sustainability

Article
Sustainability Reporting and Performance
Measurement Systems: How do Small- and Medium-
Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration?
Giorgia Nigri 1, * and Mara Del Baldo 2
1 Department of Economics, LUMSA University, Via Pompeo Magno 22, 00192 Rome, Italy
2 Department of Economics, Society, Politics, Urbino University, Via Saffi 42, 61029 Urbino, Iatly;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-3484987966




Received: 16 October 2018; Accepted: 26 November 2018; Published: 29 November 2018


Abstract: Benefit Corporations and B Corps represent alternative models of enterprise, often referred
to as “hybrid companies” that bridge the for-profit and not-for-profit models. Italy is the first
country outside the USA to pass Benefit Corporation legislation and introduce the Società Benefit.
A large number of Italian Benefit Corporations are small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs),
since SMEs are widespread within the entrepreneurial fabric and have great relevance in the Italian
socio-economic context. A key issue in the emerging debate on small- and medium-sized Benefit
Corporations concerns how these companies—with limited reach and considerable financial and
human resource constraints—can effectively absorb their added social responsibility. In particular,
such firms need to manage their dual mission, integrate social and environmental goals in their
business model, and incorporate accountability mechanisms, all while scaling up and garnering
the necessary resources to be economically competitive. Starting from these premises, this paper
focuses on the performance measurement and reporting systems that are adopted by SMEs that
are also Benefit Corporations, and investigates whether benefit impact assessment indicators
integrate into an overall sustainability performance management system. To achieve this goal,
an exploratory case-based analysis on seven small- and medium-sized Italian-certified Benefit
Corporations is presented.

Keywords: Benefit Corporations; B Corps; corporate social responsibility reporting; sustainable

management accounting systems; sustainable performance management systems; small and
medium enterprise

1. Introduction
Integrating sustainability indicators into daily decision-making is a fundamental element of
sustainability performance management systems (SPMS). Defined as the process of identifying social,
environmental, and economic drivers that influence the success of an organization and measuring
progress against those drivers [1], SPMS has been regarded as the best way to capture the complexity
of the triple bottom line framework (TBL) [2,3].
Sustainability is now seen as the business paradigm for the 21st century. Decisions regarding
corporate sustainability pose a significant dilemma for managers: to weigh social and environmental
concerns against economic results [4]. Pursuing missions that differ from shareholder value
maximization poses an even stronger need for all those forms of hybrid organizations, where the
focus is on multiple bottom lines, to monitor and measure the extra value created. Measuring social
impact takes on a pivotal role in this type of organization, since social value makes traditional

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499; doi:10.3390/su10124499 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 2 of 17

reporting unsuitable for organizations with a social purpose to prove their benefits for society [5–8].
Indeed, focusing on economic and financial results leads to a misrepresentation of the more far-reaching
impact that socially purposed organizations can create (and destroy) for society [7,9–11]. This is
particularly true for hybrid companies such as Benefit Corporations.
Benefit Corporations or B Corps have been recognized by legislation in the USA and Italy [12],
or certified by B Lab, a non-profit organization that measures public benefit through a third-party
standard [13–15]. In the first case (Benefit Corporations), there is a structured legal framework and an
obligation to draw up an annual report, while in the second case (B Corps), the company is assessed
by the benefit impact assessment (BIA), a tool through which a company discloses the impact of
its actions on the environment, workers, communities, customers, and business model [16]. Due to
their reinforced commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and a mission bound
to generate a public benefit, such organizations are a clear example of the convergence of for-profit
companies and a strong CSR focus [17–21].
In this scenario, McMullen and Warnick [22] underline a one-size-fits-all approach, and Stubbs
(2017) identified the relevant, vital themes to analyze their business model (mainly principal objectives,
measuring success, stakeholders, and influencing the sustainability agenda).
While many authors have contributed with conceptual frameworks to better understand and
integrate sustainability performance (SP) into business with specific figures and unique measurement
methods, building a comprehensive measure of performance and developing instruments to manage
multiple objectives is still a significant challenge [2,23–25] given the multiperspective character of
sustainability and the variety of goals and stakeholders involved [26].
This paper aims to extend the comprehension of SPMS by exploring the level of integration
of benefit impact assessment indicators into Benefit Corporation measurement, management,
and reporting systems. More specifically, the research seeks to address whether Benefit Corporations
have set the basis for a truly integrated overall sustainability performance management system guided
by a single measure—the Benefit Impact Assessment.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Correlation between Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Performance and Management
Accounting Systems
Two critical factors emerge when analyzing the management of CSR reporting: the level
of formalization and the level of integration into the day-to-day sustainability management [3].
For sustainability practices to work, it is essential for SP to integrate the essence of
sustainability into daily decision-making and accountability processes, including sustainability
reporting [27–29]. Sustainability should be disseminated into every business process throughout
the organization [2,26,30–33].
Multicriteria decision theory is suggested in the literature as being appropriate to orchestrate
the multiple pieces of knowledge relating to sustainability [34] and to support sustainability
decisions [35–37]. So far, though, proposals have not provided a single balanced measure that
captures the complexity of the TBL and integrates it into management control systems (MCSs) [2].
Most strikingly, findings indicate that different management practices lead to similar outcomes [3],
and aggregation plays a significant role in extracting useful information from data and communicating
it to stakeholders as a sole measure [35].
The body of knowledge regarding performance measurement, management accounting systems,
and corporate social responsibility is vast [38–40]. To make sense of the literature, the correlations
among the various research topics were analyzed and summarized in a table. Tables 1 and 2 introduce
the contributions that examine the relations between sustainability and performance management and
highlight the ties among corporate social responsibility, sustainability performance, and management
accounting approaches. Synergies are found when studying the tools and instruments that are
used to measure, manage, and report sustainability and regular business processes [41–43], such as
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 3 of 17

sustainability balance scorecards and performance measurement system indicators. For example,
if we look at the intersection in Table 1 between CSR measurement and SP reporting, we find that by
disclosing sustainability information, companies aim in fact to increase transparency; enhance brand
value, reputation, and legitimacy; enable benchmarking against competitors; signal competitiveness;
motivate employees; and support corporate information and control processes.

Table 1. Publications focused on the correlations among corporate social responsibility, sustainability
performance, and management accounting measurement, management, and reporting approaches.

Sustainability Performance
Corporate Social
Measurement Management Reporting
Responsibility
The main reasons for
SIA has important benefits for companies to publish a
organizations, both as a sustainability report (SR) are
Social impact assessment (SIA)
management tool, enabling a to communicate with
models include the Social
deep understanding of how stakeholders about
Social Impact Return On Investment, the
best to allocate resources to non-market issues; to secure or
Assessment Social Accounting and Audit,
maximize social outcomes [47], increase legitimacy, credibility,
and the Global Reporting
and to assess if the and corporate reputation; and
Initiative [9,44–46].
organization is achieving its to motivate employees to deal
targeted social mission [48]. with sustainability issues and
benchmarking [49–52].
The role of performance
management systems (PMSs) Through SR, companies aim to
For an integrated management
is to enable the definition of enhance transparency, brand
of sustainability issues,
objectives to be fulfilled by value, reputation, and
environmental, social,
management towards legitimacy; enable
financial, and risk
Measurement sustainability outcomes. This benchmarking; signal
performance indicators should
allows firms to identify critical competitiveness; motivate
be combined into an overall
areas, define Key Performance employees; and support
performance measurement
Indicators (KPIs), and corporate information and
system [26,28,31].
efficiently distribute scarce control processes [56–58].
resources [53–55].
The evolution of sustainability
reporting as an endpoint for
SP management encompasses
any framework for
practices to improve
Up to now, SP management sustainability performance
environmental and social
has been mostly related to management is strongly
performance and is related to
environmental performance influenced by a number of
management systems, which
management, promoting contingent factors, of which
can be supported by
Management initiatives to prevent, mitigate, two stand out: guidance
consolidated frameworks such
or control negative documents and
as the European
environmental impacts, and quasi-standards such as the
Eco-Management and Audit
compliance with Global Reporting Initiative
Scheme, ISO1400, OHSAS
regulation [30]. (GRI) and International
18001, SA8000, and
Integrated Reporting Council,
ISO26000 [59–61].
and reporting, competitions,
and rankings [62,63].
Reporting guidelines, such as
Standardization of SR enables
GRI, and accountability
comparison between firms.
approaches can serve as an Management and reporting of
The GRI is the leader in the
input for elaborating an SP present close connections,
development of a triple
adequate SP measurement as one can serve as an input
bottom line (TBL) framework
system for internal for the other. For instance,
Reporting that enhances the utility of
decision-making. SP reporting indicators related to social and
these publications. SP
addresses how the environmental practices can be
reporting is not synonymous
performance assessed can be included as part of the
with sustainability accounting,
used to elaborate disclosure reporting framework [68,69].
but contributions can be
and communicate
complementary [70].
performance [64–67].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 4 of 17

In the same way, if we look at the intersection in Table 2 between the CSR measurement and
management accounting systems (MAS) tools such as the sustainability balance scorecard (SBSC),
we find that the SBSC is an approach that is targeted to improve the integration of environmental,
social, and economic aspects of corporate sustainability measurement with management [71]. It focuses
the attention of management on key performance measures, including both financial and nonfinancial
measures [72].

Table 2. Publications focused on the correlations among corporate social responsibility, management
accounting systems, and measurement, management, and reporting approaches.

Management Accounting Systems

Corporate Social Sustainability Balanced Scorecard
Performance Measurement Systems
Responsibility (SBSC)
Today, SIA is applied in many different
settings, and it has become an integral
In order for sustainability indicators to part of corporate social responsibility
become effective in a company, a [74]. Scholars have become aware that
Social Impact Assessment systemic approach such as the SBSC is social impact measurement tools
required to determine which indicators (traditionally disseminated to meet
are strategically relevant [32,73]. regulatory requirements) could also
measure corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities [17].
Considering that corporate PMSs,
indicators, and bonuses may affect their
The SBSC is an approach that is targeted actions and decision-making [75], any
to improve the integration of company aiming to be sustainable must
environmental, social, and economic develop a PMS that can incorporate
aspects of corporate sustainability sustainability performance measures in
Measurement measurement and management [71]. It a normatively desirable sustainable
focuses the attention of management on scenario [76,77], creating a series of
key performance measures, including aligned consequences. Such a system
both financial and nonfinancial may be useful to provide information
measures [72]. for decision-makers, to promote
organizational learning, and to
encourage stakeholder engagement [78].
Once the SBSC, including the strategy
A PMS can influence corporate results,
map and the performance indicators, is
since it directly impacts managers’
developed for the company, the
actions and decisions [75]. An SPMS can
management challenge is to translate
be defined as the system of indicators
the strategic considerations into the
Management that provides management with the
information and accounting system in
necessary information to assist in the
order to collect the relevant information
management, control, planning, and
to support a successful consideration of
performance of its socio-economic
the strategically relevant sustainability
activities [80].
issues [32,79].
When defining performance indicators,
firms need to consider the purpose of
One way to establish links between the
those indicators, the unit of analysis,
measurement of corporate social and
and the level in the organization [81,82].
environmental issues and its business
Firms need to critically analyze their
Reporting success is to determine KPIs with the
performance measurement systems,
SBSC and to orientate the accounting
assessing if they are appropriate for
systems towards the provision of the
managing business or if their function is
necessary data for these indicators [26].
solely to satisfy stakeholders’ needs or
pressures [83–86].

The literature points out factors that motivate firms toward sustainability reporting, such as
to address an increasing demand for transparency [87], to enhance the corporation’s reputation
and brand image [81], to influence investor and customer decisions [88–91], to react after negative
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 5 of 17

media attention [92], and to follow legal obligations. The most exciting evolution of the literature,
however, is the intensification of interest in investigating how SP integrates into business strategy
and management [30]. SP measurement requires business managers to define the goals and criteria
of what is understood by corporate sustainability performance with stakeholders and to establish a
measurement and reporting system that supports the management and communication of those
indicators [32]. Stakeholders should participate (directly or indirectly) in the definition of the
indicators by adopting disclosure protocols, such as those outlined in the GRI, or through engagement
processes [2]. The stakeholder engagement and participatory processes should, in fact, produce
goals that are jointly derived, and sustainability reporting should help to collect, classify, analyze,
and compare performance targets to those goals—to develop improvement plans that move the
company toward sustainability accordingly [26].
Despite the importance of building a corporate sustainability image and promoting external
sustainability reporting, scholars highlight that the development of management solutions to
systematically follow the integration of sustainability into business strategy is still an issue [93,94].
Firms that claim to be sustainable should have a performance measurement system (PMS) that
measures SP, since what cannot be measured cannot be managed [95,96].

2.2. Integration of Impact and Accountability

The aforementioned critical aspect has brought about the convergence of two major topics which
have become of interest both for academics and for business: social impact assessment (SIA) and the
integrative management of sustainability performance. The latter is conceived to be a management
tool linking business strategy and sustainability communications and reporting with performance
management [32] through sustainable management accounting systems (SMASs). The first, as a
measurement tool, incorporates social and environmental dimensions of sustainability in programs
and projects [9]. Companies have begun to assess, manage, and monitor the social impacts that
occur during project implementation to improve their internal strategies and to respond proactively
to change [23,97–100]. Miller et al. [101] developed a framework based on five social dimensions
that enable the identification, quantification, and comparability of social impact reporting and the
identification of measurement tools to link SIA to CSR and to aid in the decision-making process.
MASs partner in management decision-making in the same way, devising management tools and
providing expertise in financial reporting and in control functions to assist in the formulation and
implementation of an organization’s strategy through balanced scorecards and measurement systems.
However, a lack of integration between financial and nonfinancial goals and between SP indicators
and strategic performance measurement systems remains [102].
To promote corporate SP means that sustainable development challenges must be
incorporated [103,104] through operational practices [105] and business strategy [106]. The internal
context that is needed to facilitate this process includes the integration of sustainability into strategic
plans [107]; a formal declaration of the importance of sustainability to the firm [108]; and corporate
governance and top management support [109–111], including a formal organizational policy [112],
commitment to ethics [113], and a shared organizational culture [114].

2.3. A Hybrid Solution: Benefit Corporations

Several publications deal with the incorporation of sustainability into specific aspects of
business [31], but they consider a single measure as a technocratic illusion, no matter how sophisticated
it might be [26].
Meanwhile, Certified B Corps and Benefit Corporations offer a comprehensive measure that
is inclusive of legal framework, certification, and rating standards. Through their assessment,
the BIA, they have come up with a unique form of measurement which also functions as a
guidance for management and as a standard for reporting that is integrated into their performance
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 6 of 17

management system. The most effective corporate structure for scaling SP, in fact, seems to be the
Benefit Corporation.
Benefit Corporations are for-profit companies that are committed to creating a benefit in addition
to their for-profit motive [15]. The Benefit Act introduced by Maryland in 2010 gives directors and
officers the legal protection to pursue a public benefit while expanding the obligations of boards,
requiring them to consider environmental and social factors as well as the financial interests of
shareholders [115]. In states and countries where the law is still not active, B Lab, a third party such as
the U.S. Green Building Council, Underwriters Laboratory, Green Seal, or Global Reporting Initiative
is present with its certification process [13].
Although their goal remains the same—using business as a force for good [21]—these two
phenomena are separate: The Benefit Corporation status is a legal form of a corporation, while the B
Corp B Lab certification is a seal of fitness to the standards [15]. To become certified B Corps, companies
have to achieve a score of 80 or above (which indicates value creation on top of profits) on the BIA [15].
The process involves inserting company data into the algorithm developed by B Labs’ standards
advisory council, a committee of independent members—respected in the field for their wisdom and
with full industry or stakeholder expertise that adequately represents the diverse interests covered by
the assessment—that holds itself above B Lab [116].
The BIA, an evolution of the SIA utilized to rate projects and as a B Corp index [117], measures
impact on the following areas: workers, community, environment, customers, and governance.
These areas, evaluated through questions, weighted averages, and calculations, consider the impact
that the company may generate, the standards and certifications it has obtained, implemented in-house
practices, community involvement, and value chain activities. Once the process evaluates the general
impact of the business, the company that completes the assessment process (which lasts about six
weeks) can add the B Corp certification to its products and website. Results can also be utilized to
help prepare the annual Benefit Report, which Benefit Corporations are required to make available
to the public (except in Delaware), as the BIA is also one of the third-party standards that meets the
statutory requirements for such a report [118]. Lastly, the B Corp Benchmarks can be used to compare
and improve a company’s social and environmental performance.
In this context, the goal of the present exploratory research is to investigate the corporate
performance measurement systems put in place by Benefit Corporations and to analyze the
sustainability indicators utilized in the BIA assessment process, evaluating the level of integration of
such indicators.

3. Description of Case Study Methodology

Given the lack of a research body on sustainable performance management in Benefit
Corporations, exploratory research was chosen to develop new insights [119]. The study, mainly
descriptive [120–122], was based on an exploratory case-based analysis. Eisenhardt and Graebner [123]
find this method particularly useful in new research areas, or in situations in which researchers need
to address “how” and “why” questions [123,124].
A literature review was performed to analyze the correlations among the main themes of the
research. The literature review highlighted that single or multiple in-depth case studies were most often
used when studying performance management, accounting systems, and CSR reporting. In Table 3
below is a summary of the primary literature in line with the research objective.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 7 of 17

Table 3. Content and case-based study literature when studying PMS, management accounting system
(MAS), and CSR reporting.

Theme Objective Number of Case Studies

The different case studies helped to provide an
PMS [31] understanding of how companies integrate Five cross-sector case studies
sustainability into their pre-existing corporate PMS.
The one-year case study helped to define the
importance of the SBSC as a strategic management An extended single case
MAS/SP [32]
approach, outlining its importance as a study carried out over a year
measurement, communication, and reporting tool.
The case study in a highly regulated specific sector
An extended single case
pinpointed how a multicriteria model that
PMS [2] study carried out in a highly
considers the TBL framework helps corporate
regulated sector
decision-making.
The cross-case study analysis was able to highlight
CSR Reporting [3] best practices on how companies manage their Six cross-sector case studies
CSR reporting.
The content analysis helped to evaluate the
Content analysis of websites
CSR Reporting communication methods used on websites and in
and reports published online
PMS [87] CSR sustainability reports and how they were
by 150 top hotels worldwide
utilized as a managerial tool.
The analyzed case studies helped to investigate
CSR Reporting whether firms that were rated good, mixed, or poor
Fifty-one U.S. firms
PMS [125] in their environmental impact had better
disclosure policies.

Academic research includes the sustainability disclosure of companies [125], corporate

websites [87], and interviews [3,31]. All were deemed as valuable resources when studying the
research topic.
Based on Eisenhardt’s [121] recommendation to use from four to ten cases, sampling was done by
selecting all the small- and medium-sized certified Benefit Corporations stratified by country. Italy was
chosen since it was the first European country to produce benefit corporation legislation (in 2016) after
the U.S. We selected the entire Italian sample of 20 B Corps; we then excluded 5 that were not also
certified Benefit Corporations and a further 3 that were were not SMEs, obtaining a sample of 12 small-
and medium-sized certified Benefit Corporations. All the companies in the sample were contacted
for the interview and seven replied. The analysis was performed from April 2017 to February 2018.
Each single company was considered as an analysis unit [126].
The information was gathered using multiple sources of secondary information (e.g., corporate
documents, websites, and press releases, which provide more accurate and unbiased information) and
contextualized with interview questions to the top management. Research questions were elaborated
by analyzing the literature review and secondary information.
The interviews and documents were analyzed qualitatively through iterative coding into the
themes formalized by the research objectives [31] to unravel new concepts from the data [127,128].
Similarly, document analysis was performed. This approach is well suited for in-depth single case
studies [129]. The qualitative data analysis began with a within-case analysis, exploring the uniqueness
of each case, followed by a cross-case analysis [130], since in multiple cases, the study should examine
similarities and differences across cases.
Results were then interpreted and compared with those in the literature [126], facilitating theory
building [130]. The interviewed companies are mentioned with their actual name and details (Table 4).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 8 of 17

Table 4. The selected sample.

Year of
Company Sector About
Foundation
D-Orbit develops smart satellite
Business Products and
D-Orbit Srl 2011 disposal systems for reducing
Services
man-created debris in orbital space
EXE built the first zero-emission data
Energy and Environmental
EXE.it Srl Sb 1988 center in southern Europe that was CO2
Services
emission free
Facile Aiuto is a facilitator whose aim is
Facile Aiuto 2013 Health and Human Services realizing innovative projects and
services dedicated to health promotion
Mondora is a software and advisory
Business Products and company that promotes holacracy, puts
Mondora srl 2002
Services people in the center, and supports its
community
Nativa is a re-design company creating
Business Products and
Nativa 2012 a positive impact on people and planet,
Services
thus growing happiness
Right Hub works on procurement,
logistics, marketing, and sustainable
Business Products and
Right Hub 2015 supply chains, the missing link between
Services
non-profit suppliers and for-profit
companies
Insieme is a cooperative in which
customers associate to aggregate their
Cooperativa Business Products and
2010 insurance needs, adhering to shared
Insieme Services
protocols centered on ethics and
sustainable development.

Finally, the cross-case report was written and is presented herein.

4. Results of Analysis
This paper is a first exploration of how Benefit Corporations integrate sustainability practices
into their performance management system. Knowledge about the management of CSR activities is
critical for understanding of the integration of social value at large. Using a qualitative research design,
the internal factors that are associated with the integration of the benefit impact assessment indicators
of seven Italian small- and medium-sized certified Benefit Corporations were examined. Table 4 gives
a description of the selected sample and its social value.
During semistructured interviews with benefit impact managers, CEOs, and business developers,
what emerged was that programming and control structures, systems, and processes by which
sustainability is managed varied across companies. Despite this heterogeneity in internal factors,
some notable patterns of internal management were uncovered across companies, which resulted in a
typology of companies [3]. Figure 1 summarizes the different types.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 9 of 17

Figure 1. Business model and levels of implementation of benefit impact assessment (BIA)-guided
sustainability indicators in the analyzed B Corps programming and control structures (PandC).

The first type of company, labeled “B Way”, is characterized by the systematic integration of CSR
into business operations. Drawing from the typology elaborated by Molteni and Lucchini [131] to
portray the different approaches of Italian firms toward CSR, they can be considered as “cohesive
firms.” The companies that followed the B Way demonstrated a business orientation that integrated
economic, social, and environmental goals into everyday decision-making. They also portrayed a high
level of formalization when it came to reporting. Nativa was structured from the beginning as a Benefit
Corporation; it was the first Benefit Corporation in Italy, and it has a mission to promote and accelerate
this new paradigm, making Italy a model for sustainable innovation. Nativa also played a crucial role
in conceiving and developing Italian legislation on Benefit Corporations. As a consulting company,
they support other B Corporations: Mondora, which is in contact with them and which obtained the
certification idea from Eric Ezechieli, one of Nativa’s founders, has a much more structured approach
than the other analyzed B Corps. The same was evident from the D-Orbit case analysis: the companies
that utilized consulting support achieved better results and portrayed a better structure.
The second type of company was structured as social enterprises (SE), and they maintained their
SE business model. They were thus characterized by a lack of formal organization, slim to no reporting,
and decoupled CSR. Although these companies acknowledged the importance of structures, systems,
and processes for CSR, they still had not developed and installed formal CSR practices. They showed
an inclination toward CSR strategies, but their activities were still separate from everyday business,
and this was considered to be mainly a communication issue. Size proved to have had an impact on
the decision to be more flexible and less formal [132–134]. Furthermore, stakeholders trusted the social
mission and were not looking for extra proof.
“We are small; we have four employees plus some external collaborators, depending on the
projects. So, let’s say that the issue of sustainability reporting has not, for now, been taken into account
just because of our size. I did not consider it essential at this stage of the company’s growth”, says Luca
Guzzabocca, CEO of Right Hub. Moreover, to tell you the truth, no customer, both profit and non-profit,
of the ones we collaborate with has ever asked us 1 for specific accountability on our social impact” [135].
Companies in the last category, “mix and match”, had a mixed approach and combined integrated
CSR with informal structures, ad hoc strategies, and systems. Ultimate performance was essential,
and reporting was the consequence of this orientation, that is, informing stakeholders.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 10 of 17

“We communicate through a blog where we write nothing about technology or about the work we
do. We write about all those things we call benefit projects, which are outside the box.” Kirsten Ruffoni,
Mondora’s benefit impact manager, curates the blog herself, together with top management.
In general, Benefit Corporations in Italy maintained the same tiers secteur characteristics,
as Jacques Delors defined it in 1979—an active social mission and a nonformal structure—and they are
an example of the non-profit sector moving towards for-profit practices. The BIA indicators were fully
integrated, but without a structural approach. They seemed to have skipped a step in moving from
CSR to Benefit, and this change in paradigm was voluntary.
As Paolo Di Cesare, co-founder of Nativa, puts it: “We already use the most advanced and robust
measuring instruments. We are open to new inputs, but I doubt that the concept of CSR can bring
new ideas. It has the historical merit of getting companies out of pure compliance to new areas of
identity that have raised the burden of responsibility for doing business. But now we have to look at
new frontiers and make sure that these develop as quickly as possible. Today the BIA is used by more
than 63,000 companies in the world, and it is expected to reach 100,000 by 2019. The concreteness of
the B Corp concept is to extend beyond its commitment on paper. Businesses find it useful to measure
impact and discover areas of improvement, and hence embrace the movement” [136].
From this perspective, the concept of CSR could be obsolete and the tools available no longer
adequate to achieve a sustainable for-profit and for-purpose model. CSR practices are seen by
Benefit Corporations as a voluntary, nonbinding frame that is no longer able to support the prosocial
identity [137] businesses that entrepreneurs want to achieve and with which stakeholders can identify.
Contrary to the literature that states that external stakeholder pressure has significant impacts on
corporate social responsibility implementation [138], and that companies may invest in philanthropic
activities to improve external perceptions and influence external decision-makers that affect the
company [139], Benefit Corporations had an internally driven proactive behavior. Their approach
to stakeholders was thus coherent with their mission and drive and inserting the BIA into their
programming and control structure was a logical consequence. Thus, to legitimize their social
value, Italian-certified Benefit Corporations integrated BIA-guided sustainability measures into their
day-to-day activities.

5. Discussion
We can distinguish between two general approaches to assess impact [140]: a project-based
analysis of specific programs, as per the SIA methodology, and a standardized analysis of the
social orientation of business models, as per the BIA methodology. Standardized tools to measure
impact include the United Nations’ Social Development Goals, the Impact Reporting and Investment
Standards (IRIS), the Global Impact Investing Report System (GIIRS), and, as mentioned, the B Lab
Certification [140]. The BIA has recently been adopted by the United Nations to help companies
evaluate their performance against the UN’s Social Development Goals, so an integration of these two
standards will soon be available.
What emerges from the data analyzed, taking into consideration B Lab Certified B Corps, is that
the prosocial value [137] of B Corps functions as a driver and motivates the assessment of the common
benefit produced by Benefit Corporations. BIA results are used to support internal decision-making by
top management and employees, and BIA-guided indicators are integrated into the company planning
and control systems. Although, as we were able to see in the results, the approach differs, they are
all either integrated, almost integrated, or getting there. The B Way companies are at full integration
levels; the Social Businesses are trying to keep up to par, and they tend to represent the average Italian
SME; and finally, the mix and match are in between.
The Benefit Impact Assessment and the B Lab key performance indicators could potentially better
fit the prosocial need that has been witnessed in these past years, and the Italian case study shows a
movement in that direction. The BIA though still leaves some doubts in terms of accountability and
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 11 of 17

comparability, as opposed to the more structured CSR indicators and reporting guidelines that are
available. For now, the B Corp movement runs alongside existing models as a new paradigm.
The implications of this paper are twofold. On the one hand, the paper highlights the importance
of integrating sustainability into performance management systems as guidance for management and
as a standard for reporting, especially in companies with a strong prosocial value, such as Benefit
Corporations. On the other hand, the SME Italian-certified Benefit Corporation sample underlines
specific integration levels that are true for Italian B Corps, which can be used as a base point to
study evolutions or pinpoint differences. This way, in the future, it may be possible to overcome the
comparability limitations of the BIA, and measuring impact can itself be an essential management
practice [140].
As for the limitations of the study, it must be acknowledged that the research focused solely on
the correlations among measurement, management, and reporting in performance and management
accounting systems and CSR because the literature was extensive. Moreover, although the entire
Italian sample was contacted, only seven B Corps replied and were available for the interviews.
Future research should extend the investigation to the entire sample of Italian-certified Benefit
Corporations. Finally, qualitative studies should explore the effectiveness of the benefit impact
assessment by studying the impact beneficiaries through questionnaires, one-to-one interviews,
and focus groups.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.N. and M.D.B.; Methodology, G.N. and M.D.B.; Validation,
M.D.B.; Formal Analysis, G.N. and M.D.B.; Investigation, G.N.; Data Curation, G.N.; Writing-Original Draft
Preparation, G.N. and M.D.B.; Writing-Review & Editing, G.N.; Visualization, M.D.B.; Supervision, M.D.B.;
Project Administration, M.D.B.; Funding Acquisition, M.D.B.
Funding: This research was funded by the Dipartimento di Economia, Società, Politica (DESP), University of
Urbino Carlo Bo.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Armando Agulini for his help with the interviews and document
analysis, Filippo Giordano and Laura Michelini for their help in elaborating the idea and Frances Fabian for her
feedback. The paper was presented at the VII Management Control: Value Creation and Stakeholder Protection
Conference in Cagliari in May 2018 and at the 7th Italian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting
Research—Accounting, Accountability and Society Conference in Urbino in September 2018. We are grateful for
the precious feedback given by fellow researchers and chairs of our sessions, in particular Jesse Dillard.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sustainability Performance Management: How CFOs can Unlock Value; Accenture: Dublin, Ireland, 2011.
2. Garcia, S.; Cintra, Y.; de Torres, R.C.S.R.; Lima, F.G. Corporate sustainability management: A proposed
multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 181–196. [CrossRef]
3. Thijssens, T.; Bollen, L.; Hassink, H. Managing sustainability reporting: Many ways to publish exemplary
reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 86–101. [CrossRef]
4. Cintra, Y.; Carter, D. Internalising sustainability: Reflections on management control in Brazil.
Int. J. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 12, 108–125.
5. Alexander, J.; Brudney, J.L.; Yang, K. Introduction to the Symposium: Accountability and Performance
Measurement: The Evolving Role of Nonprofits in the Hollow State. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2010, 39,
565–570. [CrossRef]
6. Mitchell, G.E. The Construct of Organizational Effectiveness: Perspectives from Leaders of International
Nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2013, 42, 324–345. [CrossRef]
7. Liket, K.C.; Maas, K. Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: Analysis of Best Practices. Nonprofit Volunt.
Sect. Q. 2015, 44, 268–296. [CrossRef]
8. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; United Nations:
Geneva, Switzerland, 1987.
9. Grieco, C. Assessing Social Impact of Social Enterprises: Does One Size Really Fit All? Springer Briefs in Business;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-3-319-15314-8.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 12 of 17

10. Dohrmann, S.; Raith, M.; Siebold, N. Monetizing Social Value Creation—A Business Model Approach.
Entrep. Res. J. 2015, 5. [CrossRef]
11. Lisi, I.E. Il Sistema di Programmazione e Controllo della Sostenibilità Socio-Ambientale; Franco Angeli:
Milan, Italy, 2018.
12. Il Testo di Legge sulle Società Benefit. 2015. Available online: http://www.societabenefit.net/testo-di-legge/
(accessed on 7 November 2018).
13. Alcorn, S.; Alcorn, M. Benefit Corporations: A New Formula for Social Change; Associations Now: Washington,
DC, USA, 2012.
14. Hiller, J.S. The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 287–301.
[CrossRef]
15. Nicholas, A.J.; Sacco, S. People, Planet, Profit: Benefit and B Certified Corporations—Comprehension and Outlook of
Business Students; Salve Regina University: Newport, RI, USA, 2017.
16. Castellani, G.; De Rossi, D.; Rampa, A. Le Società Benefit: La nuova prospettiva di una Corporate Social
Responsability con Commitment; Fondazione Nazionale dei Commercialisti: Rome, Italy, 2016.
17. Nigri, G.; Michelini, L.; Grieco, C. Social Impact and Online Communication in B-Corps. Glob. J. Bus. Res.
2017, 11, 87–104.
18. Billis, D. (Ed.) Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy;
Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-230-23463-5.
19. Hemphill, T.A.; Cullari, F. The Benefit Corporation: Corporate Governance and the For-profit Social
Entrepreneur: The Benefit Corporation: Corporate Governance and the For-profit Social Entrepreneur.
Bus. Soc. Rev. 2014, 119, 519–536. [CrossRef]
20. Wilburn, K.; Wilburn, R. The double bottom line: Profit and social benefit. Bus. Horiz. 2014, 57, 11–20.
[CrossRef]
21. Honeyman, R. Il manuale delle B Corp. Usare il Business Come Forza Positiva; Bookabook: Milan, Italy, 2016.
22. McMullen, J.S.; Warnick, B.J. Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization?: Exploring
the Limits of a World of Blended Value. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 630–662. [CrossRef]
23. Sedatole, K. The Effect of Measurement Alternatives on a Nonfinancial Quality Measure’s Forward-Looking
Properties. Account. Rev. 2003, 78, 555–580. [CrossRef]
24. Cinquini, L.; Norreklit, H. Editorial. “Management Control” Special Issue: Research perspectives in
Performance Management. Manag. Control 2015, 5–12. [CrossRef]
25. Bassani, G.; Cattaneo, C. Performance Management Systems and Strategy: The state of the art in Italian
journals. Manag. Control 2015, 13–40. [CrossRef]
26. Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R.L. Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for
business leaders? J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 375–384. [CrossRef]
27. Gray, R.; Kouhy, R.; Lavers, S. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and
a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Account. Auditing Account. J. 1995, 8, 47–77. [CrossRef]
28. Elkington, J.; Kreander, N.; Stibbard, H.; Elkington, J.; Kreander, N.; Stibbard, H. The third international
survey on company environmental reporting: The 1997 benchmark survey. Greener Manag. Int. 1998, 21,
99–111.
29. Wagner, M.; Schaltegger, S. How does sustainability performance relate to and business competitiveness?
Greener Manag. Int. 2003, 44, 5–16. [CrossRef]
30. Morioka, S.N.; de Carvalho, M.M. A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for
integrating sustainability performance into business. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 134–146. [CrossRef]
31. Morioka, S.N.; Carvalho, M.M. Measuring sustainability in practice: Exploring the inclusion of sustainability
into corporate performance systems in Brazilian case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 123–133. [CrossRef]
32. Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and
reporting. Int. J. Account. Auditing Perform. Eval. 2006, 3, 1. [CrossRef]
33. Gray, R.; Javad, M.; Power, D.M.; Sinclair, C.D. Social and Environmental Disclosure and Corporate
Characteristics: A Research Note and Extension. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2001, 28, 327–356. [CrossRef]
34. Munda, G. Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 86–94.
[CrossRef]
35. Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2005, 43, 189–208. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 13 of 17

36. Khalili, N.R.; Duecker, S. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable
environmental management system framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 188–198. [CrossRef]
37. Santoyo-Castelazo, E.; Azapagic, A. Sustainability assessment of energy systems: Integrating environmental,
economic and social aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 80, 119–138. [CrossRef]
38. Bititci, U.; Garengo, P.; Dörfler, V.; Nudurupati, S. Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow*:
Performance Measurement. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 305–327. [CrossRef]
39. Franco-Santos, M.; Lucianetti, L.; Bourne, M. Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review
of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag. Account. Res. 2012, 23, 79–119. [CrossRef]
40. Fiorentino, R.; Garzella, S.; Lamboglia, R.; Mancini, D. Strategie di sostenibilità: Dalle motivazioni ai sistemi
di misurazione della performance. Manag. Control 2016, 115–142. [CrossRef]
41. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The strategy map: Guide to aligning intangible assets. Strategy Leadersh. 2004, 32,
10–17. [CrossRef]
42. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action; McGraw Hill: New York,
NY, USA, 1996.
43. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1992,
70, 172–180.
44. Cameron, J. Social Accounting: A Practical Guide for Small Community Organisations and Enterprises; Centre for
Urban and Regional Studies: Birmingham, UK, 2010.
45. Costa, E.; Pesci, C. Social impact measurement: Why do stakeholders matter? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.
2016, 7, 99–124. [CrossRef]
46. Epstein, M.J. Making Sustainability Work Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social,
Environmental and Economic Impacts; Routledge: Milton, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-351-28011-2.
47. Olsen, S.; Galimidi, B. Managing Social and Environmental Impact: A New Discipline for a New Economy.
Brown J. World Aff. 2009, 15, 43–56.
48. Montecchia, A.; Giordano, F.; Grieco, C. Communicating CSR: Integrated approach or Selfie? Evidence from
the Milan Stock Exchange. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 42–52. [CrossRef]
49. Kates, W. What is sustainable development? Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 8–21.
50. Frost, G.; Jones, S.; Loftus, J.; Laan, S. A Survey of Sustainability Reporting Practices of Australian Reporting
Entities. Aust. Account. Rev. 2005, 15, 89–96. [CrossRef]
51. Isenmann, R.; Lenz, C. Customized corporate environmental reporting by internet-based push and pull
technologies. Eco-Manag. Auditing 2001, 8, 100–110. [CrossRef]
52. Weil, W.B.; Winter-Watson, B. The Internet and Sustainability Reporting. In The Ecology of the New Economy:
Sustainable Transformation of Global Information; Greenleaf Publishing Limited: London, UK, 2002; pp. 85–98.
ISBN 978-1-909493-26-1.
53. De Burgos-Jiménez, J.; Cano-Guillén, C.J.; Céspedes-Lorente, J.J. Planning and Control of Environmental
Performance in Hotels. J. Sustain. Tourism 2002, 10, 207–221. [CrossRef]
54. Perrini, F.; Tencati, A. Sustainability and stakeholder management: The need for new corporate performance
evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 296–308. [CrossRef]
55. Perrini, F.; Russo, A.; Tencati, A. CSR Strategies of SMEs and Large Firms. Evidence from Italy. J. Bus. Ethics
2007, 74, 285–300. [CrossRef]
56. Elena Windolph, S.; Schaltegger, S.; Herzig, C. Implementing corporate sustainability: What drives the
application of sustainability management tools in Germany? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2014, 5,
378–404. [CrossRef]
57. Broccardo, L. Management Accounting System in Italian Smes: Some Evidences and Implications.
Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ. 2014, 4, 1–16.
58. Schaltegger, S.; Bennett, M.; Burritt, R. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. In Eco-Efficiency in
Industry and Science; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; ISBN 978-1-4020-4079-5.
59. Kearney, R.; Berman, E.M. Public Sector Performance: Management, Motivation, and Measurement; Routledge:
Boulder, CO, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-429-96651-4.
60. Lowe, E.A. On the Idea of a Management Control System: Integrating Accounting and Management Control.
J. Manag. Stud. 1971, 8, 1–12. [CrossRef]
61. Lowe, E.A.; McInnes, J.M. Control in Socio-Economic Organizations: A Rationale for The Design of
Management Control Systems, (Section I). J. Manag. Stud. 1971, 8, 213–227. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 14 of 17

62. Higgins, C.; Coffey, B. Improving how sustainability reports drive change: A critical discourse analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 18–29. [CrossRef]
63. Antolín-López, R.; Delgado-Ceballos, J.; Montiel, I. Deconstructing corporate sustainability: A comparison
of different stakeholder metrics. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 5–17. [CrossRef]
64. Ng, A.W.; Nathwani, J. Sustainability performance disclosures: The case of independent power producers.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1940–1948. [CrossRef]
65. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J.; Echavarría, P. A twenty year GIS-based assessment of
environmental sustainability of land use changes in and around protected areas of a fast developing
country: Spain. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 74, 169–179. [CrossRef]
66. Rodriguez, M.A.; Ricart, J.E.; Sanchez, P. Sustainable Development and the Sustainability of Competitive
Advantage: A Dynamic and Sustainable View of the Firm. Creat. Innovat. Manag. 2002, 11, 135–146.
[CrossRef]
67. GRI 2013. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/
newsarchive/Pages/2013.aspx (accessed on 7 November 2018).
68. Sartori, S.; Latronico, F.; Campos, L. Sustainability and sustainable development: A taxonomy in the field of
literature. Ambient. Soc. 2014, 17, 1–22. [CrossRef]
69. Moore, J.E.; Mascarenhas, A.; Bain, J.; Straus, S.E. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability.
Implement. Sci. 2017, 12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. GRI 2018. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/
newsarchive/Pages/2018.aspx (accessed on 7 November 2018).
71. Nachhaltig Managen mit der Balanced Scorecard: Konzept und Fallstudien; Schaltegger, S.; Dyllick, T. (Eds.) 1.
Aufl.; Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2002; ISBN 978-3-409-12080-7.
72. Akkermans, H.A.; van Oorschot, K.E. Relevance Assumed: A Case Study of Balanced Scorecard Development
Using System Dynamics. In System Dynamics; Kunc, M., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018;
pp. 107–132. ISBN 978-1-349-95256-4.
73. Möller, A.; Schaltegger, S. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard as a Framework for Eco-efficiency Analysis.
J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 73–83. [CrossRef]
74. Bice, S. Bridging corporate social responsibility and social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
2015, 33, 160–166. [CrossRef]
75. Hauser, J.; Katz, G. Metrics: You are what you measure! Eur. Manag. J. 1998, 16, 517–528. [CrossRef]
76. Vergragt, P.J.; Quist, J. Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 2011, 78, 747–755. [CrossRef]
77. Robinson, J.; Burch, S.; Talwar, S.; O’Shea, M.; Walsh, M. Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the
use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011,
78, 756–768. [CrossRef]
78. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M. Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology. J. Clean. Prod.
2001, 9, 519–549. [CrossRef]
79. Kaplan, R.S. Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. In Handbooks of Management Accounting
Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 3, pp. 1253–1269, ISBN 978-0-08-055450-1.
80. Searcy, V.; Lipps, A. The Effectiveness of Seeking Safety on Reducing PTSD Symptoms in Clients Receiving
Substance Dependence Treatment. Alcohol. Treat. Q. 2012, 30, 238–255. [CrossRef]
81. Mouchamps, H. Weighing elephants with kitchen scales: The relevance of traditional performance
measurement tools for social enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2014, 63, 727–745. [CrossRef]
82. Orlitzky, M.; Swanson, D.L. Assessing Stakeholder Satisfaction: Toward a Supplemental Measure of
Corporate Social Performance as Reputation. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2012, 15, 119–137. [CrossRef]
83. Keeble, J.J.; Topiol, S.; Berkeley, S. Using Indicators to Measure Sustainability Performance at a Corporate
and Project Level. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 149–158. [CrossRef]
84. Hussain, N.; Rigoni, U.; Orij, R.P. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Analysis of Triple
Bottom Line Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 411–432. [CrossRef]
85. Canneva, G.; Guérin-Schneider, L. La construction des indicateurs de performance des services d’eau en
France: Mesurer le développement durable? Nat. Sci. Soc. 2011, 19, 213–223. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 15 of 17

86. Zaman Mir, M.; Shiraz Rahaman, A. In pursuit of environmental excellence: A stakeholder analysis
of the environmental management strategies and performance of an Australian energy company.
Account. Auditing Account. J. 2011, 24, 848–878. [CrossRef]
87. de Grosbois, D. Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment,
initiatives and performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 896–905. [CrossRef]
88. Monsma, D.; Buckley, J. Non-Financial Corporate Performance: The Material Edges of Social and
Environmental Disclosure. Univ. Balt. J. Environ. Law 2004, 151–203.
89. Latridis, G.E. Environmental disclosure quality: Evidence on environmental performance, corporate
governance and value relevance. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2013, 14, 55–75. [CrossRef]
90. Cormier, D.; Ledoux, M.; Magnan, M. The informational contribution of social and environmental disclosures
for investors. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1276–1304. [CrossRef]
91. Meijer, M.-M.; Schuyt, T. Corporate Social Performance as a Bottom Line for Consumers. Bus. Soc. 2005, 44,
442–461. [CrossRef]
92. Islam, M.A.; Deegan, C. Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance
information: A study of two global clothing and sports retail companies. Account. Bus. Res. 2010, 40, 131–148.
[CrossRef]
93. Bettiol, M.; De Marchi, V.; Di Maria, E.; Miceli, S. Economic, Social and Environmental Upgrading in
Value Chains: Social Entrepreneurship and the Role of Emerging Economy Lead Firms 2011. Available
online: http://www.risingpowers.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/RisingPowers_WP4_Bettiol-et-al.pdf
(accessed on 27 November 2018).
94. Gond, J.-P.; Grubnic, S.; Herzig, C.; Moon, J. Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the
integration of strategy and sustainability. Manag. Account. Res. 2012, 23, 205–223. [CrossRef]
95. Cooper, S.M.; Owen, D.L. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link.
Account. Organ. Soc. 2007, 32, 649–667. [CrossRef]
96. Ehrenfeld, J.R. Sustainability needs to be attained, not managed. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2008, 4, 1–3.
[CrossRef]
97. Banker, R.D.; Potter, P.; Srinivasan, D. An Empirical Investigation of an Incentive Plan That Includes
Nonfinancial Performance Measures. Account. Rev. 2000, 75, 65–92. [CrossRef]
98. Neely, A.; Mills, J.; Platts, K.; Richards, H.; Gregory, M.; Bourne, M.; Kennerley, M. Performance measurement
system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2000, 20,
1119–1145. [CrossRef]
99. Franks, D.; Fidler, C.; Brereton, D.; Vanclay, F.; Clark, P. Leading Practice Strategies for Addressing the Social
Impacts of Resource Developments; Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute,
The University of Queensland, and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation,
Queensland Government: Brisbane, Australia, 2009.
100. Buchan, D. New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30, 137–138. [CrossRef]
101. Miller, E.; Buys, L.; Summerville, J. Quantifying the social dimension of triple bottom line: Development of a
framework and indicators to assess the social impact of organisations. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2007, 3, 223.
[CrossRef]
102. Schneider, A.; Meins, E. Two Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Towards a Comprehensive
Framework: Two Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability Assessment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21,
211–222. [CrossRef]
103. Crittenden, V.L.; Crittenden, W.F.; Ferrell, L.K.; Ferrell, O.C.; Pinney, C.C. Market-oriented sustainability:
A conceptual framework and propositions. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 71–85. [CrossRef]
104. Savitz, A.W.; Weber, K. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies are Achieving Economic,
Social, and Environmental Success–and How You Can Too; Revised and Updated; Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand:
San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-118-22622-3.
105. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; van Erck, R.P.G. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries.
Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385. [CrossRef]
106. Figge, F.; Hahn, T.; Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard—Linking sustainability
management to business strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 269–284. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 16 of 17

107. Klassen, R.D.; McLaughlin, C.P. The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance. Manag. Sci.
1996, 42, 1199–1214. [CrossRef]
108. Melnyk, S. Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental
performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2003, 21, 329–351. [CrossRef]
109. Grosvold, J.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Roehrich, J.K. Squaring the circle: Management, measurement and performance
of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 292–305. [CrossRef]
110. Yongvanich, K.; Guthrie, J. An extended performance reporting framework for social and environmental
accounting. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 309–321. [CrossRef]
111. Cohen, E. Benefit Expenses: How the Benefit Corporation’s Social Purpose Changes the Ordinary and
Necessary. William Mitchell Law Rev. 2012, 4, 269.
112. Griffith, A.; Bhutto, K. Improving environmental performance through integrated management systems
(IMS) in the UK. Manag. Environ. Q. Int. J. 2008, 19, 565–578. [CrossRef]
113. Weaver, G.R.; TreviÑo, L.K.; Cochran, P.L. Integrated and Decoupled Corporate Social Performance:
Management Commitments, External Pressures, and Corporate Ethics Practices. Acad. Manag. J. 1999,
42, 539–552. [CrossRef]
114. Sugita, M.; Takahashi, T. Influence of Corporate Culture on Environmental Management Performance:
An Empirical Study of Japanese Firms: Influence of Corporate Culture on Environmental Management
Performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 182–192. [CrossRef]
115. Camm, E. Benefit Enforcement Proceedings for the Benefit Corporation—What are They and How Will They Work?
Apex Law Group: Seattle, WA, USA, 2012.
116. Bauco, C.; Castellani, G.; De Rossi, D.; Magrassi, L. Società Benefit (Parte III); Fondazione Nazionale dei
Commercialisti: Rome, Italy, 2017.
117. Nigri, G.; Michelini, L.; Grieco, C.; Iasevoli, G.B. Corps and their Social Impact Communication Strategy: Does
the Talk Match the Walk? In Proceedings of the SIM Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 16–20 January 2016.
118. Benefit Corporation 2017. Available online: http://benefitcorp.net/businesses/benefit-corporation-
reporting-requirements (accessed on 7 November 2018).
119. Karwan, K.R.; Markland, R.E. Integrating service design principles and information technology to improve
delivery and productivity in public sector operations: The case of the South Carolina DMV. J. Oper. Manag.
2006, 24, 347–362. [CrossRef]
120. Woodside, A.G.; Wilson, E.J. Case study research methods for theory building. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2003, 18,
493–508. [CrossRef]
121. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532. [CrossRef]
122. Ryan, B.; Scapens, R.; Theobald, M. Research Method & Methodology in Finance & Accounting, 2nd ed.; Thomson:
Stamford, CT, USA, 2002.
123. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. Acad. Manag. J.
2007, 50, 25–32. [CrossRef]
124. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Applied Social Research Methods Series; Sage Publications:
Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1990; Volume 5.
125. Hughes, S.B.; Anderson, A.; Golden, S. Corporate environmental disclosures: Are they useful in determining
environmental performance? J. Account. Public Policy 2001, 20, 217–240. [CrossRef]
126. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2003.
127. Gioia, D.A.; Corley, K.G.; Hamilton, A.L. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the
Gioia Methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 2013, 16, 15–31. [CrossRef]
128. Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L.; Paul, A.T. Grounded Theory: Strategien Qualitativer Forschung; Verlag Hans
Huber—Programmbereich Gesundheit; 1. Nachdr. der 2., korrigierten Aufl.; Huber: Bern, Switzerland, 2008;
ISBN 978-3-456-84212-7.
129. Bergh, D.D. (Ed.) Building Methodological Bridges. In Research Methodology in Strategy and Management;
Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-78052-026-1.
130. Huberman, A.; Miles, M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications:
Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1994.
131. Molteni, M.; Lucchini, M.; Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e
Agricoltura. Istituto per i valori d’impresa I Modelli di Responsabilità Sociale Nelle Imprese Italiane; FrancoAngeli:
Milan, Italy, 2004.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499 17 of 17

132. Murillo, D.; Lozano, J.M. SMEs and CSR: An Approach to CSR in their Own Words. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67,
227–240. [CrossRef]
133. Del Baldo, M. Stakeholder Management and CSR Approach in Italian “Territorial” Companies—Loccioni Group and
the LOV—Land of Values 2012; University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics:
Urbino, Italy, 2012.
134. Looser, S.; Wehrmeyer, W. An Emerging Template of CSR in Switzerland. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2015, 12.
[CrossRef]
135. Guzzabocca, L. Right Hub CEO 2017. Available online: http://www.righthub.it/news-da-right-hub/19-
archivio-news-prima-pagina/16-il-progetto-right-hub (accessed on 7 November 2018).
136. Di Cesare, P. Nativa Co-Founder 2017. Available online: http://www.nativa.co.za/ (accessed on 7
November 2018).
137. Sharma, G.; Beveridge, A.J.; Haigh, N. A configural framework of practice change for B corporations.
J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 207–224. [CrossRef]
138. Tian, Q.; Liu, Y.; Fan, J. The effects of external stakeholder pressure and ethical leadership on corporate social
responsibility in China. J. Manag. Organ. 2015, 21, 388–410. [CrossRef]
139. Watts, R.L.; Zimmerman, G.L. Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standard.
Account. Rev. 1978, 53, 112–134.
140. Lazzarini, S.G. The measurement of social impact and opportunities for research in business administration.
RAUSP Manag. J. 2018, 53, 134–137. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).