Establishment of review periods for the validity of strategic objectives and indicators | CT and ET | ||
| Establishment of review periods for operational objectives and indicators | |||
| Action plans | Establishment of internal and external dialogue mechanisms to obtain feedback and implement improvements | ET | – |
| Internal and external communication plan for accountability/sample of results and improvements made |
Source(s): Authors own creation
New objectives, action plans and indicators related to sustainability
| Objectives (O) and action plans (AP) | Indicators |
|---|---|
| O: Contribute to social progress and sustainable development AP: Develop a university model that contributes to the dissemination of ethical values and promotes respect for the environment UNI 1 |
|
| O: Establish mechanisms for external communication to receive and process the needs and expectations of external stakeholders AP: Implement an online communication system to receive suggestions and complaints from various stakeholder groups. Establish a department to filter requests and redirect them to the appropriate body |
|
| O: Achieve a sustainable and stable funding model AP: Increase alternative sources of funding beyond government funding |
|
| O: Publish economic, social and environmental results AP: Enhance transparency and facilitate access to information through a material and relevant accountability process for various stakeholder groups |
|
| O: Drive new governance models in the university AP: Disseminate the purpose and focal point of the organization as well as principles and conduct through the existence of a code of conduct |
|
| O: Integrate environmental sustainability policies into institutional policy and university management AP: Increase institutional involvement in sustainability policies. Translate institutional commitment into daily actions led by the university. Establish environmental sustainability policies in supplier contracting. Create an environmental office |
|
| O: Strengthen the quality and social content of teaching AP: Enhance support for groups with specific needs |
|
| O: Minimize the most common environmental impacts of university activity resulting from consumption (energy, water and materials) and their subsequent pollution (mainly in commuting to university facilities in private vehicles) AP: Quantify and analyse consumption in all facilities to subsequently carry out efficient improvement actions. Increase the use of renewable energies generated by the university itself. Promote initiatives to encourage the use of public transportation and carpooling |
|
| O: Environmental education and awareness for the entire university community AP: Environmental volunteering programmes that provide training and awareness through practical activities in contact with the environment where the universities are located |
|
| O: Engage the “university community” in supporting charitable causes AP: Development of actions that facilitate volunteering and collaboration with NGOs, and promotion of applying knowledge to charitable causes |
|
| O: Strengthen the presence of the university in its surroundings AP: Bring the local community closer to the University |
|
Source(s): Authors own creation
Disclosure statement: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Addazi, L. and Ciccozzi, F. (2021), “Blended graphical and textual modelling for UML profiles: a proof-of-concept implementation and experiment”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 175, 110912, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.11091.
Al-Bahi, A.M., Abd-Elwahed, M.S. and Soliman, A.Y. (2021), “Implementation of sustainability indicators in engineering education using a combined balanced scorecard and quality function deployment approaches”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 13, p. 7083, doi: 10.3390/su13137083.
Al-Okaily, A., Teoh, A.P. and Al-Okaily, M. (2023), “Evaluation of data analytics-oriented business intelligence technology effectiveness: an enterprise-level analysis”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 777-800, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-10-2022-0546.
Attar-Khorasani, S. and Chalmeta, R. (2023), “Internet of things data visualization for business intelligence. Big data”, Ahead of print, doi: 10.1089/big.2021.0200.
Baumgartner, R.J. (2014), “Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 258-271, doi: 10.1002/csr.1336.
Chee, T., Chan, L.K., Chuah, M.H., Tan, C.S., Wong, S.F. and Yeoh, W. (2009), “Business intelligence systems: state-of-the-art review and contemporary applications”, Symposium on progress in information & communication technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 16-30.
Corrales-Garay, D., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M. and Mora-Valentín, E.-M. (2022), “Understanding open data business models from innovation and knowledge management perspectives”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 532-554, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2021-0373.
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A. and Sheikh, A. (2011), “The case study approach”, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 11, p. 100, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100.
Diop, K.A.S. and Liu, E. (2020), “Categorization of case in case study research method: new approach”, Knowledge and Performance Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.01.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2002), “The sustainability balanced scorecard - linking sustainability management to business strategy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 269-284, doi: 10.1002/bse.339.
Filho, W.L., Simaens, A., Paço, A., Hernandez-Diaz, P.M., Vasconcelos, C.R.P., Fritzen, B. and Mac-Lean, C. (2023), “Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into the strategy of higher education institutions”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 564-575, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2023.2167884.
Fuchs, P., Raulino, C., Conceição, D., Neiva, S., Amorim, W.S.d., Soares, T.C., Andrade de Lima, M., Montenegro De Lima, C.R., Soares, J.C. and Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.d.A. (2020), “Promoting sustainable development in higher education institutions: the use of the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system in support of green marketing”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1477-1505, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2020-0079.
Gond, J.P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C. and Moon, J. (2012), “Configuring management control system: theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 205-223.
Guerra, JBSOD., Garcia, J., Lima, M.D., Barbosa, S.B., Heerdt, M.L. and Berchin, II. (2018), “A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program at universities”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. Page1674-1690.
Hallioui, A., Herrou, B., Santos, R.S., Katina, P.F. and Egbue, O. (2022), “Systems-based approach to contemporary business management: an enabler of business sustainability in a context of industry 4.0, circular economy, competitiveness and diverse stakeholders”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 373, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133819.
Hansen, E.G. and Schaltegger, S. (2016), “The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 193-221, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3.
Hansen, E.G. and Schaltegger, S. (2018), “Sustainability balanced scorecards and their architectures: irrelevant or misunderstood?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 150, pp. 937-952, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3531-5.
Hubbard, G. (2009), “Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line”, Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 19, pp. 177-191.
Hurtado, D.G., Perez, R.N. and Devece, C. (2019), “Contribution from the balanced scorecard implemented at the university of ciego de Avila to the sustainable development of the territory”, EDULEARN19: 11TH International Conference on Education And New Learning Technologies, pp. 6363-6368.
Jancic, Z. (1999), Celostni Marketing, 2nd ed., FDV, Ljubljana.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79, doi: 10.2307/41165876.
Küçükbay, F. and Sürücü, E. (2019), “Corporate sustainability performance measurement based on a new multicriteria sorting method”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 664-680, doi: 10.1002/csr.1711.
Leal Filho, W., Pallant, E., Enete, A., Richter, B. and Brandli, L.L. (2018), “Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the difficulties and potentials”, The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2018.1461707.
Lee, S. and Lee, S. (2021), “Can universities be a platform for climate mitigation? Exploring the impacts of carbon pricing in the university setting”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 759-770, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2021.1902877.
Lin, M.H., Hu, J.Y., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F. and Lin, C.Y. (2016), “Sustainable development in technological and vocational higher education: balanced scorecard measures with uncertainty”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Mac-lean, C., Núñez-Cárdenas, P., Rodríguez, B.X. and Aldea, C. (2022), “Green buildings in Chilean public higher education: a trend or a must-have in university strategic guidelines?”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 756-770, doi: 10.1080/13504509.2022.2095452.
Mamudu, A., Bandara, W., Leemans, S.J.J. and Wynn, M.T. (2023), “A process mining impacts framework”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-09-2022-0453.
Mio, Ch., Costantini, A. and Panfilo, S. (2021), “Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: a systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 367-384, doi: 10.1002/csr.2206.
Mohd, A., Hairuddin and Ayodele, L.A. (2018), “Balanced scorecard for future sustainability of Malaysian higher education institutions”, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, pp. 1-13, ISSN 2357-1330.
Nejati, M. and Nejati, M. (2013), “Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of university student”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 101-107.
Nuseir, M.T. (2021), “Designing business intelligence (BI) for production, distribution and customer services: a case study of a UAE-based organization”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1275-1295, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2020-0266.
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W. (2022), “Cloud-based sustainability assessment (CSA) system for automating the sustainability decision-making process of built assets”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 188, 116020.
Olszak, C.M., Zurada, J. and Cetindamar, D. (2022), “Business intelligence and big data for innovative and sustainable development of organizations”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, p. 2, doi: 10.1080/10580530.2022.2011124.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K. (2015), “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research”, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, Vol. 42, pp. 533-544, doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, New York, p. 557.
Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S.P. and Saaeidi, S.A. (2015), “How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 341-350, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024.
Salvioni, D.M., Franzoni, S. and Cassano, R. (2017), “Sustainability in the higher education system : an opportunity to improve quality and image”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 2017.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006), “Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1504/IJAAPE.2006.010098.
Shreyanshu, P., Kanchan, J. and Milind, A. (2023), “Decision-making in smart manufacturing: a framework for performance measurement”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 190-218, doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2022.2048420.
Smiari, P., Bibi, S. and Feitosa, D. (2020), “Examining the reuse potentials of IoT application frameworks”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 169, 110706, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110706.
Tjahjadi, B., Soewarno, N., Karima, T.E. and Sutarsa, A.A.P. (2023), “Business strategy, spiritual capital and environmental sustainability performance: mediating role of environmental management process”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 77-99, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-11-2021-0718.
Walsham, G. (1995), “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 74-81, doi: 10.1057/ejis.1995.9.
Wu, Y., Farrukh, M., Raza, A., Meng, F. and Alam, I. (2021), “Framing the evolution of the corporate social responsibility and environmental management journal”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1397-1411, doi: 10.1002/csr.2127.
Yaakub, M.H. and Mohamed, Z.A. (2020), “Measuring the performance of private higher education institutions in Malaysia”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 425-444.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods, 5, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yin, R.K. (1998), “The abridged version of case study research: design and method”, in Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Sage Publications, pp. 229-259.