Balanced Scorecard Ethics Chris Gardiner

Chris Gardiner is Executive Director, Central West, for Catholic Health Care Services Ltd, responsible for a number of hospital, health aged care services in central NSW. He has Master level qualifications in International Relations and in Professional Ethics, and is a Committee member of the Australian Association of Professional and Applied Ethics. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract This paper links work undertaken in recent years on comprehensive ethical and social accountability frameworks for business, with a business planning and performance management tool, the Balanced Scorecard. It argues that the use of the Balanced Scorecard provides a mechanism to draw business and organisational ethics into the mainstream of corporate planning and development. It also argues that the Balanced Scorecard approach to ethics highlights the elements of a professional paradigm for managers. In doing so, it takes the opportunity to distinguish for managers and executives the difference between the responsible business or corporation and the notion of a business’s or corporation’s ‘social responsibility’.

Balanced Scorecard Ethics In his polemic on the question of the social responsibilities of business1, Milton Friedman declared that the responsibility of a corporate executive “is to conduct the business in accordance with their [the owners of the business] desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom”.2 Friedman sought to provide a simple rebuttal of the claim that corporations had “social responsibilities”. Whether he succeeded is debatable. What he did do, however, is leave us with the dilemma, in the passage quoted above, as to the nature and scope of the “basic rules of the society”, in law and in “ethical custom”, which executives need to follow. I want to suggest that a professional paradigm is emerging globally that can guide an executive in her/his practice of management by clarifying and addressing the issue of the basic social rules and ethics that Friedman acknowledges she/he should follow. Its scope and content have to do with product and product impact; with employee relations, conditions and development; with processes of regulatory compliance and public accountability; and with value creation – that is, with Product, People, Process, and Profit. A number of different proposals have been developed over the last several years that seek to articulate and integrate ethical and social accountabilities for businesses. Five such proposals are briefly outlined below.3 These are the Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility (‘the Principles’); the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (‘the Guidelines’); the Social Accountability 8000 Standard (‘SA 8000’); Dalla Costa’s universal principles and business ethics strategic planning process; and Wilson’s seven categories of emerging social rules for business. The Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility were developed jointly by the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility in Canada, the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility in the UK, and the Interfaith Center of Corporate Responsibility in the US. The stated purpose for the Principles is “to promote positive corporate social responsibility consistent with the responsibility to sustain the human community and all creation”4 by providing a set of “ethical standards of measurement” for corporate social responsibility.5 The Principles, and related policy criteria and outcome benchmarks, are divided broadly in the two areas of Corporate relationship, one that is described as the “Wider Community” and another described as the “Corporate Business Community”. The relationships encompassed within each area are set down as follows: The Wider Community: ecosystems, national communities, local communities, and indigenous communities The Corporate Business Community: the employed (Conditions) and the employed (Persons, covering women, minority groups, persons with disabilities, child labor, and forced labor); suppliers; Financial Integrity; Ethical Integrity; Shareholders; Joint Ventures/Partnerships/Subsidiaries; and Customers and Consumers

2

The Sustainability Reporting Guidelines have been developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an undertaking supported by a number of Non Government Organisations and Corporations, and the United Nations Environment Program. The GRI describes itself as “a long-term, multi-stakeholder, international undertaking whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines for voluntary use by organisations reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of their activities, products and services”.6 The Guidelines are meant to assist investors, management and community stakeholders understand and compare the impact of corporate actions and products through the use of external reporting principles that compliment traditional financial reporting principles. They are also meant to highlight the linkages of the three broad reporting areas, which are outlined7 as: Economic: Including, for example, wages and benefits, labor productivity, job creation, expenditures on outsourcing, expenditures on research and development, and investments in training and other forms of human capital. The economic element includes, but is not limited to, financial information; Environmental: Including, for example, impacts of processes, products, and services on air, water, land, biodiversity, and human health; Social: Including, for example, workplace health and safety, employee retention, labor rights, human rights, and wages and working conditions at out-sourced operations. The Social Accountability 8000 Standard (SA 8000)8 is modeled on the International Organisation for Standardizations ISO 9000 management system standard. It focuses on documentation of management policies and processes in the area of social standards, on processes of continuous improvement for these policies and processes, and on independent external audit and certification by accredited auditors. It is promoted by Social Accountability International, with the support of an international advisory board that includes the global certification and audit firm SGS-ICS.9 SA 8000 bases itself on the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and on a range of ILO conventions. It is divided into the following categories of standards: child labor; forced labor; health and safety; freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; discrimination; disciplinary practices; working hours; compensation; and management systems.10 The Principles, the Guidelines and SA8000 are the product of collaborative efforts by NGOs, International Organisations such as the ILO and UNEP, and multinational corporations. Two further efforts to articulate a comprehensive ethics and accountability framework for business, by individuals rather than coalitions of organisations, are comparable in purpose and scope. Dalla Costa11 has proposed a model for organisational planning and review around six areas of organisational development and alignment: Board Guidance; CEO Example; Strategic Commitment; Cultural Supports; Group Dynamics; and Personal Commitment. 3

He analyses the Declaration of the Parliament of World Religions, The Interfaith Declaration, a document produced by the Canadian Interfaith Special Joint Committee on Canada’s Constitution and Charter of Rights, and the Caux Principles, to identify ethical principles for a universal ethics framework for business. He identifies six such principles: Strategic Clarity; Respect Dignity; Be Fair; Be Honest; Strive for Justice; and Honor the Environment.12 This model is applied via a process Dalla Costa13 describes as “Strat-Ethic” – strategic planning in organisational ethics – involving six elements:

Process Step

Central Question

Ethical Assessment

What ethical temptations challenge an ethical orientation? What are the “critical ethical factors” for successfully maintaining an ethical orientation? What skills, procedures and competencies are necessary for resisting temptations and deepening an ethical orientation? What is the ethical expression of the business strategy that integrates an ethical orientation? What are the concrete steps for implementing and measuring an ethical orientation?

Identify Critical Ethical Factors Identify Corporate Ethical Virtues Develop Ethically Oriented Strategy Develop Ethically Oriented Plans

More recently, Wilson has sought to identify evolving societal expectations that organisations must address if they are to be viable in the future.14 He codifies what he sees as new social rules for business under seven headings:15 Legitimacy: to earn and retain social legitimacy, the corporation must define its basic mission in terms of the social purpose it is designed to serve rather than as the maximization of profit; Governance: The corporation must be thought of, managed, and governed more as a community of stakeholders, and less as the property of investors; Equity: The corporation must strive to achieve greater perceived fairness in the distribution of economic wealth and in its treatment of all stakeholder interests; Environment: The corporation must integrate the practices of restorative economics and sustainable development into the mainstream of it business strategy;

4

Employment: The corporation must re-write the social contract of work to reflect the values of the new workforce and increase both the effectiveness and the loyalty of employees and the corporation; Public-Private Sector Relationships: To ensure the success of the power shift, corporations must work closely with governments to achieve a viable and publicly accepted redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors; Ethics: The corporation must elevate and monitor the level of ethical performance in all its operations in order to build the trust that is the foundation of sound relationships with all stakeholder groups. In discussing ethics specifically, Wilson refers to work undertaken by Holland on emerging ethical standards. These are identified as: produce high quality products; respect the sanctity of contracts; create and preserve a sense of corporate integrity that makes the firm trustworthy; obey applicable laws; protect proprietary information and respect confidentiality in business transactions; respect the environment; respect the rights and liberties of others; respect human well-being; and respect the independence of all individuals.16 At the same time as these proposals were being developed to address the scope of ethical and social accountabilities in business, a framework for business strategic planning and performance management was being developed by Norton and Kaplan that they called “the Balanced Scorecard”. Norton and Kaplan’s work was the result of a KPMG research project on performance measures, and was first published in a series of Harvard Business Review articles in the early 1990s.17 They claimed to have developed a core management system from an identification of key performance measurements and the cause and effect relationships between the business elements being measured. This system contained the elements and methodology to allow “competitive advantage” and “dramatically improved financial performance”.18 It was organized around four perspectives – financial, customer, internal (processes), and learning and growth. It sought to balance short- and long-term objectives, financial and non-financial measures, lagging and leading indicators, and external and internal performance perspectives.19 The elements of each perspective examined by Norton and Kaplan were: revenue growth and mix, cost reduction and productivity improvement and asset utilization and investment strategy under the financial perspective; product or service attributes, customer relationship, and image and reputation under the customer perspective; innovation, operations and post-sale service under the internal process perspective; and employee capabilities, information systems capabilities and motivation, empowerment and alignment under the learning and growth perspective.20 Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood have applied the Balanced Scorecard approach to the area of business leadership.21 They argue for an integrated view of the various elements of business leadership around four result areas “balanced across four stakeholders: employees, organization, customers, and investors”.22 Leaders, they argued, who excel in only one result area, are not “effective”.23 They establish four overarching criteria to determine whether leaders are focused on results in these areas:

5

Desired results are balanced. They don’t build success in one dimension by ignoring (or tolerating failure in) another. Desired results are strategic: they ultimately contribute to distinctiveness and competitive advantage for their organization. Desired results are lasting: they won’t sacrifice long-term success for short term gains. Desired results are selfless: they work to benefit the larger whole, not just their own group or area.24 The work by Norton and Kaplan, and that by Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood, does not address the issue of ethical and social accountabilities. Indeed, they have a lot in common with Friedman in terms of what they believe to be the purpose of the corporation and the business executive. Norton and Kaplan set the context for the Balanced Scorecard as follows: A Balanced Scorecard must retain a strong emphasis on outcomes, especially financial ones like return-on-capital-employed or economic value-added. Many managers fail to link programs, such as total quality management, cycle time reduction, reengineering, and employee empowerment, to outcomes that directly influence customers and that deliver future financial performance. In such organizations, the improvement programs have incorrectly been taken as the ultimate objective. They have not been linked to specific targets for improving customer and, eventually, financial performance. The inevitable result is that such organizations eventually become disillusioned about the lack of tangible payoffs from their change programs. Ultimately, causal paths from all measures on a scorecard should be linked to financial objectives.25 Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood state the responsibility of leadership in stark, Friedmanesque terms and beg the same questions Friedman does: “One aspect of an absolute focus on results is giving results priority over everything else, except adherence to the organization’s ethical standards and values”.26 The connection I wish to make, however, between work by Norton and Kaplan, the work by Ulrich, Zengler and Smallwood, and the Principles, Guidelines and SA 8000, is threefold. Firstly, as with the Principles, Guidelines, SA 8000, Dalla Costa and Wilson, Norton and Kaplan and Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood articulate a multi-level, interdependent framework in which to understand the nature and scope of corporate performance. The corollary, I want to suggest, is the identification of a multi-level, integrated paradigm for the practice of management. Secondly, the Balanced Scorecard provides a simple, mainstream management tool that whilst focused on traditional business performance indicators, can also be used to incorporate the indicators or outcome data provided by the application of the Principles, Guidelines or SA 8000. It can be used to incorporate and draw into the mainstream of organisational planning the strategic planning and annual assessment of the ethical issues facing the business. It can therefore bring into articulated relationship traditional performance indicators with performance indicators for the rule of society or the organisation’s standards and values, to quote Friedman and Ulrich, Zengler and Smallwood, respectively.

6

Thirdly, and most interestingly, using the Balanced Scorecard to incorporate and order data from the Principles, Guidelines and SA8000 simplifies and highlights the generic ethical issues inherent in a manager’s practice around a simple four-element professional paradigm for managers of Product, People, Process, and Profit: • • • •

what good or harm does this product, and its production and promotion, create or cause; what do I owe those I employ or work with; what are the processes and structures to be used to develop and communicate ethical business practice, and what account do I owe my community via such processes; what value is created through this business and my practice, and for whom?

I would argue that the management paradigm that emerges from this structure constitutes and incorporates a “balanced scorecard ethic” around moral purpose, moral (Kantian) duty, moral development, and moral value. Let me give an example of how the Balanced Scorecard could be used to mainstream strategic and annual management of business ethics and accountability. At the most basic level it can be used to provide a framework for structuring policy and practice, and to review performance data, based on the Principles, Guidelines and SA 8000, within a strategic review and planning process. A quick exercise suggests the following possible allocation of benchmarks and reporting items from the Principles, Guidelines and SA 8000 in terms of a Balanced Scorecard ethic:

Product/ Customer

P 1.1.B.10, 1.3.B.4, 2.8.B.1-4 GRI 6.1-36, 6.52-59, 6.88-96

People / Learning & Innovation

P 2.1.B.1-2, 2.1.B.6-7, 2.2a.B.2-5, 2.2b.B.1-2, 2.2c.B.3, 2.2e.B1, 2.5.B.1-2 GRI 6.60-84 SA 1.1-2, 1.4, 2.1, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1-3, 5.1-3, 6.1, 7.1-2

Processes

P 1.1.B.2-8, 1.2.B.1-6, 1.3.B.1-3, 1.4.B.1-5, 2.1.B.3-5, 2.2a.B.1, 2.2c.B1-2, 2.2d.B.1-4, 2.3.B.1-6, 2.4.B.1-2, 2.6.B.1-2, 2.6.B.1-3, 2.7.B.1-2 GRI 1-5, 6.86-86 SA 1.2,1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 9.1-13

Profit / Financial

P 1.1.B.1, GRI 6.37-51

(In this table, ‘P’ refers to the Principles, ‘GRI’ refers to the Guidelines, and ‘SA’ refers to SA 8000)

7

In terms of mapping an ethics strategy, the development of a Balanced Scorecard ethic could be developed and communicated as set out in Diagram One, adapting the strategic mapping and linkage approach suggested by Norton and Kaplan.27 The example provided is a first draft of a balanced scorecard ethic undertaken within a health services organisation. It is also possible to articulate and map the strategic benefits of a balanced scorecard ethics focus in terms of other strategic goals, as outlined in a preliminary way in Diagram Two. The incorporation of an ethics element in Balanced Scorecard planning furthers the articulation of a practice paradigm for managers that emerges from the work through the 1990s to articulate integrated and interdependent business elements and performance measurements. Managers are increasingly expected, in terms of this paradigm, to produce a balanced set of outcomes in four areas: customer outcomes, staff development and organisational learning, internal processes, and financial return or value creation. To do this they are expected to draw on bodies of knowledge and disciplines such as marketing, individual and social psychology, systems thinking, and accounting, in addition to whatever body of knowledge is inherent in their product or service. As suggested above, the balanced scorecard ethic highlights the inherent ethical issues and the moral expectations managers need to address within the four elements of this paradigm and practice. These are the moral purpose, and harm or good, of their product; the duties they owe to colleagues and employees; the nature of moral development in terms of systems development and improvement; and the ethics of value creation and opportunity cost. In developing a Balanced Scorecard ethic, however, managers and executives will face two distinct ethical challenges: the ethical challenge to produce and manage responsibly, and the moral challenge to take on social responsibilities. Let me explain the difference between these two challenges by reference to the Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility. The Principles are grounded in a clearly stated communitarian and environmental foundation. In the view of their authors, “the community rather than the company is the starting point of economic life”,28 and sustainable community depends on recognition and respect for each of the various groups in the community. Corporations share with other groups a responsibility not just to sustain community, but, as “the context of all human activity is the totality of creation”, to sustain “all creation”.29 Declared assumptions within the worldview that informs the Principles are: 1. That companies carry responsibility for the human and moral consequences of their economic decisions;30 2. That the promotion and protection of human rights are minimum standards for all social institutions;31 3. That institutions have a responsibility to work for a just society marked by love, compassion and peace, with justice requiring evaluation of the allocation of income, wealth and power in terms of its impact on the poorest and most vulnerable.32 I believe that it is possible to distinguish in the Principles what it means to act responsibly (point 1 above) from what it means to have “social responsibilities” (point 3 above). The distinction is crucial in terms of point 2 above, in terms of whether we can say that a

8

corporation acts responsibly if it respects (protects) human rights, but takes on a social responsibility if it promotes human rights (by means other than simply respecting them). I believe that to act responsibly is an ethical obligation of a corporation, but that to assume social responsibilities is, to use a term from Christian moral theology, a supererogatory act (that is, not obligatory, but commendable).33 I believe, with Friedman, that if accepting ‘social responsibilities’ involves the use of owner or shareholder resources to assume the responsibilities without their consent, it may even be unethical. What does the distinction that I am suggesting between acting responsibly and assuming social responsibilities mean in practice? Let me address three areas of possible social accountability to develop the argument: discrimination, environmental management and employment practices. A responsible company discharges its ethical obligations in the area of non-discrimination – it acts responsibly – when it employs or promotes people solely on the basis of their competence for the position. It accepts a social responsibility beyond that minimal requirement to do no harm, when it adopts a policy and practice of positive or affirmative discrimination to contribute to social rather than business goals. A responsible company discharges its ethical obligations in the area of environmental management when it does not pollute, or pollutes at levels deemed acceptable to the community and authorised by the community in terms of net social gains. It accepts a social responsibility for the environment beyond the minimal requirement to do no harm or to minimise harm, when it allocates resources away from product development or sales towards community ‘greening’ programs, for example. A responsible company discharges its ethical obligations in terms of employment practices when it fulfills contractual and occupational health and safety obligations to its workers. It accepts a social responsibility for employment levels beyond its minimal duties to fulfill commitments and not treat humans as simply means to an end, when it carries or takes on employees at the expense of technological innovation and efficiency and profitability. Let me provide further examples topical in Australia at the present time to make my point: the provision of branch services by banks, telephone services by communication companies, and insurance for policy holders of failed insurance companies by viable insurance companies. When a bank is asked to keep a branch open that is not profitable, or a telephone company is asked to subsidise services to regional communities, or one insurance company is asked to take up the liabilities of another, failed company, one part of the community is being asked to fund services that all members of the community should fund. One group – company owners, shareholders, and customers – are being asked to assume what is in fact a responsibility of all taxpayers. This, it seems to me, is the effect of calls for business to accept their ‘social responsibilities’. I am with Friedman in believing that managers and executives have no ethical duty to accept such responsibilities in their corporate roles. They may have, of course, an obligation to do so as individual citizens and taxpayers. But I think the limitations of Friedman’s polemic was its failure to articulate the implications of his acknowledgement that pursuit of business goals, and profit in particular, needs to be informed, and if necessary constrained, by social rules and ethical customs.

9

Business, and business managers and executives, should not feel obliged to assume social responsibilities. They should, however, act responsibly – that is produce responsibly, market responsibly, employ and terminate responsibly, establish and manage developmental systems responsibly, create value responsibly, pay taxes responsibly, and report finances responsibly. Within a balanced approach to organisational management and leadership across the elements of customer focus, learning and innovation, internal processes, and finances, they need to identify, and manage strategically, the ethical and moral dimensions of the elements I have described as product, people, process and profit. To the extent that they fulfill their own potential and provide a needed or desired product or service, and employ and work with people, without doing harm; to the extent that they create wealth; to the extent that they use process management for continuous improvement and human and organisational development, they act responsibly. Tools such as the GRI and SA 8000 provide guides to responsible action in this regard. And the notion of Balanced Scorecard Ethics provides a methodology to plan, manage strategically and fulfill that responsibility.

10

Patient & Community

Meet Regulations CQI audits

Employees

Meet Regulations CQI audits

Internal Processes

Meet Regulations

Promote Life Develop priority plan for policy and protocol development based on pro-life risk assessment.

Meet Regulations CQI audits

Establish Community Boards of Advice.

Bid for fully funded public programs for service gaps.

Be Family Friendly

Develop Staff

Manage Conduct

Fund staff development at benchmark level. Educate staff on the business drivers. Educate staff in ethics, esp. leaders.

Educate supervisors in performance management of conduct issues.

Benchmark OH&S

CQI audits

Finances

Build Community

Target Need

Add value Control Costs. Balance public & private, profitable and marginal.

Respect the Individual Develop participative case management and consent processes. Develop case load system to ensure intake is linked to preferred quality levels.

Continue to favor family leave in Award discussions. Develop policy on after hours meetings.

Develop & Manage Codes

Get Workplace Feedback

Get Customer Feedback

Develop and communicate values and ethics statements. Establish Care Ethics C’ttee for clinical and research oversight.

Schedule culture assessments. Rate values performance in annual business review. Create ethics complaints/concern process.

Build personal validation questions into customer satisfaction surveys.

Identify Real Costs Map and improve real costs such as environmental impact control costs.

Seek growth.

11

Be Transparent Maintain open planning & operational budgets and accounts to stakeholders.

Diagram One

Customer

Reputation

Learning & Growth

Internal Processes

Financial

Ethical Development for Staff

Due process in employee relations

Minimise internal fraud, stock loss

Ethics and Social Accountability Audits

Minimise risk/costs of negligence, harassment, dismissal litigation

Transparent Triple Bottom Line Accounting

Prevent costly external regulation

Family Friendly Policies

Minimise Staff Acquisition and turnover costs

Diagram Two

12

References 1

Friedman, M, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970, reprinted in Donaldson, T and Werhane, P (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1983, 2nd edition) pp 239–242. 2 Ibid., p 79; emphasis added. 3 The Principles, Guidelines and SA 8000 consist of too many indicators and guidelines to be detailed in this paper. A summary by way of a guide to the conceptual structure is provided. 4 Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility: Benchmarks for Measuring Business Performance (Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, New York 1998), p 1. 5 Ibid., p 2. 6 Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (Global reporting Initiative, Boston, 2000) p 1. URL: http://www.globalreporting.org. 7 Ibid. 8 Online, accessed 22 May 2001. URL: http://www.sa-intl.org/sa8000.htm. 9 For information access http://www.sa-intl.org/ and http://www.sgs.co.uk/certification/social/. 10 Op. cit., http://www.sa-intl.org/sa8000.htm. 11 Dalla Costa, J, The Ethical Imperative: Why Moral Leadership is Good for Business (Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 1998). 12 Ibid., pp 143-174. 13 Ibid., pp 240-262. 14 Wilson, I, The New Rules of Corporate Conduct: Rewriting the Social Charter (Quorum, Westport, 2000). 15 Ibid., p 34. 16 Ibid., pp 148–149. 17 See Kaplan and Norton’s articles “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures That Drive Performance”, Harvard Business Review (January-February 1992); “Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work”, Harvard Business Review (September-October 1993); “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System”, Harvard Business Review (January-February 1996); and “Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It”, Harvard Business Review (September-October 2000). See the book by Kaplan, R and Norton, D, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996) from which quotes in this paper are sourced. See also the latest work by Kaplan and Norton, The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000). 18 Ibid., (1996), p ix. 19 Ibid., p viii. 20 Ibid., pp 47–62, 63–91, 92–125, and 126–146 respectively. 21 Ulrich, D, Zenger J, and Smallwood, N, Results-Based Leadership (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999). 22 Ibid, p 30. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid p 29. 25 Kaplan and Norton, Op cit, 1996, pp 150–151. Emphasis in original. 26 Ulrich, Zengler and Smallwood, Op cit, p 171. Emphasis added. 27 Kaplan and Norton, Op cit, 2000, pp 167–176. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., p 1. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 See the brief and simple definition “Supererogation, Works of” in Macquarie, J, ed, A Dictionary of Christian Ethics (SCM Press, London, 1967) p 337.

13

Bibliography: Becker, B, Huseld, M and Ulrich, D, The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2001) Dalla Costa, J, The Ethical Imperative: Why Moral Leadership is Good for Business (Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 1998) Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, 2000) Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility: Benchmarks for Measuring Business Performance (Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, New York 1998) Kaplan, R and Norton, D, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996) _________, The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2001) McIntosh, M, ed, Visions of Ethical Business (Financial Times Prentice Hall, London, 2000) Olve, N, Roy, J and Wetter, M, Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1999) Ulrich, D, Zenger J, and Smallwood, N, Results-Based Leadership (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999) Wilson, I, The New Rules of Corporate Conduct: Rewriting the Social Charter (Quorum, Westport, 2000).

14