Implementing a sustainability balanced scorecard to contribute to

Australasian Accounting,
Business and Finance Journal
Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 3
Implementing a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard
to Contribute to the Process of Organisational
Legitimacy Assessment
Tairan Huang
University of Wollongong
Matthew Pepper
G. Bowrey
University of Wollongong, gbowrey@uow.edu.au
Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj
Copyright ©2014 Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal and Authors.
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the
University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: research-pubs@uow.edu.au
Recommended Citation
Huang, Tairan; Pepper, Matthew; and Bowrey, G., Implementing a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard
to Contribute to the Process of Organisational Legitimacy Assessment, Australasian Accounting,
Business and Finance Journal, 8(2), 2014, 15-34.
Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj/vol8/iss2/3

Implementing a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard to Contribute to the
Process of Organisational Legitimacy Assessment
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the use of a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) as a
contributing factor in the process of organisational legitimacy assessment. The methodological approach in
this study is supported by the application of content analysis to identify and examine the disclosed
sustainability indicators of a major Australian financial institution (Westpac). The theoretical lens of
legitimacy theory and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) are used as points of reference to inform and structure
the overall theoretical framework of this study. The results indicate that the four perspectives of a traditional
BSC correlate with the main sources of influential inputs to Westpac’s sustainability reporting. In addition, the
SBSC presented in this article successfully illustrates focal areas of reporting practice, providing a succinct
overview of an organisation’s reporting activities. The primary contributions of this research are to the
literature on social and environmental disclosures, including the research of Do, Tilt and Tilling (2007), and
Baxter, Chua and Strong (2010) and the provision of a practical technique to illustrate the focal activity of an
organisation’s social and environmental reporting as part of the legitimisation process.
Keywords
Balanced Scorecard, legitimacy, sustainability
This article is available in Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal: http://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj/vol8/iss2/3

Implementing a Sustainability Balanced
Scorecard to Contribute to the Process
of Organisational Legitimacy
Assessment
Tairan Huang, Matthew Pepper, Graham Bowrey1
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the use of a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard
(SBSC) as a contributing factor in the process of organisational legitimacy assessment. The
methodological approach in this study is supported by the application of content analysis to
identify and examine the disclosed sustainability indicators of a major Australian financial
institution (Westpac). The theoretical lens of legitimacy theory and the Balanced Scorecard
(BSC) are used as points of reference to inform and structure the overall theoretical
framework of this study. The results indicate that the four perspectives of a traditional BSC
correlate with the main sources of influential inputs to Westpac’s sustainability reporting. In
addition, the SBSC presented in this article successfully illustrates focal areas of
reporting practice, providing a succinct overview of an organisation’s reporting
activities. The primary contributions of this research are to the literature on social and
environmental disclosures, including the research of Do, Tilt and Tilling (2007), and Baxter,
Chua and Strong (2010) and the provision of a practical technique to illustrate the focal
activity of an organisation’s social and environmental reporting as part of the legitimisation
process.
Keywords: Balanced Scorecard, legitimacy, sustainability
JEL Classification: M40

1

AABFJ | Volume 8, no. 2, 2014

16

Introduction
Issues concerning sustainability have attained a high level of social awareness, with climate
change, corporate social responsibilities and the impacts of corporate business activities
frequently making media headlines. Modern corporations now face a newly-emerging
business phenomenon, known as Sustainability Performance Management, which addresses
the social, environmental and economic (performance) aspects of corporate management and
corporate sustainability management (Schaltegger & Wagner 2006).
Sustainability reporting is regarded as an attempt by many business organisations to
account for the social and environmental impact of their operations. This accountability has
become a central concern for businesses in modern society and many organisations now
claim that they recognise the social and environmental impacts resulting from their economic
activities (Unerman, Bebbington & O’Dwyer 2007). Thus, it is important to identify the
processes governing the development of an organisation’s sustainability practices, as these
will affect the approaches and methods used by organisations to account for and disclose their
sustainability performance. Schaltegger and Wagner (2006) suggest that managing
sustainability performance requires “a sound management framework which firstly links
environmental and social management with the business and competitive strategy, and
secondly, that integrates environmental and social information with economic business
information and sustainability reporting” (p6).
Reporting social and environmental activities still remains largely voluntary for most
businesses and organisations. In the absence of legislation, guidelines and initiatives have
been developed and made available for organisations to demonstrate their social and
environmental management and performance. Adams and Narayanan (2007) classified these
guidelines according to the differences in their reporting focus, and indicated that none of the
guidelines address all organisations’ perceived needs in relation to sustainability reporting.
To a large extent, differences in organisations’ perceptions of sustainability exist because
sustainable activities vary according to context. In support of this, Hopwood (2009) posits
that there are “different approaches to both conceiving and acting upon human and
organisational interaction with the environment” (p433). Using this as a point of reference,
this research aims to identify some of the strategies and mechanisms that a firm could use to
develop context specific sustainability reporting systems to meet the information needs of
their stakeholders. A SBSC is used for this purpose as both a visual reporting tool and
classification technique. It has been adopted, in this case, as an inherent part of the
legitimisation process.
Research Motivation
Westpac is one of the leading specialist financial services managers and distributors in
Australia. In 2002, the company began issuing a stand-alone report on its sustainability-
related activities. Since then, Westpac has continued to expand its sustainability practices and
now includes sustainability reporting as part of its organisational performance disclosure
practice. Westpac’s effort was recognised by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI),
which ranked Westpac as the most environmentally sustainable bank for the period 2002-
20072
. This is significant because, since its launch in 1999, the DJSI has gained the reputation
as the leading global sustainability benchmark which investors can use to assist them with
green investment decisions (Hope & Fowler, 2007). The DJSI incorporates a Triple Bottom
Line (TBL) approach, analysing economic, environmental and social performance, and

2 Shared with ANZ in 2007.

Huang et al | Implementing a Sustainability Balances Scorecard

17
demonstrates a positive risk/return profile for investors who choose to invest with DJSI-listed
firms (Knoepfel 2001). Previous research (for example, Artiach et al. 2010; Baskin 2006;
Ricart et al.2005) has used DJSI-listed firms to measure the relationship between
sustainability management and value creation. The view that the integration of the TBL into
company operations increases both long-term shareholder value and the transparency of
business activities has gained favourable support (Cerin & Dobers 2001; Lopez, Garcia &
Rodiguez 2007). Research concerning the BSC methodology has also been conducted with
DJSI-listed firms. However, the adoption/integration of the BSC approach to sustainability
development is still at “an embryonic stage” (Ricart et al. 2005, p26).
Westpac initiated its standalone sustainability reporting in 2002, and has subsequently
maintained its pioneering position within the Australian banking sector. In comparison to
other major banks in Australia, Westpac not only has the longest history of sustainability
reporting, but also acts as a significant contributor to the development of sustainability
reporting frameworks, in particular The Financial Services Sector Supplement (FSSS) issued
by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GRI 2006a). The benefits of this unique position
are twofold: on the one hand, Westpac uses its leadership role to advocate sustainability
philosophies through its input to authoritative frameworks; while on the other hand, Westpac
refines its own sustainability reporting by engaging in genuine key stakeholder dialogues;
identifying potential gaps in the reporting framework for continuous improvement. This
enables Westpac to play a key role in both the development and implementation of these
frameworks.
The GRI’s prescribed disclosure formats have been adopted by Westpac ever since its
first standalone sustainability report in 2002. As suggested by Lamberton (2005), the GRI
represents a rigorous framework for the application of TBL reporting. Therefore, companies
that adopt the GRI as their sustainability disclosure framework often categorise sustainability
performance indicators using a TBL approach. Westpac is no exception. However, the TBL
approach does not clearly indicate the trade off between stakeholder expectations that the
company encounters with TBL reporting (Robins 2006), nor does it reveal any cause and
effect relationship(s) between the three pillars of the TBL (Hussey, Kirsop & Meussen 2001).
Hence, when using the TBL to communicate sustainability performance, it lacks clarity, with
unclear causal relationships between sustainability performance and stakeholder groups
(Robins 2006). Finally, Frost et al. (2008) question whether the ambiguous TBL reporting
format embraced in GRI guidelines will in fact provide relevant information to potential
stakeholders with various interests in firms’ sustainability performance.
Therefore, this study attempts to translate the traditional TBL reporting that Westpac
currently adopts into a set of BSC measurements. By doing so, the sustainability performance
indicators that Westpac chooses to disclose are linked with certain stakeholders’ expectations
under the four perspectives of BSC. As a consequence, a clarified relation between
sustainability reporting and stakeholder expectations can be established which enables a
better assessment of organisational legitimacy as stakeholders’ expectations are a key source
of organisational legitimacy (Deegan 2007).

Literature Review
Sustainability Reporting
Buhr (2007) suggested that while social, environmental and sustainability reporting is linked
with modern corporations, some elements of this reporting, such as employee and community
issues, have been used by corporations for decades. For example, Guthrie and Parker (1989)
conducted research on 100 years of BHP’s annual reports (starting as early as 1885).


18

Although limited focus was provided in these early annual reports, they are considered to be
the first generation of sustainability reporting. In the 1990s, the emergence of environmental
reporting replaced the trend towards social responsibility. Later, Elkington (1999) introduced
the term “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL), which represented a system of reporting that linked
environmental and social aspects with the economic performance of corporations.
There are now numerous widely-accepted reporting frameworks, such as the GRI
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G3) (GRI 2006b). These guidelines aim to provide
benefits for both reporting organisations and report users by promoting a standardised
approach that potentially minimises ambiguity and rhetorical messages. As noted, Westpac is
one of the Australian representatives in the international multi-stakeholder group of the GRI
that developed the supplements for the financial service sector.
Even though the disclosure content and the length of sustainability reports have
changed over time, their function has remained the same – to discharge accountability (Buhr
2007; Gray & Bebbington 2000). Hence, research conducted on a firm’s sustainability
reporting will focus on the motivation and deemed purpose of the firm.
Legitimacy Theory
Social and environmental accounting (SEA) research has rapidly developed since the 1990s.
In Thomson’s (2007) summary of the sustainability accounting literature, frequently used
theoretical frameworks include legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory.
These theories are based on the assumption that an organisation lives within an “open
system” containing great numbers of different entities that the firm may influence or be
influenced by (Deegan 2002).
Legitimacy theory, one of the “most pervasive augmentation (SEA) theories” (Parker,
2005), asserts that in order to operate in a society, the firm’s activities must be regarded as
legitimate (Deegan 2002; Lindblom 1994). This theory does not recognise any particular
stakeholder group of an organisation as being essential, but rather considers the entire system
as a source of legitimacy (Deegan 2002). The majority of accounting studies applying
legitimacy theory have been conducted in the manufacturing industry (Deegan 2002; Guthrie
& Parker 1989; Hogner 1982), with the most common approach being the matching of an
organisation’s social and environmental performance disclosures to negative social
exposures. The mismatch between an organisation’s value system and the societal value
system is known as the legitimacy gap, while reporting sustainability performances can be
viewed as strategies to gain, repair or maintain its legitimacy (Deegan 2007) as well as to
reduce the legitimacy gap.
The development and implementation of legitimacy theory significantly advanced
after the introduction of the TBL (Elkington 1999). Although this reporting initiative
framework made the rather simplistic assumption that a common ground exists in corporate
social and environmental disclosures in regard to industry identity or managerial style, it
served as an indication of the growing awareness of the importance of those performance
indicators, especially the non-financial indicators.
If a gap is perceived to exist it is essential for an organisation to craft and implement a
variety of strategies, labelled as “legitimation tactics” (O’Donovan 2002, p. 349), to
contribute to gaining, maintaining or repairing its legitimacy. Voluntary reporting on social
and environmental issues as such a strategy from the perspective of legitimacy theory, has
been the subject of earlier research. For example O’Donovan (2002) used a qualitative
approach based on a questionnaire containing fictitious environmental issues to examine
managers’ intentions in relation to various legitimation tactics. Milne and Patten (2002)
studied the environmental disclosures of the American chemical industry to determine


19
whether positive environmental disclosures could repair organisational legitimacy. However,
a question remains concerning the creditability of both the O’Donovan (2002) and Milne and
Patten (2002) studies. O’Donovan examination of manager’s intention of using legitimation
tactics could not be verified as fictitious events were used in the study. In contrast the
outcome of Milne and Patten’s (2002) work, based on substantive incidents, concluded that
while increasing the disclosure was driven by management’s intention to repair legitimacy
this finding was not robustly tested. By reviewing the results of both studies, it can be
determined that a relationship does exist between organisations’ perceived legitimacy gap
and the implementation of legitimation tactics of voluntary social and environmental
reporting.
The Balanced Scorecard
Developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), the BSC is a structured tool to assist performance
measurement and management, consisting of non-financial and financial objective
measurements. It evaluates the expectations and demands of relevant stakeholders, and
generates strategic possibilities to meet those demands (Bieker 2002). However, it provides
neither a universal bottom-line target nor specified recommendations. The BSC’s main
purpose is to overcome the sole reliance on financial performance (Horngren et al. 2010).
Hence, it provides a framework for performance setting in four categories, specifically:
financial; customer; internal business processes; and learning and growth (see Figure 1
below).
Figure 1
The Balanced Scorecard

Adapted from Kaplan and Norton (1996, p76)
These perspectives represent the relevant stakeholders that Kaplan and Norton
regarded as crucial to any type of organisation. The methodology itself evolves from a
performance management tool into a strategic tool, as it is found that the BSC affects and
benefits managers’ decision making (Birch 2000; Lipe & Salterio 2000). In order to use the
BSC for strategic reflection and implementation, an organisation must ensure that its


20

perspectives are consistent and align with the organisation’s objectives and strategies (Chan
2004; Mooraj, Oyon & Hostettler 1999).
Substantial research has been performed on the adoption and implementation of the
BSC. Findings suggest that the core philosophy of the BSC centres on cause-and-effect
relationships (Likierman 2006; Souissi & Itoh 2006; Werner & Xu 2012). Kaplan and Norton
(1992) have defined such a relationship as a logical chain in the transformation of intangible
assets into tangible value through the integrations of lead and lag indicators. Within different
organisations and industrial sectors, these cause-and-effect relationships can become
significantly complex, hence it is necessary that each organisation adopts a unique BSC and
selects relevant measurements (Malmi 2001).
A significant limitation exists in early generations of the BSC, in that it fails to
address the needs of all crucial stakeholders. Some of these exclusions include: effects on the
environment; human resource (HR) issues; communities which the organisation operates
within and supplier contributions (Smith 2005). Importantly, all exclusions have proved to be
critical to a firm’s survival and profitable development (Keating et al. 2008), highlighting the
need to align these dimensions to organisations and the expectations of their stakeholders.
This leads to the recent development of the SBSC.
The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard
As previously discussed, the original four perspectives do not encompass all stakeholder
expectations. However, newer generations of the BSC still lack comprehensive measurements
in the broader area of sustainability. There have been different approaches to integrate
sustainability measurement into the traditional BSC approach. For example, in a ‘modular’
approach, sustainability can be added to the original four perspectives of the BSC as a
standalone perspective; or the social and environmental aspects can be integrated into the
original four perspectives (Figge et al. 2002). Bieker (2002) takes such an integrative
approach. His SBSC is based on the traditional BSC’s four categories, with the inclusion of
an additional perspective (social or environmental) to address strategic orientation sustainable
development. This research uses Bieker’s method (2002). The rationale for this approach is
that it is difficult to distinguish a set of measurements that solely evaluate social and
environmental performance and that are not associated with the original four perspectives.
An impediment of the original BSC, as indicated by Cheney (2001), is the
determination and quantification of non-financial performance indicators. The SBSC
approach would experience increased difficulties as social impacts are even more difficult to
measure and ultimately quantify. Therefore, many SBSC studies narrowly focus on
sustainability indicators which are easily quantified. For example, Dias-Sadinha and
Reijnders (2005) evaluate social and environmental performance in their study of 13
Portuguese firms. Their selection of firms focused on those industries that had a significant
environmental impact, and the indicators used in their SBSC emphasised pollution-
prevention and eco-efficiency. Similar applications of BSC (or SBSC) can be found in Moller
and Schalteggar (2005) and Sidiropoulos et al. (2004), where an environmental perspective is
added to the BSC. These applications are still not truly as comprehensive as a sustainability
performance evaluation system needs to be, as eco-efficiency counts for only a narrow
segment of broader sustainability issues. As suggested by Moller and Schalteggar (2005), a
comprehensive SBSC should connect all the pillars of sustainability.


21
Research Design
The sustainability reports of Westpac from 2002 to 2008 were analysed from two
perspectives. Firstly, performance indicators were categorised into the four traditional BSC
perspectives. The number of indicators used then quantified the reporting/disclosure in each
category. The purpose of this measurement was to identify any changes in emphasis for each
category of Westpac’s sustainability reporting. Secondly, the disclosure by management of
sensitive issues was analysed to identify legitimisation tactics from Westpac (identifying
these disclosures as methods to gain, maintain or repair legitimacy). By summarising the
legitimisation disclosures identified in each year’s report, this research aims to evaluate
Westpac’s change in strategies used to fulfil organisational legitimacy.
In order to allocate the disclosures of the stakeholder impact indicators used in
Westpac’s reports into the perspectives of a BSC system, each perspective needs to be
expanded to cover the domains of sustainability reporting. This re-classification of indicators
allows those selected to be examined separately from a traditional TBL approach (which is
suggested by the categories used in Westpac’s report: social, environmental and economic).
The rationale of this new method is that Westpac does not operate in an industry sector where
environmental impact is the major sustainability concern, thus their reporting on
environmental issues has a different focus compared to the heavy manufacturing industries.
Within the social regime of sustainability reporting, Westpac has an extremely high
contact frequency with many different customers, and due to this close engagement the social
impacts of any strategic decision are much more directly associated with the general public.
Following the TBL, it is clear that Westpac emphasises social impact. However, its
categorisation is ambiguous. In its 2002 report, Westpac categorised its policy for
institutional banking as a social indictor and the total lending amount as an environmental
indicator, causing inconsistency and ambiguity. The new SBSC approach attempts to clarify
such ambiguity by re-allocating those indicators into Balance Scorecard perspectives, and,
furthermore, to determine which perspective has attracted the strongest sustainability
reporting. By doing so, it potentially allows the case study to translate Westpac’s
sustainability management strategy into a set of dashboard measurements. These are detailed
below.
Figure 2
Illustration of Westpac’s SBSC


22

Figure 2 illustrates the proposed outcome from analysing the indicators that Westpac chooses
to disclose in its sustainability reporting under the new SBSC categorisation.
Financial Perspectives: originally, the financial perspective evaluated the
profitability of the strategy. Although there is no available accredited evidence that a direct
relationship between sustainability management and financial profitability exists, results
related to financial performance can still be observed in cost reduction, both direct
(energy/material consumption) and indirect (compliance cost or penalties). The expanded
financial perspective also includes the asset management and investments/contributions made
in relation to sustainability management. In light of sustainability management, this
perspective should not only include the sole purpose of enhancing tangible shareholder value.
Customer Perspective: identifies customer groups and segments and the firm’s share
of the market. It evaluates the firm’s strengths and weaknesses in those segments. In this case
study, it is expanded from a customer focus into the external supply chain, such as
disclosures on logistics and the sustainability management practices of suppliers.
Internal Business Process Perspective: initially, this measures the effect of internal
operations on value creation, such as innovation, services and efficiency. By expanding this
measurement into sustainability indicators, it also includes the settlement and development of
operational policies in both the traditional management and sustainability management
regimes.
Learning and Growth Perspective: this relates to the capabilities that lead to
superior process efficiency, most importantly the preservation and enhancement of both
employees’ capabilities and morale. The sustainability view is not very different from this as
it includes disclosures of employee profiles, workloads, rewards and empowerments.
Table 1 below is an illustration of how sustainability indicators are ‘re-classified’
using criteria of SBSC discussed above:
Table 1
Re-classification of Selected Indicators from Westpac’s 2002 Sustainability Report
Indicator
Original
(TBL)
Category
SBSC
Perspective
CSR Policy Social Internal Process
Employee turnover & job creation Social
Learning &
Growth
Lending profile (SME) Social Customer
Environmental policy statement Environmental Internal Process
Electricity Consumption Environmental Financial
Policy Statement (SRI) Environmental Internal Process
Profit earning Economic Financial
Efficiency Economic Internal Process
Identifying Legitimisation Tactics
Traditionally applied in most research on the framework of legitimacy theory, entire sections
of sustainability reporting were analysed in order to identify the legitimisation tactics used by
management. These methods included matching negative media exposures to the growth of
disclosure content in relation to such criticism. Since the source documents used in previous


23
research are largely annual reports, identifying such a causal relationship requires more
subjective interpretations on management’s intentions.
However, in stand-alone sustainability reports such as Westpac’s, the management of
sensitive issues is deliberately reported and highlighted, hence indicating that is likely that the
management of Westpac intentionally provides these disclosures for legitimisation purposes
Although the ‘sensitive issues’ heading is categorised as an individual indicator under social
performance in the indicator index, in actual fact it contains the disclosure of issues affecting
many different stakeholders. Examining those issues considered by the Westpac management
to be sensitive assists in understanding their sustainability management principles.
Conducting a horizontal analysis also aids in identifying changes in the focus areas of those
sensitive issues. The purposes of these tactics are to:
Gain Legitimacy: previous research has shown that Westpac’s sustainability
reporting began well before 2002. It did not start with pioneering and proactive motives but,
instead, was a reactive response to the late 1990s legitimacy gap (Baxter et al. 2010).
Therefore, in order to distinguish gaining legitimacy from maintaining legitimacy, this case
study considers the publishing of a stakeholder impact report as a new starting point for
Westpac’s organisational legitimacy management. While preserving customers and market
share and complying with regulations and standards will be considered as maintaining
legitimacy, gaining legitimacy consists of developments and improvements, such as new
frameworks, policies, initiative programs or projects.
Maintain Legitimacy: as previously mentioned, continuously preserving the
efforts/contributions with no or little improvements towards sustainability management will
be considered as a tactic to maintain legitimacy.
Repairing Legitimacy: disclosures made in response to criticisms and negative
exposures will be categorised as tactics used to repair legitimacy. In these circumstances, a
crisis of legitimacy is perceived to exist, with management deliberately implementing
strategies to minimise the legitimacy gap.
The sensitive issues will be summarised, interpreted as one of the three tactics, and
the target audience discussed to review and understand Westpac’s approach in managing
organisational legitimacy in relation to sustainability management.
Results
The first stand-alone Stakeholder Impact Report from Westpac in 2002 is used as an
illustrative example, followed by the 2008 report and finally a comparative analysis from
2002-2008 is given. 2002 is recognised as the start of Westpac’s sustainability strategy, or
“Squashed Tomato Strategy” (Baxter et al. 2010). It received its name from the cover feature
of a smashed tomato illustrating the fresh perspective of its stakeholder impact reporting.
Applying the SBSC approach, discussed previously, to the list of indicators used in
the 2002 Social Impact Report, it was observed that out of the 65 indicators, 23 of them can
be categorised into the customer (or external) perspective, 18 into the financial perspective,
14 into the internal process perspective and 10 into the learning and growth perspective.
These are illustrated in Figure 3.


24

Figure 2
SBSC of 2002 Social Impact Report

In the 2002 Social Impact Report (Westpac 2002), the management of Westpac made
disclosures relating to five issues which they believed sensitive: Dealing with the
Government; Political Donations; Responsible Lending Banking Business; Indigenous
Partnership; and Financial Auditor Independence. Table 2 below summarises the disclosure
Westpac provided regarding these sensitive issues and their potential legitimisation effects.
From Table 2 it can be observed that Westpac’s management adopted various legitimisation
tactics in the 2002 sustainability report’s coverage of sensitive issues. Lindblom’s (1994)
prescription of legitimisation tactics and purposes can be observed from the results above.
For instance, Westpac displayed its conformation of expectations in relation to risk mitigation
policies to maintain legitimacy. In addition, it also provided defensive disclosures towards
criticisms in order to repair its legitimacy gap and promoted its support of the Indigenous
community to gain legitimacy due to potential social value change.


25
Table 2
Sensitive Issues Disclosed in Westpac’s 2002 Sustainability Report
Heading Used Issues
Main
Target
Audience
Legitimisation
Purpose
1. Dealing with the Government &
Political Donations
1.1 Contribute to
public policy
development Government Gain
1.2 Donations
Purpose Public Gain/Repair
2. Responsible Lending
2.1 Risk
Management
Principles Shareholder Maintain
2.2 Credit Criteria Shareholder Maintain
2.3 Accessibility Customer Maintain
2.4 Lending to High
Social Benefit Community Gain
2.5 Community
Banking in Rural
Areas Community Maintain
3. Banking Business
3.1 Anti Money
Laundering
Government
/Public Maintain
3.2 Termination of
Mortgage & Income
Fund Public Repair^
3.3 Reform Credit
Card Scheme Government Maintain
4. Indigenous Partnership
4.1 Cape York
Program Community Gain
4.2 Balknu Cape
Development Community Gain
5. Financial Auditor Independence
5.1 Auditor
Independence Shareholder Maintain

Note^: the termination of the Mortgage and Income Fund on 22 June 2001 resulted in an ASIC investigation.
Westpac announced that the company has implemented a new review mechanism to prevent similar incidents.
In 2008, Westpac experienced a major change in its management. Westpac’s CEO,
David Morgan, left the organisation. The Stakeholder Impact Report (Westpac 2008) was
also changed in that year. The volume of the printed report was significantly reduced as more
information was made available online at Westpac’s corporate social responsibility website.
Some new indicators were included in the sustainability report in addition to those previously
used, which contained unexpected and interesting information. For example under the
disclosure for social performance, using suppliers with a Fair Trading policy was introduced
as part of Westpac’s Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) strategy. The example
given is that Westpac started to provide coffee from Fair Trading suppliers (also paper coffee
cups) to more than 8,000 employees through company cafeterias. The company believes that
this is an effective strategy to communicate the company values of incorporating
sustainability principles into its day-to-day company business (in this case, purchasing
decisions).
When applying the SBSC approach on the total of 88 indicators used in Westpac’s
2008 sustainability report, results indicate that 36 indicators belong to the customer


26

perspective, 24 to the financial perspective, while the internal business process perspective
and learning and growth perspective have 7 and 9 indicators respectively, as illustrated below
in Figure 4:
Figure 4
SBSC of 2008 Stakeholder Impact Report

Besides the existing issues, in 2008 more employee-related matters were reported,
which provided the same outcome as the BSC approach, where higher learning and growth
perspective indicators were observed. Two of the most significant issues were the Global
Financial Crisis and the departure of the former CEO. These events had little impact on the
content and format of Westpac’s sustainability reporting, perhaps due to the fact that this
established reporting framework has been underpinned into the sustainability management of
Westpac.
The disclosure of sensitive issues in Westpac’s 2008 sustainability report was double
that revealed in 2002. This is illustrated in Table 3.
Clearly, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has influenced Westpac’s legitimacy status
significantly. The management considers that protecting the general public from the GFC is a
priority for Westpac’s organisational legitimacy. Besides the repeated issues including
responsible lending and risk management, disclosure of new sensitive issues such as climate
change, employee development and social entrepreneurship have become Westpac’s new
source of legitimacy. This indicates that these issues are currently seen as important for
business’ sustainability management, due to their gaining higher social awareness.


27
Table 3
Sensitive Issues Disclosed in Westpac’s 2008 Sustainability Report
Heading Used Issues
Target
Audience
Legitimisation
Purpose
1. Global capital market crisis
1.1 Westpac choose not to buy or
sell sub-prime mortgages Public Gain
1.2 Remain AA global credit rating Public Maintain
2. Growth and acquisition
2.1 Acquisition of St. George Bank Shareholder Maintain
3. Leadership change
3.1 Impacts discussed in the
community consultative council
meeting Public Maintain
4. Customer Services
4.1 Dealing with impacts of St.
George merger Customer Maintain
5. Responsible banking &
lending
5.1 Raise concerns about
affordability impacts of climate
change Customer Maintain/Gain
6. ESG Risk management
6.1 Human Capital management Employee Maintain
6.2 Climate change governance Public Maintain
6.3 SSCM (Supply Chain
Management) Customer Maintain
7. Climate change
7.1 product development and
innovation Customer Maintain/Gain
8. Diversity & workforce
composition
8.1 meeting the needs of ageing
workforce and disability Employee Maintain
9. Training, learning &
development
9.1 develop internal capacity to meet
sustainability challenges Employee Maintain/Gain
10. Community partnerships
& investment
10.1 focus on long-term partnership
and social entrepreneurship Community Maintain/Gain
Comparison of Results
Based on the individual results of each annual sustainability report, a summary and
comparison were made to identify patterns in changes or innovations. It is clear that there are


28

two distinctive stages, the 2002-2004 Social Impact Reports and the 2005-2008 Stakeholder
Impact Reports period.
The first period’s reports used a TBL structured reporting format, where indicators are
categorised as social, environmental or economical. It can be seen as the early developmental
stage of Westpac’s sustainability management and reporting, where the establishment,
implementation and change of various policies reflecting sustainability concerns became the
essential information disclosed in the report. This, in turn, was reflected by the increasing
percentage of the internal business process perspective under the BSC approach. From the
legitimacy perspective, active participation in policy development is viewed as an effective
legitimacy-gaining tactic; by showcasing advocacy in these sensitive matters Westpac
demonstrates its commitment and leading position in sustainability management.
In the next period a change in the reporting pattern was identified, where much less
reporting on policies was used as an indicator. Instead, structured themes were introduced in
every section of sustainability reporting to communicate management’s philosophy and
corporate value in relation to sustainability matters. The categorisation has evolved from the
traditional TBL to the six new classifications, where the customer, employee and supplier
category are separated from the former social category for an extended view on corporate
social responsibility. The indicators reported under the customer and financial perspectives
significantly increased during this period, indicating the dominating factor – Westpac’s
service-profit model.
Comparative Table
Figure 3
SBSC Comparative Table 2002-2008

Figure 5 above illustrates the change of disclosure strength among each of the SBSC
perspectives for the period 2002 – 2008.
The disclosure of customer related indicators remains steadily above the other
perspectives, due to the dominant service to profit model that Westpac management promotes
and the establishment of SSCM procedures. The firm has paid a lot of attention to its
consumer groups, and implemented a series of sustainability-related supply chain
35% 34%
31%
49%
53%
43% 42%
28%
25%
27%
12%
20%
30%
28%
22%
27%
30%
16%
11%
7% 8%
15% 14%
12%
23%
16%
20%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Customer
Financial
Internal Process
Learning & Growth


29
management strategies. This result is expected because of the nature of Westpac as a service-
focused firm.
The disclosure of financial performance is also relatively consistent, despite the sharp
decline in the 2005 report. A possible explanation for this decline could be that 2005 was the
first year that Westpac synchronised the annual and sustainability reports. Since the annual
report disclosed all of the detailed financial performance indicators, it is possible that the firm
did not consider it necessary to disclose them again in the sustainability report. However, in
the following years the financial disclosure returned to its former significance, which
demonstrates that even though the sustainability reports are targeted towards noncore
financial stakeholders, financial performance remains an important part of sustainability
performance.
The disclosure in the internal business process perspective grew in the first period of
significance (2002-2004, or the ‘social impact report’ period), and then began, and continued,
to decline in the second period of significance (2005-2008, or the ‘stakeholder impact report’
period). Since the policy development and procedure-setting related disclosures are
categorised in this perspective, it indicates that Westpac developed and implemented more
sustainability-related policies in the first three years. They then matured into systematic
policies and procedures which became part of the corporate culture, and hence fewer
disclosures were required in the following years.
Table 4
Westpac’s Community Consultative Council in 2005
Organisations Type Interests
Australian Council of Trade Unions Workers Union Employee Rights
Australian Conservation Foundation NFP Environment
Australian Consumers’ Association NFP Consumer Rights
Australian Council of Social Service Community Service Poverty & Inequality
City of Melbourne Governmental Vary
Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services Governmental Social Benefits
Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage Governmental Environment
Environmental Protection Authority Victoria Authority Environment
Finance Sector Union Workers Union Employee Rights
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Statutory Organization Human Rights
Landcare Australia Governmental Environment
Mission Australia Community Service Social Benefits
National Seniors Association NFP Social Benefits for 50+
NSW Department of Planning Governmental Environment
Our Community Community Service Community Network
Reconciliation Australia NFP Indigenous
St James Ethics Centre NFP Promotion of Ethics
The Salvation Army Community Service Social Benefit
The Smith Family Charity Disadvantaged Children
University of Technology Sydney Education Education/Careers
WWF Australia NFP Environment
In contrast, the disclosure of the learning and growth perspective declined in the first
period, and then increased and remained steady in the second period. From the analysis of the


30

indicators, it appears that the measurement within this perspective remained conventional, as
the indicators were used repetitively across all years, and there was very little innovation
observed. This reveals an issue in measuring sustainability performance, as it is difficult to
quantify and capture the learning and growth perspectives, despite this being very important
to the firm’s sustainability.
It is clear that Westpac addresses sensitive issues related to expectations of a broad set
of stakeholder groups. One of the main strategies that Westpac adopted to make its
legitimisation tactics inclusive was establishing a stakeholder dialogue mechanism
Community Consultative Council (CCC) made up of more than 20 groups representing
various interests and expectations. This is illustrated in Table 4.
A potential benefit of establishing a stakeholder dialogue mechanism, such as the
CCC, is that it provides a source of consulting information to assist Westpac’s management
in assessing relevant issues contributing to organisational legitimacy. Also, according to
Bebbington, Unerman and O’Dwyer (2007), a meaningful stakeholder mechanism is crucial
for reporting sustainability and discharging accountability.
Conclusions
The previous section presented the findings of the analysis of Westpac’s sustainability
performance reports using the SBSC approach and reviewed through the lens of legitimacy
theory.
The results demonstrate that the contents of the reports are imbalanced when using the
percentage of indicators under each perspective of the total indicator. Instead, results
indicated that the firm emphasised the performances of indicators within the customer and
financial perspectives. For reports in the first period (2002-2004), the combined customer and
financial indicators contributed to more than 55% of the total indicators. This pattern became
more significant in the second period, where, in 2005-2008, the figure exceeded 70%.
There are a number of factors potentially contributing to this outcome. The first is that
the financial service industry in which Westpac operates involves customer relationship
management and financial performance measurement. Many of the indicators under the
customer’s perspective are service quality measurements, such as complaints and resolution
rates. The service quality measures are essential elements of a service firm’s operational
objectives and it remains a key focus of Westpac’s sustainability management. The service-
profit model, emphasised in the sustainability reports since 2005, is also a dominating factor
of continued increasing disclosure on customer-related and financial performances. The
model itself promotes the importance of an employee’s performance, motivation and
involvement level; however, there are few innovations identified in Westpac’s reporting on
employee-related issues. The indicators used to represent the employee category did not
undergo any major updates or shifts, although the other non-financial perspectives did. The
majority of employee-related indicators were adopted from the G3 and FSSS, with the
addition of Westpac’s unique selection of indicators raised from the CCC and Internal
committees’ meetings.
The analytical results from the potential legitimisation tactics identified in Westpac’s
sustainability reports, clearly indicate that the company has and continues to respond to the
expectations of stakeholders. From the view of the legitimacy theoretical framework, this
study concludes that Westpac’s sustainability reports contain a number of legitimisation
tactics. For example to maintain legitimacy tactics include compliance with established
frameworks, regulations and guidelines, anticipating stakeholder needs and attempting to
provide products and services exceeding those needs. To repair legitimacy tactics include
indicating avoidance or disclosing remedy procedures and prevention strategies. Finally to


31
gain legitimacy tactics include participating with renowned associations, establishing and
maintaining ongoing community partnerships, and showcasing advocacy by being actively
involved in policy development for both government and sustainability associations.
The main organisational strategy to manage legitimacy-related sensitive issues is the
stakeholder dialogue mechanism. Stakeholder engagement is a strategy recognised by the
GRI and the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability’s Foundation Standard, AA1000 as
a necessity to achieve meaningful sustainability reporting (Owen, Swift & Hunt 2001), but
little genuine stakeholder engagement has been identified in the domain of sustainability
management (Cooper & Owen 2007). Westpac’s stakeholder dialogue can be considered as a
rare example of effective stakeholder management. Since it originated in 2002, it has
remained as a prioritised, constant feature of Westpac’s sustainability reporting, as well as the
essential output source for identifying legitimacy-threatening issues. Hence, it is
recommended that firms could consider using the stakeholder dialogue mechanism as a
strategy to develop context specific sustainability reporting.
Finally this paper addresses how using a BSC re-classification of sustainability
indicators helps the understanding of how sustainability reporting contributes to maintaining
organisational legitimacy. The traditional approach of legitimacy theory studies focus on
identifying the cause-effect relationship between negative exposures and the legitimisation
tactics embedded in corporate disclosures. However, the TBL approach of sustainability
reporting does not reveal any certain cause-effect relationship between social, economical
and environmental performances. In contrast, the BSC embraces the core philosophy of
cause-effect relationships, while also addressing the key performances stakeholders are
interested in (Kaplan & Norton 2001). By translating Westpac’s sustainability reporting into
a set of measurements based on the SBSC model, the linkage between performance indicators
and stakeholder expectations can be reviewed in a clearer manner. Together with the
continuous effort of maintaining a genuine stakeholder dialogue mechanism, Westpac’s
sustainability reporting practices assist the company in better maintaining its key survival
resource – organisational legitimacy.
References
Adams, C & Narayanan, V 2007, ‘Standardizing sustainability reporting’, in J Unerman, J
Bebbington, & B O’Dwyer (eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,
Routledge, London, pp70-86.
Artiach, T, Lee, D, Nelson, D & Walker, J 2010, ‘The determinants of corporate
sustainability performance’, Accounting & Finance, vol.50, no.1, pp31-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2009.00315.x
Baskin, J 2006, ‘Corporate responsibility in emerging markets’, Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, vol.24, pp29-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2006.wi.00006
Baxter, J, Chua, WF & Strong, P 2010, ‘Westpac’s squashed tomato strategy’, Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants, accessed 19/3/ 2011,
http://issuu.com/cimaglobal/docs/westpac_squashed_tomato_march31/1?e=1740886/
5093638
Bebbington, J, Unerman, J & O'Dwyer, B 2007, ‘Stakeholder engagement and dialogue’.
Sustainability accounting and accountability, Routledge, London, pp1-17.
Bieker, T 2002, ‘Sustainability Management with the Balanced Scorecard’, in S Karner, I
Oehme & U Seebacher (eds), Corporate Sustainability, 5th International Summer
Academy on Technology Studies, Deutschlandsberg, Austria, July 13–19, 2003,
Conference Proceedings, pp17–34.
Birch, C 2000, Future Success, Prentice Hall, Melbourne, Australia.


32

Buhr, N 2007, ‘Histories of and rationales for sustainability reporting’, in J Unerman, J
Bebbington, & B O’Dwyer (eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability,
Routledge, London, pp57-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/NOE0415384889.pt2
Cerin, P & Dobers, P 2001, ‘What does the performance of the Dow Jones Sustainability
Group Index tell us?’, Eco-Management and Auditing, vol.8, pp123-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ema.159
Chan, YCL 2004, ‘Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey
of municipal governments in the USA and Canada’, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, vol. 17, issue 3, pp204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513550410530144
Cheney, G 2001, ‘AICPA survey finds performance measurement often ineffective’,
Accounting Today, vol.14, pp17.
Cooper, SM & Owen, DL 2007, ‘Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability:
The missing link’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.32, no.7, pp649-667.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.001
Deegan, C 2002, ‘The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures: A
theoretical foundation’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol.15,
no.3, pp282-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
Deegan, C 2007, Financial Accounting Theory (3rd
Edition), McGraw-Hill, Sydney
Dias-Sardinha, I & Reijnders, L 2005, ‘Evaluating environmental and social performance of
large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard approach’, Business Strategy and
the Environment, vol.14, issue.2, pp73-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.421
Do, H, Tilt, CA & Tilling, MV 2007, ‘Corporate Social Disclosure by Westpac Banking
Corporations: A study of social impact reports (2002-2004)’, Business Conference
Paper, Paper 6, accessed 7/9/ 2010 http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/bus_conference/6
Elkington, J 1999, Cannibals with forks. Capstone Punlishing, Mankato, MN, USA
Figge, F, Hahn, T, Schaltegger, S & Wagner, M 2002, ‘The sustainability balanced scorecard
– linking sustainability management to business strategy’, Business Strategy and the
Environment, vol.11, issue.5, pp269-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.339
Frost, G, Jones, S, Loftus, J & Van der Laan, S 2008, ‘A Survey of Sustainability Reporting
Practices of Australian Reporting Entities’, Australian Accounting Review, vol.15,
no.35, pp89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2005.tb00256.x
Global Reporting Initiative, 2006a, Financial Services Sector Supplement, accessed
23/4/2010, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/FSSS-Complete.pdf
Global Reporting Initiative, 2006b, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G3), accessed 23/4/
2010, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-
Protocol.pdf
Gray, R & Bebbington, J 2000, ‘Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability:
Is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting?’ Advances in
Environmental Accounting & Management, vol.1, pp1-44.
Guthrie, J & Parker, L 1989, ‘Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory’,
Accounting and Business Research, vol.19, no.76, pp343-352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1989.9728863
Hogner, RH 1982, ‘Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at US Steel’,
Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol.6, pp243-250.
Hope, C & Fowler, SJ 2007, ‘A Critical Review of Sustainable Business Indices and Their
Impact’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.76, pp243-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9590-2
Hopwood, AG 2009, ‘Accounting and the Environment’, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 34, pp433-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.03.002


33
Horngren, CT, Forster, G, Rajan, M, Ittner, C & Datar, SM (eds), 2010, Cost Accounting: a
managerial emphasis, American Accounting Association.
Hussey, DM, Kirsop, P & Meussen, RE 2001, ‘Global reporting initiative guidelines: An
evaluation of sustainable development metrics for industry’, Environmental Quality
Management, vol.11, no.1, pp1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.1200
Kaplan, RS & Norton, DP 1992, ‘The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that drive
performance’, Harvard Business Review, Issue Jan-Feb, no.92105.
Kaplan, RS & Norton, DP 1996,‘Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system’, Harvard Business Review (January-February), p76
Kaplan, RS & Norton, DP 2001, ‘Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance
measurement to strategic management: Part I’, Accounting horizons, vol.15, no.1,
pp87-104.
Keating, B, Quazi, A, Kriz, A, & Coltman, T 2008, ‘In pursuit of a sustainable supply chain:
insights from Westpac Banking Corporation’, Supply Chain Management-An
International Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp175–179.
Knoepfel, I ‘Dow Jones sustainability group index: A global benchmark for corporate
sustainability’, corporate environmental strategy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp6- 15.
Lamberton, G 2005, ‘Sustainability accounting – a brief history and conceptual framework’,
Accounting Forum, vol. 29, no.1, pp7-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.11.001
Likierman, A 2006, ‘Technical Matters: The Balanced Scorecard’, Financial Management,
Nov Issue, p.9.
Lindblom, CK 1994, ‘The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social
performance and disclosure’, paper presented at the Critical Perspective on
Accounting Conference, New York.
Lipe, MG &Salterio, SE 2000, ‘The balanced scorecard; Judgmental effects of common and
unique performance measures’, The Accounting Review, vol.3, pp283-298.
Lopez, MV, Garcia, A& Rodriguez, L 2007, ‘Sustainable development and corporate
performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index’, Journal of
Business Ethics, vol.75, pp285-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8
Malmi, T 2001, ‘Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: A research note’, Management
Accounting Research, vol.12, no.2, pp207-220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0154
Milne, MJ &Patten, DM 2002, ‘Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision
case examining the impact of environmental disclosures’, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol.15, no.3, pp372-405.
Moller, A & Schaltegger, S 2005, ‘The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for
eco-efficiency analyses, Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol.9, issue.4, pp73-83.
Mooraj, S, Oyon, D & Hostettler, D 1999, ‘The balanced scorecard: A necessary good or an
unnecessary evil?’, European Management Journal, vol.17, Issue 5, pp481-491.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00034-1
O’Donovan, G 2002, ‘Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the
applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory’, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol.15, no.3, pp344-371.


34

Owen, DL, Swift, T& Hunt, K 2001, ‘Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in
social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting’, Accounting Forum, vol. 25, no.
3, pp264-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00066
Parker, D 2005, ‘Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the
commentary box’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol.18, no.6,
pp842-860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570510627739
Ricart, JE, Rodríguez, MÁ & Sánchez, P 2005, ‘Sustainability in the boardroom: An
empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders’, Corporate
Governance, vol.5, no.3, pp24-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510604670
Robins, F 2006, ‘The Challenge of TBL: a responsibility to whom?’, Business and Society
Review, vol.111, no.1, pp1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2006.00258.x
Schaltegger, S & Wagner, M (eds), 2006, Managing the Business Case for Sustainability,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK
Sidiropoulos, M, Mouzakitis, Y, Adamides, E & Goutsos, S 2004, ‘Applying sustainable
indicators to corporate strategy: The eco-balanced scorecard’, Environmental
Research, Engineering and Management, vol.1, no.27, pp28-33.
Smith, M 2005, ‘The balanced scorecard’, Financial Management, Feburary, pp27-28.
Souissi, M & Itoh, K 2006, ‘Implementing the Balanced Scorecard’, Journal of Corporate
Accounting and Finance, vol.17, Issue3, pp57-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.20198
Thomson, I 2007, ‘Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting’, in J Unerman, J
Bebbington, & B O’Dwyer (eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability,
Routledge, London. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/NOE0415384889.pt1
Unerman, J, Bebbington, J & O’Dwyer, B 2007, ‘Introduction to sustainability accounting
and accountability’, in J Unerman, J Bebbington, & B O’Dwyer (eds.), Sustainability
accounting and accountability, Routledge, London.
Werner, ML & Xu, F 2012, ‘Executing strategy with the Balanced Scorecard’, International
Journal of Financial Research, vol.3, no.1, pp88-94.
Westpac (nd) Australia’s First Bank, accessed 24/4/2010, http://www.westpac.com.au/
Westpac, 2002, Social Impact Report, Melbourne.
Westpac, 2008, Stakeholder Impact Report, Melbourne.

Implementing a sustainability balanced scorecard to contribute to

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Implementing a sustainability balanced scorecard to contribute to (20)

More from Phuong Dx (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Implementing a sustainability balanced scorecard to contribute to