The Balanced Scorecard: Churning the Existing

sting
Literature
Reetesh K. Singh **Simple Sethi

the understandin8 ot balanced Scorecard (BSC) offering new insights.

The current study broadens
BSC popularity as a powertul management tool has amplified considerably
During 25 vears of existence,
which makes BSC an appropriate toPiC for deep exploration. Hence, the aim of current exploration is to
carry out an extensive review of a Wide array of BSC past studies. Through a systematic search of the
e-resources database, the BSC literature is exhaustively reviewed. Adopting the process of bibliometric
analysis of the seminal papers, the other related research papers are retrieved and referred. The papers are
shortlisted based on their comprehensiveness and relevance to the study. The review is presented on the
identified eight significant themes of BSC Research. Findings confirmed the dearth of research specifically
in relation to antecedents and consequences of the adoption of BSC. The findings of current structured
review propose a comprehensive model for further exploration. It is a first of its kind review study that
provides a detailed analysis and syntheses of past BSC researches and proposes a comprehensive model
of antecedents and consequences of the adoption of BSC. Study's research findings expand the previous
reviews and offer key implications for both researchers and practitioners.
Keywords-Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Performance Management System (PMS), Antecedents, Consequences.

Introduction that financial and non- financial aspects are aptly

A systematic approach appraising organizational
performance is elementary to the quest of creating
business excellence (Wongrassamee, Simmons, &
Gardiner, 2003). However, to enhance organizational
performance, measurement of performance is
as essential requirement to be fulfilled (Sharma,
Bhagwat, & Dangayach, 2005). In order to keep
pace with changing paradigm of the organization,
on one hand, Taticchi and Balachandran (2008) find
that advancement occurring in the area of measuring
as well as managing performance are leading the
organization to evolve dynamically. Additionally,
fundamental change in rules of business
product innovations, wide use of IT and severe
competitions have revolutionized organizational
functioning (Kravchuk & Schack, 1996). It is worth
reiterating that changing pattern of organizational
appetite craves for organised and balanced system
to measure and manage performance, as critics
likeLynch & Cross (1991); Kaplan & Norton(1992)
and Epstein & Manzoni (1997) find conventional
performance being dominated by temporary,
inside looking, backward oriented, and feebly
related to organizational tactics. To cater to present
organizational needs scholars have found merit in
combining financial with non-financial measures
as bases for pertormance management (Hoque
& James, 2000; Atkinson & Brander Brown, 2001;
Malina & Selto, 2001). It is worth mentioning here
'yolessit, 1epartment of Conmerce LDepartment of Comnerce, University of Delhi
"Rescarclh Scholar, 1Delhi School oft Econonics, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delli
incorporated in a robust system of managing
performance, Balanced Scorecard (BSC).
Robert S. Kaplan and David Norton introduced
BSC in 1992 through a Harvard Business Review
article as a framework for measuring performance
from both financial and non-financial standpoint.
BSC's acceptability is well evident in its content and
evolution ever since its inception (Ax and Bjornenak,
2005; Braam and Nijssen, 2004; Bible, Kerr, & Zanini,
2006; Crabtree and DeBusk, 2008; Cooper, Ezzamel,
& Qu, 2012). In 25 years of existence, its popularity
as a powerful
likes management tool has amplitied
considerably among business practitioner and
academicians (DeGeuser, Mooraj, & Oyon, 2009;
Cooper et al., 2012; Dechow, 2012). The research
and review rigor has made BSC an appropriate topic
for deep exploration (Madsen and Stenheim, 2015).
Though it has been extensively researched, with
numerous in-depth reviews studies, to comprehend
the notion of BSC (Hoque and James, 2012; Norreklit
and Mitchell, 2014; Madsen and Stenheim, 2015),
researchers like Soderberg, Kalagnanam, Sheehan,
& Vaidyanathan (2011) have found it challenging
to define BSC. Dechow (2012) also favors for a
comprehensive inquiry into the subject because of
its multi acceptability as accounting, management,
control tool. Given this background, the current
research is conceptualized.
2017 Rretesh K. Smgh **Simple Sethn
21

The purpose of present exploration is to revisit Learning & Growth: Providing training and instruction
the BSC Literature for expanding the previous opportunities to the emplovees for achieving an
reviews and to offer an enhanced comprehension of enhancement in their knowledge.
BSO Through expansive churning of existing BSC
literature, the researcher has identified the key eight Where the first two perspectives namely financial
research areas in which BSC studies can broadly be and customer symbolize the delioerables which
divided. Subsequently, the current study intends organization ought to deliver to its investors and
to identify the research gap creating a platform for customers, and next two perspectives i.e. Learning
& Growth and Internal Business meet employees
future studies. The paper is organized as follow.
The current section contains Introduction; section knowledge updating and customer's requirements.
three essential
These perspectives are based
on
two presents conceptual underpinning of BSC.
the
and Initiatives
In section three, research objectives of the study
are components of BSC: Measures, Targets,
the research method (Kaplan and Norton, 1993).
presented, section four presents Literature-
adopted. In section five, the Review of BSC With these essential components
the strategy gets
followed by Discussion
eight key areas is presented successfully translated into operative
terms (Kaplan
limitations
and conclusion in the sixth section. Lastly, the operationalization
research directions & Norton, 1993, 2004). Also,
of the study, along with future and coordinated
of BSC must be carefully planned
are presented. with scope
with the other areas of the management
time (Kaplan & Norton, 2006).
for modification with
Conceptual Underpinning
to an all-inclusive
denotes
In essence,
organization
Objectives the
which allows an
aims at contributing to
management system The present paper
to link its short-term performance
target with long- by carrying out an extensive
theoretical knowledge
the amalgamation available from previous
term strategic goals through of the vast literature
financial aspects (Kaplan
& study Balanced Scorecard. The
of financial and n o n - studies conducted on
and implementation
Norton, 1992). BSC adoption specific objectives being-
namely (Kaplan
Comprise of four important steps of the
and Nortan, 1996): and investigate the major areas
To identify
BSC literature.
vision of the company into working
Translating the construct of BSC
objectives
To deeply explore areas.
research
vision and
To carry out a critical analysis of BSC
ommunicating companies
with individual performance.
establishing linkage
on the basis of Method
Developing & amending strategy is adopted
regular feedback. literature review process
A systematic as
from objectives in current exploration
measures produced to meet the
For this kind
reating scorecard and Slack (2004).
vision. suggested by Rowley
strategy and organization' availability and
accessibilityof
of academic exercise factor. To this
How BSC Works? become a very
important
resources database,
strategy around which all search of
e-resources

As known, its exhaustive has

and
end, an Ratan Tata Library
Organizational activities takes place (Kaplan available o n Delhi
University's
resulted in
retrieval
a framework Initial search
Vorton, 2006). Organizations require been conducted. bibliometric
area of BS. Through
1or integrating strategy into every single articles on
of numerous research
the relevant
framework
this works,
Dusinessoperations and interestingly analysis of
seminal
In current study
80
corecard (Kaplan and shortlisted.

5provided by the Balanced papers

have been
in detail.
Table 1
Also, Kaplan and Norton,
(1992) have been analyzed
VOrtn, 2006). r e s e a r c h papers
along with
around: wise list of journal
propose these strategies could be
woven
provides a publisher- all the
Consequently,
number of articles explored. eight BSC
i nncal: Distributing usual financial gain among
a
are categorized
into key
studies
explored the subsequent
presented in
investors; research areas and are

the customers;
ustomer: Offering valuable benefits to elfective
sections.
nternal Business Processes: Executing
s
inbuilt business processes well as per customer
rrquirementsi
 Global Busine'ss Revew
Amity
September
Table 1 Listing Of Journals

Name of the Journal

Publisher Number of|
Measuring Business Excellence
Articles
Emerald Insight
International Journal of Productivity and P'erformance Management
Benchmarking-An international Journal
2
Journal of Accounting and organizational change
Managernent Research News
Strategy and Leadership

Journal of lntellectual Capital

International Journal of Accounting and Intormation Management

Journal of Enterprise Information Management

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Strategic HR Review

American Journal of Management

Management, Accounting and Pertormance Measurement

Elsevier Management Accounting Research

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences

Long range planning

Advances in AccOunting

Sage Organizational Dynamics

European Management Journal
Critical Perspectives on Accounting

Strategic Organization
Vikalpa
Willey Public Administration Review
Australian Journal of Public Administration
International Journal of Management Reviews
Journal of International Acounting, Auditing, and Taxation
Taylor & Francis
European Accounting Review
Others Strategic Finance
Scandinavian Journal of Management
Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting
Advanced Topics in Global Information
Journal of Knowledge Management
Indian Management Studies Journal
International Journal of Globalisation and small business
Prabandhan: Indian Journal of
Management
Economia Aziendale Online
The Accounting Review
Harward Business Review
Pacific Business Review International 28
2017 *Reetesh K. Smgh **Simple Sethi
23
Conference Papers PMA conference. Boston USA
Management Accounting Section(M AS) Meeting Paper
Books

Review of Balanced Scorecard Literature A. Origin and Evolution

The extensive review of BSC literature reveals that
the BSC has been studied from various
including origin, conceptual evolution, acceptance,
diffusion, execution &
implications, critical
usage, performance
assessment,
and drivers
consequences ot adoption of BSC (Hoque & James,
2000; Ax and Bjornenak, 2005; Madsen and Stenheim,
2015). In the current study, an attempt is made to
achieve an in-depth understanding of the various
facets of BSC, as viewed by scholars. Figure 1, below
illustrates an outline of eight significant themes of
BSC Research. These identified eight themes are
further presented in detail here.
NOlginand Evolution
3omance Outcomes
copseruences.oithe.BSC
E 5.B5C6 Shortcomings
.BSC Studies Conducted In india 3
The Balanced Scorecard
viewpoints (BSC) since inception has evolved considerably
and developed dynamically in its essentials and
contents (Braam and Nijssen, 2004; Bible, Kerr,
& Zanini, 2006; Cooper, zzamel, & Qu, 2012).
Over these years, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996,
2001, 2004, 2006, and 2008) have shared different
shades and colors of BSC through their writings
Over the
years. It has emerged as robust strategic
pertormance system from merely a tool to measure
performance. The popularity of BSC could be
gauged as books authored by Kaplan & Norton
have been translated many times in various
languages (Hoff & Holving, 2002; Bukh & Malmi,
2005; Olve & Sjostrand, 2006; Frigo, 2012). A series
of studies on BSC has been found discussing its
origin and neW avatars. Some major contributors
are Marr & Neely, 2003; Marr & Adams, 2004; and
Niven, 2005. In addition to this, the practitioners
and management consultants have also been
playing an active role in the evolution of BSC (Ax
&Bjornenak, 2005; Bukh & Malmi, 2005).The latest
BSC model offers an enhanced and holistic outlook
of the firms and can be adopted with an assortment
of perspectives suitable to each case. (Dechow,
2012; Kaplan, 2012). Table II. Below, presents a
synoptic view of conception and evolution of BSC
by its originators (Kaplan, 2012).

Figure 1. An outline of significant themes of BSC

Research
Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan & Norton
Table II: Brief outline of Conceptual evolution of
as

Title Year Significant findings

R introduced as Multidimensional tool of pertormance
1. The Balanced Scorecard Measures 1992 BSC

that drive pertormance. management.

Considers both financial as well as non financial perspectives.

internal business
Breakthrough classification into financial, customer,
process, learning, and growth.
and not merely a pertormance
2.
Putting Balanced Scorecard to Work. | 1993 | BSC is wholesome management system
measurement tool.
element.
Efficient BSC mandatory to have transparency VISIOn,
and companies
between BSC Measures
Complete alignment
and technology.
goals, practices, culture,
Most suitable for initiating a change practice.
 Amity
Global
Biusiness Rerner
September
24

Praoression ofBSC from a tooi to m e a s u r e pertornmance to strate

1996 pertormance management approach.
3. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating|
strategies into action. Transformationof Measures to link to ench other in a causal relationc
in learning and growth as well as internal busin
siness
Slight alterations
process perspective.

Recognition of four vital steps assisting successful implementati

tion
ofBSC.
Construction of strategy maps.
2001 into operational termns
focused organizations:
. The Strategv Transforming strategy
scorecard companies business to generate synergies
How Balanced Harmonising the
Environment. awareness, deining goals (personal as well as
thrive in new Business
Developing strategic
the team) and securing alignment.
Driving through managerial support.
change
2004 Pictorialdepiction of strategy through maps
intangible cause &ettect relation amid BSC
5.Strategy maps: converting
outcomes.
Illustrative justification of
assets into tangible
Perspectives.
strategic alignment between
The balanced 2006 Creating corporate synergies by securing
6. Alignments: Using Four perspectives
scorecard to create corporate synergies.
investors and boards
amid external partners

Supervising the complete alignment

process.
model.
Alliances are central to company's business
7. Managing alliances with the | 2010 alliances fail traditionally
Fifty percent of the corporate
as they are
Balanced Scorecard.
organized and managed.
The alliance strategy map can make corporate alliances successful.
The collaboration theme scorecard serves as governance system to
monitor progress.
As a result, the total cycle time got reduced by forty percent|
approximately.
8. The Balanced Scorecard: The 2012 The published work on BSC has ignored the role it plays in strategy
comments on balanced Scorecard| execution.
commentaries. It highlights the role of BSC in strategy formulation, communication,
and implementation.

B. Acceptance of BSC et al, 2012) In a study of Swedish Firms, Ax and

BSC has been widely accepted and adopted by Bjornenak (2005) have discovered that promoters
the organizations around the globe (Rigby and like consultation firms keenly led to diffusion of
Bilodeau, 2007). There have been many studies to the BSC among organizations. Also, BSC has been
explore the manner in which BSC is adopted and time and again customized by the consultants to

diffused in organizations (Ax and Bjornenak, 2005;
Braam and Nijssen, 2004; Malmi, 2001). Madsen
and Stenheim (2015) suggested that these studies
can primarily be evaluated from
Supply side BSC studies and demand side BSC
studies. Though supply side studies
represent
promoters aspect of BSC like consultants, advisors,
BSC software etc. whereas, the demand side studies
refer to user aspects ike top
of the concept, i.e.
management/clients
organizations and managers.
Researchers have discovered that diverse
promoter
aspects like certifiedpractitioners,business schools,
consultation agencies, professional bodies, public
sector organizations,
play a significant role in BSC
dissemination (Braam and Nijssen, 2004; Cooper
suit the requirement of the local markets. More
recently Cooper et al. (2012) have investigated how
Kaplan and Norton over all these years have been
two aspects - instrumental in popularising and promoting BSl.
Similarly, literature has traces of lot many studies
exploring BSC from the demand-side aspect. In their
landmark study, Speckbacher, Bischof, & Pieifler,
2003 have concluded the adoption of BSC among
publically traded German-speaking firms to be quite
mpressive. Marr & Adams (2004) discovered that
n the USA almost 50 percent of 500 corporate have
well-adopted BSC. In India, the study by Anand and
Sahay (2005), the BSC adoption rate has been touna
to be 45
percent in Indian companies which is qu
 "Reetesh K. Singh **Simple Sethi
promising in relation lo western counterparts. Rigby
and Bliodeau (20O7) stated that in a worldwide
Survey, 66 percent of the respondent companies
have declared to be BSC adopter. Wiserma (2009) is
the view that prime reasons for BSC popularity are
its capability to promote self-evaluation mechanism
and rational decision making. Consequently, the
impressive BSC adoption rate is largely attributed
to its global appeal as a potent management system
(Dechow, 2012).
C. Execution and Usage of BSC
The successful execution of BSC
framework
throughout the organizations is to effective
a means
realization of plans and objectives (Ahn, 2001).
The literature reveals that prime reason for BSC's
alluring Global Appeal is the possibility of its wide
interpretations (Ax and Bjornenak, 2005; Hansen and
Mouritsen, 2005). However, appropriate elucidation
of the fundamental notion of BSC is a precondition
for captivating its true essence (Braam et al., 2007).
The originators of BSC, Kaplan, and Norton also
remarked that it can be adapted to user's unique
situational need. As per the notional standpoint,
the BSC is assumed to be a 'plastic model which
Comprises of few core essentials that can be traced
across diverse translations and adaptations (Madsen
and Stenheim, 2015). The rationale behind
existence of contradictory elucidation of the BSC is
diverse
First, the awareness among users about the
version of the BSC as found from literature (Braam
to
and Nijssen, 2004) and secondly, the exposure
different mediators like consultants, practitioners
etc., who promote BSC in their own unique way (Ax
and Bjornenak, 2005; Madsen and Stenheim, 2015).
et al.
In addition to this researcher like, Soderberg
model is custom-
(2011) have publicised that BSC
made and can be adapted to suit the practical
FuYther, deep
expectations of every organization.
within the BSC usage
exploration of patterns existing
at different times has highlighted the existence of
as "BSC
diverse classifications popularly referred to
reveals that
typologies'. The review of BSC literature
classifications as
there are primarily five different
Suggested by the researchers like Speckbacher
et
al. (2003), Cobbold & Lawrie (2002), Brudan (2005),
et al., (2014).
oderberg et al., (2011) and Perkins
lhe comparative analysis between these typologies
BSC version
clearly demarcates between 'Basic measurement
Which merely talks about performance
of
and the 'Advanced' version which comprises
modified theoretical elements like strategy maps,
25
casual linkages, reward compensation plans etc.
As can be seen, Speckbacher et al. (2003) in this
study has identified three versions of BSC adopted
across organizations as Type -l, I, and III. The
minimum standard BSC is denoted as Type i
since it is indicative of the original BSCintroduced
by Kaplan & Norton (1992). Type II refers to the
'moderately-developed BSC" and Type III refers to
the 'Fully- developed BSC symbolizing the most
sophisticated type of BSC being used, and consist
of advances rudiments like linkage to rewards and
compensation plans. On the other hand, Cobbold
and Lawrie (2002; 2004) have categorized BSC in 3
generations: First, Second & third. Whereas, Brudan
(2005) has differentiated between five versions of BSC
usage: reporting, functional, and control, alignment,
complete. Further, Soderberg et al, (2011) have
propounded five BSC level with Level 1 being the
basic BSC and Level 5 being the most superior one.
More recently, Perkins et al. (2014) in his work have
differentiated between three generations of BSCs as
1.0, 2.0, 3.0.Where BSC 1.0 denotes to the simplest
as basic PMS, whereas BSC
BSC merely working
3.0 connotes to latest generation BSC working as
the advanced version. Though, it is discovered that
merely 10% of the businesses utilize advanced BSC
still, by far typology advocated by Speckbacher et
the al, (2003) is the most well accepted, adopted and
cited typology in BSC literature.
The prime reason for this inconsistency in BSC
versions has been the difference in the time frame
of these studies and their corresponding articles
publication (Madsen and Stenheim, 2015). As
the awareness regarding BSC increased among
companies across countries, adoption of its better
version has initiated.
D. BSC's Performance Outcomes
the pertormance outcomes ot
While exploring
BSC, the researchers have raised their concern
the existence of the actual effect of BSC
regarding
on performance, as claimed by studies in the past.
into
It's been discovered that making an inquiry
the performance outcome of BSC adoption is taxing
(Madsen &
job from a methodological perspective
because BSC research
Stenheim, 2015). Primarily,
literature has traces of difterent manners of gauging
BSC. Where o n one hand,
the 'performance effect' of
on the BSC concept's
the studies focused explicitly
effect o n organizational pertormance
(Braam and
few others stressed o n implicit
Nijssen, 2004), then
outcomes of BSC adoption like the behavioral
 Amity
Global
Bustness Reveu
September
26 explanation of the cause and effect relationshiip
to 11, no and
Also.
indicators.
(DeGeuser et al., 2009). Adding up comprises of enduring Aparis
aspects
to be perfectly
comparable
Caudeli (2008) and De Geuser et al., (2009) have
two studies appeared like
aspects substantiation connected to
other they differ in many of given pragmatic the
to each as
the m o m e n t
in time
strategic administration on the basis of di
methodologies and
samples, difficulties in
comparing approaches. In theirs
study, Aparisi Caudeli (20081
led to
data collection. This Nevertheless,
effectiveness of BSC as a robust strs
of the findings of
these diverse
studies.
found proved the system. They further highlighted B
management BSC
BSC studies
it has been
lot many no ettect
Teviewing a
this question
varies from
efficacy with
factors like strategic compressiow
a n s w e r to
that the evident effect. making, and
to slight indirect effect
to clearly tactical decision
However, it was established
performance
that BSC
have evaluation.
DeGeuser et al. (2009) aids organizational pertormance hu
Researchers ike
to enhance
significantly
allowing effective transformation of the tegies
indicated BSC to be capable enough the
by following Geuser et al, 2009
performance into working plans (De
the organizational
strategic plans. At the the Bsc
execution of organization's
it s e e m s tricky
Subsequent to comprehenSively reviewing
same time, others
have stated that
between literature, Atkinson
& Brander Brown, (2001) have
association
a direct m e a n s for directing organization
evidently proclaim stated that BSC ais
and BSC adoption (Davis
to
of the strategy attainment claimine
organizational performance Farneti in the direction
Braam & Nijssen, 2004; destination but the means for
& Albright, 2004; exist numerous that it's not the final
Moreover, there another investigation, Quinlivan
& Guthrie, 2008).
variables explaining
the achieving it. In
the allocation of financial
mediating and moderating (2000), has propagated
organizational performance objectives the
association between
awards to employees for achieving
(Madsen and Stenheim, 2015). the strategy. Askarany
and BSC adoption of effectively implementing
o n how it
has been
BSC effects also largely depend to comprehend it by carrying
and implemented by
the (2006) has attempted characteristics of the
inferred, comprehended,
o n e s implementing
it as basic out a study of the adopters while
organizations as the BSC. Braam & Nijssen (2008) investigating
outcomes than the o n e s
PMS tend to achieve diverse discovered Top management
tool (Davis & the BSC antecedents
adopting it as a strategic management driver. Yet there exists a wide
2004). Further, it also support to be prime BSC
Albright,2004; Braam&Nijssen, of antecedents of
BSC if is in harmony scope for deep exploration
established that application of
have a tendency (Lucianett, 2013).
with organization's strategic plans
(Davis
to enhance performance and competitiveness
BSC is discovered to be F. Consequences of the BSC
& Albright, 2004). Further, is
shareholder returns being a robust Since BSC drivers are expected to envisage
offering better the consequences
(Crabtree & DeBusk, adoption, and then consequently
strategic management system of this interaction.
2008). pertain to the outcomes arising out the most
As mentioned in the earlier section,
enhance
the BSCis to
E. Determinants of the BSC important motivation to employ
referred to the organizational performance.
For instance, ltner
The determinants also commonly
& Larker (2003) while inspecting the relatio
as drivers or antecedents
and conote to those
the way for the between BSC use and shareholders
returns could
construct, which has paved u
evidence between
development of BSC. BSC determinants are factors not succeed in finding any
tound
DeBusk (2008)
encouraged organizations to adopt BSC In contrast, Crabtree &
which have two. BSC adoption o
of a positive effect of
by substituting it for their existing performance tne validation
of the view
that
i
measurement systems. Past researchers like Aparisi market returns. Malmi (2001) is
have (2009) in which BSC is applied tends to caus
Caudeli (2008) and De Geuser et al., manner shoula

drivers i.e. antecedents that hence consequences

attempted to explore the consequences to vary;
with BSC tyPO
persuade organizalions to adopt BSC. The BSC is De appraised in accordance
version used,
an indispensable asset for all type of organizations, AISo, more advanced the BSC
it
because it generates a favorable environment for consequences a and
Superior the performance antecedens
endows them with studying the have
organizational learning and Lucianetti (2013)
found many organizatioti
vital information in a precise manner (Marr & COnsequences of BSC
unication

communo

wholesome system oftering an Deen employing BSC for strategy

n a l level.
Adams, 2004). It is a
all-inclusive control mechanism along with a clear as well organizatnoa
Process at the employee
2017
Further, Yemeshvary, Upadhyay, & Palo (2013)
have discOvered that BSC
implementation results
in enhanced employee
engagement
along with the
creation of pertormance-oriented work culture as
impressive BSC consequences.
G. BSC's shortcomings
Notwithstanding its universal fame and its
appreciation as an intluential business model, the
BSC is not free from certain limitations. Though a
great number of organizations have adopted the
BSC, many of them have to stumble upon troubles
while trying to establish it in their respective
businesses. The literature reveals that BSC has been
criticized from various perspectives time and again.
Primarily the shortcomings identified by most of the
researchers are as follow:
a) The assumed causal reiationships: BSC is most
commonly criticised for its assumed causal
relationships among lead and lag indicators as
well as within its four perspectives. Norreklit
& Mitchell, (2014) have established that causal
relationship among four perspectives of BSC is
not found to be convincing enough. Whereas
Perkins et al. (2014) are of the view that its
Reetesh K. Singh **Simple Sethi
27
Antonsen, (2014) while investigating the impact
of BSC on
Norwegian banks has discovered
that due to BSCs inherent control mechanism
there is complexity in free information
cooperation, and learning in the organization.
sharing,
c)The fundamental assumption of rational top-
down approach: The review of BSC literature
show traces of a fundamental assumption of
rational top-down approach which means
that organizations are, in general, rational and
influential. This necessitates the typical process
where strategies are drafted at top management
level and communicated to lower level for
implementation. In particular, Norreklit (2000)
has raised the concern regarding this assumption
by enquiring whether this approach of the top-
down philosophy is intrinsic to the BSC notion
and if yes is it a fine preparatory ground for their
effective implementation. In addition, researchers
like Whittington (2003), and Jarzabkowski & Spee
(2009) have criticised this top-down approach
from practical implication viewpoint of BSC in
the field of strategy and organization studies.
d) Mere management fad: Most commonly the
BSC has been time and again criticised as any

quite difficult to carry out critical appraisal in other Management Fad. Quite a few researchers
this regard as it tends to focus on three diverse have referred to BSC as 'management fashion'
lacks namely time element lack, transparency as it of all the typical features of
comprises
lack about the associations amid the divergent
managenment fad (Malmi, 2001; Madsen, 2015).
BSC measures, and lack of information about It has been mentioned in the previous section
causal relationships amid performance and of adoption and diffusion that promoter aspect
have of those
measure. Thompson & Mathys, (2008) comprises players which have been
between diverse concerned with the job of popularising and
identified that the alignment
et
threat to effective BSC diffusing BSC (Ax & Bjornenak, 2005; Cooper
BSC indicators poses a
(2012) has On top of
implementation. However, Kaplan al., 2012; Madsen & Stenhiem, 2015).
that critics are with
countered this criticism by stating it, the BSC's well evident popularity along
BSC in researchers
Overlooking the positive role played by high adoption rates reported by many to
in their studies makes it quite appealing
strategy implementation.
inuovatio11, organizations.
b)Detrimental to crea tiveness,
studies have e)BSC is just an old concept promoted innovatively:
and learning: The previous Larcker (2003) have
implications BSCs Researchers like lttner &
highlighted the negative to the c o n c e r n that if
BSC is just a 'consulting
BSC tends hamper raised
has for organizations. reintroduced
among which is repackaged and
i n n o v a t i o n and learning product the rebranding
Creativity, Voelpel, as new management tool by
firms. In their study information in n e w style.
employees of BSC that BSC notion of already existing
stated BSC
Leibold, & Eckhoff (2006) innovation For illustration, it
has been proved that the
and
1s detrimental to creativity similar way as its old counterparts
organizational performs in a
fabricated well-built 2005;
due to unfavorable for Board does (Bessire & Baker,
like Tableau de
it is
internal control. Further, with the only difference
which function
tailored to the
Epstein& Manzoni, 1997) notion
the growth of
organizations Board is a
industries. Similarly, that Tableau de
in knowledge-intensive
 Global
Business Reve
SeptembT
Amty
Sanchar Nigam
Lid (BSNL), Makl
study at Bharat
more found that the overall imn
whilst BSC is (2011) have
French society and ideology, & & Kumar the BSNL employero
on
oriented management
concept (Epstein of BSC) is optimistic commitment which
US and
satistaction
motivation,
Manzoni, 1997). on
organizational
Conducted In has a positive impact
Studies has, in turn, & Hussain
H. View of BSC the other hand, Farooq
Synoptic effectiveness. On
and usage of
the acceptance
India
discovered that (2011) while studying
literature it is undertakings like BHEL, SAIL
Reviewing the in Indian BS in public sector the prime motive
established that
balanced scorecard
has been well adopted IOCL and BPCL
In India, and improve
since its inception. is to create change
Business Organizations in the year behind BSCs usage al. (2013) while
BSC commenced Yemeshvary et
the studies exploring to get an performance. engagement dynamics
when Anderson & Lanen, aiming
1999 investigating employee
accounting of BSC implementation
has
the management the process
understanding of performance during
the organizational implementation brings about
practices studied that the disclosed that BSC and improved
firms. It's discovered
model of 14 Indian model an enhanced
employee engagement
performance Pathak
Indian firms' organizational execution. In a recent study by
additional external perspectives strategy Indian companies are
from having been found that
apart traditional (2014), it has
the significance of in the developmentof
also emphasized the their employees
measures. Also for involving in
productivity-enhancing obtain active participation
Balanced Scorecard to
formulation the importance
of strategy organization's strategic management.
purpose
has been to internal information on process
given satisfaction
information on customer
variations, Discussion and Conclusion
In a survey of sixty
and competitors' performance. of objective critical analysis
medium and large Indian manufacturing
companies, Undertaking process Balanced
literature on the
modern corporate of the relevant available
Joshi(2001) reported that though modern been made to achieve a
to adopt Scorecard, an attempt has
India is under the pressure
the BSC still the of BSC notion. Over the course,
management tools including deep understanding which BSC has primarily
evaluation relies heavily on
the use the major critical a r e a s in
performance identified and explored. The
a reasonable u s e been researched are
of financial m e a s u r e s followed by been to make a valuable
the n o n - financial aim of the current study has
of customer satisfaction ignoring contribution towards BSC theoretical knowledge
credit for conducting a highly
perspective. The base by identifving the significant research gap.
the Balanced Scorecard's
comprehensive study on several
and experiences in
adoption, execution, where it has review of the BSC
Indian companies goes to Pandey (2005) Through systematic in-depth has been
as a tool narrative it has been discovered that BSC
been discovered that BSC is widely accepted studied from various viewpoints like BSC conceptual
the companies
for driving organizational change by evolution (Norreklit, 2003; Bible et al., 2006; Kaplan
the earlier tools with BSC. This
as they have merged followed by
(Anand, Sahay, & Norton, 2008; Cooper et al., 2012),
has been further substantiated by the adoption and ditfusion of BSC in organizations
that most companies
& Saha, 2005) who concluded et al. 2005). In
an enhancement in their (Braam et al. 2002, 2007; Copper
agreed to have achieved and
the implementation addition to these, the BSC implenmentation
bottom lines as a result of
(Braam et
rate as good as 45% in usage have also been extensively explored
of BSC with the adoption Madsen,
Indian
it to Global BSC al. 2002, 2007; Hansen & Mouritsen, 2005;
companies. Comparing to the
the BSC adoption 2012). The next area of BSC researches pertains
adoption rate of 43.90 percent, et
found to be quite favorable Phases (types) of BSC employed by Speckbacher
rate in India has been
Brudan (2005),
Another study al. (2003), Cobbold & Lawrie (2002),
at 45.28
percent (Anand et al., 2005).
to examine et al., (2014)
Soderberg et al., (2011) and Perkins
by Singh & Kumar (2007) attempting framework followed by eftects of BSC use on pertormance
the Balanced scorecard's conceptual
and national of organisations (Davis & 2004; Braam
Albright,
along with its execution at the global
successful implementation & Nijssen, 2004; Farneti & Guthrie, 2008). Then
level, found that BSC has
Moreover, it's there are studies investigating BSC shortcomings
globally in various organizations. for driving has been
discovered that BSC when applied (Norreklit and Mitchell, 2014). However, it
effective in achieving identified that negligible attention has been pad
is quite
managerial changes, a i.e. antecedents of BSC and
renaissance. it forward while conducting to the
study predictors
Taking
201/ "Rectesh K. Singh **Simple Sethi
29
the outcomes 1.e. consequences of BSC. Though
Practices; The Case if india. Accounting,
researchers have tried to explore them separately Organizations and
Society, Vol.24, No.5, (July August), pp. 379-412. 379-412.
-

antecedents (Aparisi Caudeli (2008) and De Geuser 4. Antonsen, Y. (2014). Thedownside of Balanced Scorecard: A
.

et al, (2009) and consequences (Crabtree& De-
Busk, 2008; Der Zee & Jong, 1999; Ittner et al. 2003;
Malmi, 2001) but there is no evidence of any study
comprehensively investigating both antecedents
as well as consequences of BSC except Lucianetti
L& Perozzi D, (2010). Moreover, a plethora of
studies have been conducted in western countries
to investigate diverse BSC issues but there exists a
dearth of research in relation to developing nations,
specifically in relation to predictors and outcome of
BSC usage. Given this backdrop, the present study
proposes a model comprising antecedents and
consequences of Balanced Scorecard for performance
management of modern business organizations.
The proposed model intends to investigate into the
antecedents of BSC, evaluate the consequences of
BSC implementation with regard to the types of BSC
case study from Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
30 (1), 40-50.
5. Aparisi Caudeli, J. A., Giner Fillol, A., & Ripoll Feliu, V. M.
(2009). Analysis of the implementation process of a strategic
management system a case study of the Balanced Scorecard
at the Port Authority of Valerncia. Spanish Journal of Finance
and Accounting, 38 (142), 189-212.
6. Askarny, D. (2003). An Overview of the diffusion of advanced
techniques. Adranced Topics in Global Information, 2, 225-250.
7. Atkinson, H., & Brander Brown, J. (2001). Rethinking
performance measures: assessing progress in UK hotels.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
13 (3), 128-136.
8. Ax, C., & Bjornenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of
balanced
management accounting innovations- the case of the
scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 1-20.
9. Bessire, D., & Baker, C. R. (2005). The French Tableau de bord
and the American Balanced Scorecard: a critical analysis.

being used adopted from Speckbaker et al. (2003)

Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16 (6), 645-664.

model and lastly to bring out a model of BSC which 10. Bible, L., Kerr, S., & Zanini, M. (2006). The Balanced
Scorecard:

would integrate the Antecedents, Consequences and Here and Back. Management Accounting Quarterly, 7 (4), 18-26.
BSC in the most precise way. Figure 2. 11. Braam, G., & Nijssen, E. (2004). The performance
Effect Of
the Balanced Scorecard: A note of Dutch Experience.
using
Proposed Model 37 (4), 335-349.
Long Range Planning,
and
cedent:
Consequences 12. Brudan, A. (2005). Balanced Scorecard Typology
nte Organizational Impact. The actKM Online Journal of Knowledge
Figure 2. Proposed Model Management, 2 (1), 1-25.

the cause-and-
Future directions: Despite the 13. Bukh, P. N., & Malmi, T. (2005). Re-examining
Limitations and the Balanced Scorecard (J.Mouritsen & S.Jonsson
for an exhaustive principle of
effect
systematic approach adopted (Eds.) ed.). Stockholm: Liber: Northern Lights in Accounting.
certain limitations.
review of BSC literature, there are A. (2003). Measures vs actions:
the
review few selected 14. Carmona, S., & Gronlund,
As the current study is based on balanced scorecard in Swedish
Law Enforcement. International
to investigate
publications, so it has not been possible
1475-
& Production Management, 23 (12),
Journal of Operations
These limitations can
the BSC from all perspectives. 1496.
out studies in of
be assumed as the basis for carrying 15. Cobbold, I. E., & Lawrie,
G. G. (2002). The development
of Tools. PMA
future. In addition to this, empirical
exploration Balanced Scorecard a s Strategic
Management
allow its generalization. Boston USA: e2GC Conference
the proposed model will conference (pp. 1-9).
article offers n e w insights M., & Qu, S. Q. (2012).
Popularizing
The current conceptual 16. Cooper, D. J., Ezzamel, Balanced
further exploration. ldea: The Case of the
for a management Accounting
leading to opportunities make deeper AAA 2012 Management Accounting
studies could a Scorecard. (M. Paper, Ed.)
Future research
of Section(MAS) Mecting Paper
antecedents and consequences
investigation of The Effects Adopting of
& DeBusk, G. (2008).
BSC as identified in the current study. 17. Crabtree, A., Shareholder Returns.
Scorecard on
Advances in
the Balanced

24 (1), 8-15.
Accounting,
up! The essential
References L. (1991). Measure
an & Lynch, R.
balanced scorecard concept: 18. Cross, K. F.,
A h n , H. (2001). Applying the business performance
guide to easuring
441-461.
planning, 34 (4), Scorecard in
CXperience report. Long range Applying Balanced
scorecard & Bhatt, R. (2012).
Balanced 19. Dave, S. R., of the State Bank
& Saha, S. (2005). Sector: An Empirical Study
A n a n d , M., Sahay, B. S., DecIsion Makers, Indian Banking 108-20.
The Journal for Interational, 5 (6),
In Indian Companies. Vikalpa: Business Reviwrw
of India. Pacific
30 (2), 11-25.
Economic Transition,
Lanen, w.N. (1997).
Anderson, S. W., & Evolution OF Management
Accounting
trategy, and the
 Amity Global Business Review

20. Davis, S., &

September
Albright, T. (2004). An investigation of the ettectof 36. Kaplan, R. S., & Nortan, D. P.
(1996). Using the balanc.
Balanced Scorecard
implementation financial performaince.
on
scorecard as a
strategic management System. Harvard anced
Management Accounting Research, 15 (2), 135-153. Review, 74 (1), 75-85. Business
ess
21. Dechow, N. (2012). The Balanced
Scorecard-Subjects, 37. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alig1ment: Ising the
Concept, and Objects - A Commentary. Journal of Arcounting balanced scoreeard to crente
& Organizational Change, 8 (4), 511-527. corporate synCrgies. Harvard Business
Press.
DeGtuser, F., Mooraj, S., & Oyon, D. (2009). Does the Balanced 38.
Scorecard Add Value? Empirical Evidence on its Effect on
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Converting intangible
assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard
P'ertormance. European Accounting Rerview, 18 (1), 93-122.
School Press. Business
23. Epstein, M. ]., & Manzoni, ]. F.
(1997). The balanced scorecard 39. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced
and tableau de bord:
translating strategy into action. Strategic scorecard to work. 71, 137-147
Finance. 79 (2), 28.
24. Farneti, F., & Guthrie, ]. (2008). Italian and Australian Local
40. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced
scorecard:
measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Revie,
Governments: Balanced Scorecard Practices, A Research
70 (1), 71-79.
Note. Journal Of Human Resource
Costing and 12 Accounting,
(1), 4-13. 41. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy- focused
25. organization; How Balanced scorecard companies thrive in the nero
Farooq, A., & Hussain, Z. (2011). Balanced Scorecard business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Perspective on change and performance: A Study of selected School
Indian companies. Procedia-Social and Press.
Behavioural Scicnces, 24,
168-179 42. Kaplan, R.
S., Norton, D. P., & Rugelsjoen, B. (2010, Jan-Feb).
Managing Alliances with the Balanced Scorecard. pp. 114-121.
26. Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012).
Contemporary Pertormance Measurement Systems: A 43. Kravchuk, R. S., & Schack, R. W. (1996). Designing effective
review ot their
Consequences and a framework for research. pertormance-imeasurement systems Under the government
Management Accounting Research, 23 (2), 79-119. performance and results. Public Administration Review, 55 (4),
27. 348-358.
Frigo, M. L. (2012). The balanced scorecard: 20
years and
Counting. Strategic Finance, 94 (4), 49-53. 44. Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard:
28. Hansen, A., Mouritsen, J. (2005). Strategies and
& judgmental effects of common and
unique performance
measures. The Accounting Review, 75 (3), 283-298.
Organizational Problems: Constructing Corporate Value and
Coherences in Balanced Scorecard Processes. In 45. Lucianett, L. (2013). Antecedents and
Controlling Balanced Scorecard. Economia Aziendale consequences
of
Strategy: Management, Accounting and Performance Measurement Online, 4 (1), 19-32.
(pp. 125-150). New York:Oxford Universty Press: C. S.
46. Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure up-the essential
Chapman (Ed.),. guide to measuring business Performance. London: Mandarin.
29. Hoff, K. G., & Holving, P. A. (2002). Balansert Malstyring- 47. Madsen, D. O., &
Balanced Scorecard pa norsk. Oslo Stenheim, T. (2015). The Balanced
Universitetsforlaget. Scorecard: A review of five research areas. American Journa
30. Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking Balanced Scorecard of Management, 15 (2), 24-41.
Measures to Size and Market Factors:
Impact on Organizational 48. Makkar, U., & Kummar, H. (2011).
Performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12 of the balanced business scorecard
Impact of implementation
(1), 1-17. (BBSC) on
organizational
effectiveness: A case study of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd
Ittner, C. D., & Larker, D. F. (2003). Coming Up Short on (BSNL). Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 4 (1), 17-35.
Non- Financial Performance Measurement. Harvard Business
49. Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2001).
Rerew, 81 (11), 88-95. Comnunicating and
controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness
32. Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A of the balanced scorecard. Journal
of management accounting
review and future directions for the ficld. International research, 13 (1), 47-90.
Journ
of Management Revieres, 11 (1), 69-95. 50. Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced Scorecards in Finnish
A Research Note.
Companies:
33. Johanson, U., Skoog, M., Backlund, A., & Almqvist, R. (2006). Management Accounting Research, 12 (2),
Balancing dilemmas of the Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, 207-220.
Auditing and Accountabrl1ty Journal, 19 (6), 842-857 51. Marr, B., & Adams, C. (2004). The balanced scorecard and
4. Joshi, P. L. (2001). The International Diffusion of New intangible assets: similar ideas, unaligned concepts. Measuring8
Management Accounting Practices: The Case Of Indian. Business Excellenie, 8 (3), 18-27
Journal of lnternational Accounting, Auditing, and Taration, 10, 52. Marr, B., & Neely, A. (2003). Automating the balanced
85-1109.
scorecard-selection criteria to identity appropriate sottware
5. Kaplan, R. S. (2012). The balanced scorecard: comments on applications. Measiuring Business Excellence, 7 (3), 29-36.
balanced scorecard commentaries. Journal of Accounting and 53. Neely, A., Kennerley, M., & Martinez, V. (2004). Does the
Organizational Change, 8 (4), 539-545. Balanced Scorecard Work?An Empirical Investigation. The
 Rectesh K. Singh **Sinmple Sethi
2017
European Operations Managcment Association (EurOMA)
ntemational Conference, June 27-29. Fontainebleau.
54. Niven, P. R. (2005). Balanced scorecard diagnostics: Maintaining
maximum perfornarnce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
55. Norreklit, H. (2000). The Balance on the Balanced Scorecard:
A Critical Analysis of Some of its Assumptions. Management
Accounting Research, 65-88.
56. Norreklit, H., & Mitchell, E. (2014). Contemporary Issues on
the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Accounting and organizational
change, 10 (4).
57. Olve, N. G., & Sjostrand, A. (2006). The Balanced Scorecard.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
58. Pandey, I. M. (2005). Balanced Scorecard: Myth and Reality.
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 30 (1), 51-66.
59. Pandya, P. (2002). Keeping Score on Strategy. Indian
management, 30-38.
60. Pathak, R. (2014). Balanced Scorecard: A study of select
organizations, Unpublished thesis. Delhi, Delhi, India.
61. Perkins, M., Grey, A., & Remmers, H. (2014). What do we
really mean by "Balanced Scorecard"? International Journalof
and Performance Management, 63(2), pp. 148-168.
Productivity
63 (2), 148-169.
62. Presley, A., & Meade, L. (2010). Benchmarking for
Sustainability: an application to the sustainable construction
industry. Benchmarking: An international journal, 17 (3), 435-451.
63. Punniyamoorthy, M., & Murali, R. (2008). Balanced score for
the Balanced Scorecard: A benchmarking tool. Benchmarking-
an intermational journal, 15 (4), 420-443.
64. Quinlivan, D. (2000). Rescaling the Balanced Scorecard for
Local Government. Australian Journal of Public Administration,
59, 36-41.
65.
Rigby, D., &
Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain's Global 2007
anagement tools and trends survey. Strate8y and Leadership,
35 (5), 9-16.
66.
Rogers. (2003). Diffusion Of Innovation. New York: The Free
Press.
6/.
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review.
Managennent Rescarch News, 27 (6).
b6.
Sharma, M. K., Bhagwat, R., & Dangayach, G.,. (2005). The
practice of performance measurement: Experience from Indian
31
SMEs. International Journal of Globalisation and small business,
1 (2), 183-213.
69. Singh, M., & Kumar, S. (2007). Balanced Scoreca rd
Implementations- Global and Indian Experience. Indian
Management Studies Journal, 11, 21-39.
70. Soderberg, M., Kalagnanam, S., Sheehan, N. T., &
Vaidyanathan, G. (2011). When is a balanced scorecard a
balanced scorecard? International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 60 (7), 688-708.
71. Speckbacher, G. S., Bischof, J., & Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A
Descriptive Analysis of the Implementation of Balanced
Scorecards in German_speaking Countries. Management
Accounting Research, 14 (4), 361-387.
72. Taticchi, P., & Balachandran, K. R. (2008). Forward
performance measurement and management integrated
frameworks. International Journal of Accounting and Information
Management, 16 (2), 140-154.
73. Thompson, K. R., & Mathys, N. J. (2008). The aligned Balanced
Scorecard: An improved tool for building High-Performance
Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 37 (4), 378-393.
74. Valmohammadi, C., & Ahmadi, M. (2015). The impact
of Knowledge management practices on organiza tional
performance: A balanced scorecard approach. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 28 (1), 131-159
75. Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Eckhoff,R. A. (2006). The tyranny
of the Balanced Scorecard in the innovation
economy. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 7 (1), 43-60.
76. Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and
organizing: from a practice perspective. Strategic Organization,
1 (1), 117-125.
77. Wiserma, E. (2009). For which purpose do managers use
Balanced Scorecard? Management Accounting Research, 20 (4),
239-251
78. Wongrassamee, S., Simmons, J. E., & Gardiner, P. D. (2003).
Performance management tools: the balanced scorecard and
the EFQM Excellence Model. Measuring Business
7 (1), 14-29.
Excellence
79. Yemeshvary, A., Upadhyay, A., & Palo, S. (2013). Engaging
employees through balanced scorecard implementation.
Strategic HR Review, 12, 302-307.