Methodology for Sustainability Strategic Planning and Management 
Raúl León-Soriano; María Jesús Muñoz-Torres; Ricardo Chalmeta-Rosaleñ
Universitat Jaume I de Castellón (Spain)Campus Riu Sec s/n 12006. Castellon. SpainTel: +34.964.72.8574. Fax: +34.964.728565
rleon@lsi.uji.es, munoz@cofin.uji.es, rchalmet@lsi.uji.es

Abstract
Purpose – This work proposes a framework that intends to help organisations achieve the Sustainability Goal by means of a methodology that integrates sustainability in both the planning and management tasks of the organisation and that serves as a base for the implementation of an information system aligned with the business strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – After an exhaustive review of literature about Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Planning of organisations and Balanced Scorecards, a methodology has been developed that describes the process of designing and implementing a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard for sustainability strategic planning and management
Findings – The methodology can be easily implemented at companies with a minimum of computer resources, but managers play a key role in its success, since they are the responsible for providing the necessary environment for overcoming such an important change.
Research limitations/implications – The methodology has only been applied once and their results will only be able to be analysed after a long time. Meanwhile, more implementations have to be performed to test and improve the different steps und tools until the methodology can be considered definitive.
Practical implications – The methodology could be used by many organisations, improving their social and environmental performance and contributing to their sustainability and the sustainability of all of their stakeholders, specially for society as a whole. Readers of this paper could see a practical application of methodology and its viability by means of the case.
Originality/value – An innovative structure for Balanced Scorecards which has been developed having in mind the sustainability since the beginning, but not justly adding environmental and social variables to a model designed with economical purposes. 
Keywords – Strategic Planning, Corporate Social Responsibility, Balanced Scorecard, Sustainability integration, Information Systems.
Paper type – Research Paper
Introduction
In the new markets located within a making - decisions context that changes fast, enterprise strategy management  is fundamentally more challenging than it used to be just a few years ago (Wagner, 2004). As a result, information is not enough (Saad, 2001), and new measures are needed for evaluating the impact of the strategies and actions that companies perform at the present concerning sustainability interests (Bose, 2004). In this way, the environmental and social scarcities are only partially reflected in the economic transactions and they are managed by means of specific environmental or social management systems not linked to the economic success of the firm. Thus the contribution of the environmental and social management remains unclear. As a solution to this lack of integration, many research works have been carried out in the field of sustainability management by means of a Balanced Scorecard (BSC), and although it was initially developed for the purpose of linking strategic goals in its four dimensions to the financial bottom line and increasing business profitability, most of them consider the BSC as suitable for the management of sustainability or CSR (Bieker and Waxenberger, 2002). 
For the most part these works have been developed in the conceptual framework of the so-called “Bussines Case” (Figure 1) (e.g. Bieker et al., 2001), since they propose to integrate social and environmental issues in a manner that allows firms to pursue shareholder strategies through environmental or social sustainability. Notwithstanding, the motivation to make the sustainability strategy acceptable for all stakeholders but not only by shareholders is well justified, and therefore we consider that a Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) has also to take into account the “Human” (Figure 2) and “Green” (Figure 3) cases, in order to allow companies to act according to “The Three Sustainable Cases” (Figure 4). 


Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4: Author: Bieker et al. (2001).

It has to be noted that the BSC is not a tool for the formulation of strategies; a BSC serves to describe an existing strategy consistently in order to enhance its successful execution (Kaplan and Norton, 1997), without taking its nature into account. The formulation of a BSC is not an independent process but part of a wider framework of competitive positioning and strategy formulation (Kaplan and Norton, 2001), and in the case of a SBSC, this framework has also to include the necessary steps to grant the integration of sustainability in the whole organisation, so that the latter would act according to the CSR guidelines. Therefore, the implementation of a SBSC is a complex process that has to be executed with the commitment of the top management team, a well established planning and after arriving at a common agreement on the necessity to integrate sustainability into the whole company’s behaviour, thinking and every day activities.
In this paper, a methodology for sustainability strategic planning and management is proposed, trying to join different fields of research such as strategic planning, BSCs and information systems, by means of putting together existing techniques and models that have proved their validity and usefulness with new research and improve proposals in order to get an integrated methodology that will help companies to afford a change towards a sustainable development in a step-by-step process. 
Paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the related work on Strategic Planning, Performance Management Systems and Corporate Social Responsibility. In Section 3, the proposed methodology and the different stages it encloses are explained. The methodology is validated in Section 4 by means of a case study. Section 5 discusses lessons learned from the research. Finally, the main conclusions of the research are drawn in Section 6.
Theoretical background 
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is a corporate managerial practice by means of which a set of processes are undertaken in order to define a range of strategies that will contribute to the achieving of the organisation’s mission statement. A great variety of definitions of strategic planning have been expressed in the literature; Grant (2003) provides an extensive review of the strategic planning history from “long range planning” until the current debates between “strategic management” and “strategic thinking”. Bryson (1995) claims that meeting the mandates and fulfilling the mission should result from strategic planning, which is defined as  'producing fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what the organisation is, what it does, and why it does it'.
The objective of the strategic planning processes is to design competitive strategies that enable the firm to find a position in the present environment (Porter, 1979), and to go beyond perceptions of the current situation to distinguish the enterprise into the future. 
Since the environment is continually changing, strategic planning is a continuous process in the company. It is the process by which firms derive a strategy to enable them to anticipate and respond to the changing dynamic environment in which they operate. In a dynamic business environment, the plans of many managing directors are constantly in the course of modification, revision and refinement, often in the minds of the top management, so as Mintzberg (1978) declares, emergent or actual strategy can diverge from planned strategy. Parallel to the abundance of strategic planning definitions, there are many different models about how strategic planning has to be overcome by the companies (David, 1995). Nevertheless, many of these models are very similar and it can be considered that a reasonable degree of consensus does exist on a normative model of the strategic planning and management processes (Preble, 1997). 
Although strategic planning seems to provide companies with the necessary frame to increase long -term value, research on the relationship between financial strategic planning and organisational performance has proved inconclusive (Falshaw and Glaister, 2006). It is recognized, however, that there may be non-financial consequences of strategic planning which provides benefits to the organisation and therefore, organisations should have the adequate tools that allow them to measure these non-financial benefits in addition to the already measured ones. These systems are the Performance Management Systems (PMS).
Performance Management Systems and Balanced Scorecard
From a commercial point of view, organisations meet their goals by satisfying their customers more effectively and efficiently than their competitors. Effectiveness refers to how skilfully the customer’s requirements are resolved. Efficiency is a measure of how economic resources are used to achieve the customer’s satisfaction. In this framework, a business performance measurement system is a set of metrics for measuring and evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of business operations that can be used as a support in making suitable decisions to enhance the competitiveness of the firm. 
In the new market context where information highly influences companies’ success, no single performance indicator could fully capture the complexity of an organisation’s performance. With multiple, and often conflicting demands from various stakeholders, a firm's performance objectives are multidimensional. There is no one single objective that can effectively capture overall performance (Mingfang, 1999) and generally used financial accounting measures can give misleading signals for continuous improvement and innovation. Trying to full this gap, Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the BSC, which is a tool that complements the financial measures with operational measures on customer satisfaction, internal processes, and the organisation’s innovation and improvement activities –operational measures that are the drivers of future financial performance. 
While strategic planning derives a general strategy from the mission statement, the implementation of a strategy requires the development of a progressively more concrete set of objectives and indicators broken down to the level of departments or fields of business. The BSC approach therefore, helps to integrate these within the overall strategy by exploding the business strategy in a hierarchical system of strategic objectives, all of them aligned towards the financial perspective. The BSC approach involves identifying key components of operations, setting goals for them, and finding ways to measure progress towards their achievement. Objectives are organised in perspectives and cause-effect relations are stabilised among them. In addition, performance indicators are defined for the different objectives. 
Many are the expected benefits of a BSC implementation, providing advantages such as  keeping  a consistent long-term strategy, providing integration within other improvement programs or acting as a cornerstone of present and future success by informing managers ‘what has gone wrong’ and where they can improve performance (Zingales et al., 2002), among others.
As is stated in (Figge et al., 2002), BSC is not a tool for the formulation of strategies, but one to describe and translate an existing strategy consistently in order to enhance its successful execution. Therefore, the success of a BSC is closely linked to strategy suitability and hence can result in scope-limited scorecards that cannot help drive companies to success. Thus it is important to define appropriate strategies within a strategic planning process. In this sense, traditional BSCs as defined by Kaplan and Norton were only focused on customers and shareholders, without having other stakeholders in mind in the course of strategy definition and scorecard implementation. For that reason a wider approach is necessary in order to reach sustainability. In this sense, although BSC was initially developed for the purpose of linking strategic goals in its four dimensions to financial results, it has been argued in many works such as (Bieker and Waxenberger, 2002; Van der Woerd and Van den Brink, 2004) that it is also suitable for the management of sustainability or CSR, in a manner that financial perspective is no longer positioned on the top and social and ecological objectives are also considered. 
Sustainable Development, Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility
Over the last decades, many have been the theories about Sustainable Development. This term was initially used as an eco-centric concept directed to the conservation of existing eco-systems, but the most commonly used definition is that given by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report “Our common future” (WCED, 1987), where sustainable development is defined as a “development that meets the needs of the present generation without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. 
As Danchev (2006) states, the organisation’s performance is coupled with its sustainable growth and behaviour, and in this context, Corporate Sustainability (CS) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are the terms used to refer to Sustainable Development of companies. In other words, this relates to the firm’s contribution to sustainable development (David, 1995) and they can be understood as a business management practice to assume the economic, social and environmental responsibilities they have with a wide range of stakeholders and act accordingly.
There are many expected benefits from the sustainable or socially responsible management of the corporations (Moneva et al., 2007). Husted and de Jesús Salazar (2006) consider that by regarding CSR from a strategic perspective, companies would increase shareholder’s value and at the same time  fulfil all their responsibilities and compromises with society and other stakeholders. Financial measures are insufficient (Saad, 2001), and new measures that address the impact of current strategies and actions on sustainability of business growth are required. What gets measured gets managed (Bose, 2006) and therefore, management attention should not be exclusively focused on financial results. 
Sustainability Strategic Planning and Management Methodology
Many works can be found regarding sustainable strategic planning, or sustainable scorecards, but no one of them offers a process to set up both techniques in an integrated step-by-step procedure. The latter will be expected to allow companies to save costs and obtain better results, since common steps on both Strategic Planning and BSC implementation are performed just once and a major integration is obtained. 
The main aim of the Sustainability Strategic Planning and Management (SSPM) methodology is to describe the process of designing and implementing a Sustainability BSC for corporations by means of a set of activities and techniques. This methodology does not include solely the necessary phases to set up a BSC system in a company, but instead it provides a whole framework to help companies in sustainability strategic planning and management by integrating different existing techniques.  Figure 5 shows the different phases of the SSPM methodology. 
It must be observed that this methodology is not only a tool for performance indicators definition, but also for business sustainability management and for evaluating its fulfilment, so that improved decision making would be possible. This methodology allows companies to align their strategy according to their short -, medium - and long-term objectives and the daily activities performed in the business processes. Therefore, it does not include solely a strategic map definition as other methodologies do (eg. Figge et al. 2002), but considers tactical and operational maps as well. 


Figure 5. Phases of the SSPM methodology.

Phase 1: Planning the Project
This is the initial phase in the development of any performance measurement project and hence, it is also the first step in our proposed methodology. The project team is made up of specialists from different areas of the enterprise. The people leading the project need to be aware of cultural implications when introducing a SBSC. If it is not top management itself that pushes, it will be necessary to designate promoters of the project, as a grant for success. Moreover, the top management or the promoters, have to allow members in the company to partake in the development process, combining a top-down and bottom-up approach, since they possess better knowledge about the company at its lower levels and therefore, can help significantly in defining affordable objectives and meaningful measures.
During this phase it is necessary, therefore, to create the plan for the project, defining tasks, timelines and resources, to establish the quality control mechanisms and to draw up the plan for change.
Phase 2: Defining the Enterprise Mission Statement 
This phase focuses on understanding the business. An analysis is conducted to examine the enterprise in the competitive environment, its internal situation, culture and above all, the strategic relevance of the different stakeholder groups. The aim here is to define the general aspects of the enterprise level: its mission, vision and values, and in this sense, it has often been argued that previous to write the mission statement, it is necessary to identify all those who have a claim on the business (e.g. Pearce II, 1982), that is, its stakeholders. , a management system for corporate sustainability requires that an adequate strategic framework (involvement, mission/vision, principles, personal commitment etc.) has to be established in the sense of a viable sustainable approach beforehand (Bieker and Waxenberger, 2002). This sustainable approach can be adopted without comprising financial results as has been proved in different research papers (Moneva et al., 2007; Muñoz et al., 2008). 
Since a sustainable mission statement pursues development suitable for all stakeholders and not only for shareholders, it is necessary to review the mission statement of the company in order to be reformulated with sustainability concerns in mind, taking into account all the stakeholders of the company as a whole and defining a set of values that has to be considered suitable for all parts of the enterprise environment, both at present and in the future. 
Phase 3: Analysing Stakeholders
During the mission statement formulation, identification of different stakeholders has been done, but only for the purposes of the mission statement formulation in terms of sustainability, so a more complex stakeholder analysis has to be performed in order to formulate a sustainable strategy. In addition, social and environmental issues that are relevant for the company success can be identified, but due to their great diversity it is very difficult to classify them in a comprehensible manner (Clarkson, 1995). Rather, social and environmental aspects depend on the preferences and values of the different actors involved. In the same way, and as Zingales et al. (2002) state, Scorecards for managing environmental issues (and social, for that matter) will need an adequate methodology or framework for scanning the context in which the organisation operates. Such a tool should identify the strategic relevance of the stakeholder groups that will be more important during the definition of indicators for the management of sustainability issues.
Hence, the purpose of this phase of the methodology is to carry out an extensive stakeholder analysis that will allow the business to integrate the stakeholders’ needs and expectations into the business strategy and to provide a base for the scorecard’s indicators definition. Additionally, it will be useful for the preventive identification of those areas where a potential conflict among stakeholders groups may appear.
The stakeholder analysis begins with the identifying of all those that affect or are affected by the business activities. Identification is not easy, and for such goal many authors have proposed different methods, some of which are reviewed in (León et al., 2007). Companies can use a pre-elaborated list of stakeholders such as the one provided by Jancic (1999) or any other author, but the ultimate decision will have been made by the business management team. 
Due to the limited organisational resources, businesses are not able to include all the identified stakeholders’ issues in their plans, so they have to establish an importance ranking in order to address the needs and expectations of the most relevant stakeholders in a strategic context. There are many frameworks that can be used in order to classify stakeholders (León et al., 2007), but the urgency, power and legitimacy classification by Mitchell and Wood (1997) is considered a useful tool for strategic purposes (Maignan et al., 2005). It is also necessary to identify all their needs and expectations related to the firm. The set of needs and expectations evaluated from the stakeholders ranking of strategic relevance will allow the company to identify the critical success factors to be considered in strategy formulation. 
Phase 4: Strategy Definition
This phase is related to Strategy formulation, which has the purpose to determine the future direction of the firm, and it has been widely treated in planning literature (Preble, 1997). Given that there is not a world agreement about the significance of the CSR concept, many different approaches are considered possible to be used by a company in its strategy definition, concretely in its sustainable strategy definition. Carrol (1979) identifies four approaches by means of which a company can respond to the social pressure regarding social and environmental concerns. Those are reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive. Many other classifications can be found, but literature reveals there is an empirical body of evidence about the fact that sustainability strategies can be classified according to their strategic orientation (market or society) and strategic behaviour (reactive or proactive).
As the purpose of this methodology is to help companies adopt sustainability, market strategic orientation should be rejected by companies using this methodology, but they are still free to choose between reactive or proactive strategic behaviour, always on the basis of having in mind the triple bottom line and not just the financial goals. 
As far as strategy definition is concerned, a good framework for it will be reaching consensus on the strategic goals of the organisation and preparing the strategic map, which will link the objectives between them by using cause-and-effect connections. Selected objectives have to be in accordance with the sustainability orientation and the behaviour selected by the company. The identification of sustainability strategic objectives has to commence from the analysis of the sustainability mission statement and proceed to social, environmental and financial objectives and their performance drivers in a top-down process which ensures that cause-and-effect links between them are defined. This hierarchical structure guarantees that all goals are aligned and all business activities are linked to the successful implementation of the business strategy.  It is necessary to note that no more than five measures have to appear in each one of the perspectives of the BSC (Kaplan and Norton, 1992), so no more than five objectives should be established. 
There are many different proposals on how sustainability can be integrated into BSC and some examples can be found in (Figge et al., 2002), but no universal agreement has been reached yet. Nevertheless, all of them are closely related to the original definition of BSC, and therefore not much innovation has been offered, since Kaplan and Norton had already proposed the option to add or modify some perspectives in order to include social or environmental concerns. Trying to solve this gap, we suggest a new model of SBSC.
This model (Figure 6) is based on the main ideas of Kaplan and Norton’s BSC, that is, different perspectives, clusters within perspectives and casual link between components in the different perspectives. Notwithstanding, our model is strongly based on sustainability and strategic planning concepts, so that it differs considerably from the original definition. Our model is made up of three main perspectives called Structure, Stakeholders and Sustainability, all of them interlinked by causal links. 
The Structure perspective is intended to collect all objectives related to the physical or intangible elements of the company, which are clustered according to their nature in different groups. It has to be noted that the fulfilment of the objectives in one of the clusters can be related to the objectives in the same or in a different cluster, so casual links may exists between clusters.
The Stakeholders perspective collects all the objectives regarding stakeholders’ interests. Some of them can be considered as related to many different groups, either because different individuals belonging to different groups can have a common interest or because the same individual can belong to more than one group, so intersections among groups are considered in the SBSC model.
Finally, the top level of our model is the Sustainability perspective. This perspective contains the final objectives, classified according to the three main components of sustainability. Bi-directional linkages are defined among the Financial, Environmental and Social clusters in the same way as the already presented “The Three Sustainable Cases” model (Figure 1d) depicts, since all of them are considered to have the same importance for sustainability. 



Figure 6. SBSC model for sustainability planning and management

This model is intended to be used in the same way as the traditional BSC model, that is, objectives are formulated in the Sustainability perspective in the first place, and then they are split in other objectives in the Stakeholders and Structure perspectives, establishing causal links among them. Thus, our model aims to be used not only in terms of the strategic objectives, but also with the tactical and operational ones, consequently allowing the development of a consistent strategy formulated by the alignment of objectives defined in every level of the organisation. In addition, the model can be used for the different levels of the organisation, such as the whole organisation, business units, departments or even workers.
The design of the strategy map is perhaps the most critical endeavour in a BSC making-up (Niven, 2002), since due to the different goals which the different departments pursue and the subjectivity in the linkage between them disagreements on the objectives selection and links may ensue, and therefore special attention has to be paid to this stage of the process trying to reach accord. To help to overcome these difficulties, and although objectives are defined in a top-down processes, it will be desirable to allow some workers to participate in the strategic map definition, since they can help define affordable objectives and real casual links. 
Phase 5: Strategy Implementation Plan Definition
During this phase, the action plans that will enable objectives fulfilment are defined. The new sustainable approach can make it difficult to label the affordable planes, since it involves changing the corporate culture and employee attitudes, defining responsibilities and accountability, establishing organisational structures, information reporting systems and operational practices.
In this stage, an exhaustive review of the organisational structure and the company processes is developed, in order to identify the necessary modifications that will ensure that planned objectives are successfully fulfilled, granting that day-to-day activities are performed in a manner that is consistent with these sustainable objectives. Necessary modifications may be broken up into a series of coordinated projects, which will be set in priority using an adequate evaluation method such as, for example, traditional cost/benefits analysis. Finally, a continuous improvement system must be designed, allowing to implant the medium and long term improvement projects in the future and to adjust the enterprise to the environmental changes. When these projects are completed, the company will be expected to be able to act in a sustainable way.
Phase 6: Design of Indicators and Targets 
Once objectives have been established and planes have been developed in order to reach them in a sustainable manner, it is time to define which indicator measures will comprise the SBSC. One of the most crucial elements to be accomplished in designing a system of indicators is to make sure it is properly aligned with the strategy, offering information about the extent to which objectives are being reached (Niven, 2002). With such purpose we consider that the best option is to use the selected objectives as the base for the indicators definition, so that measures in all three perspectives are formulated based on the causal map of objectives.
Having a database of reference indicators organised according to perspectives is a fundamental aid for defining the indicators of a particular company, since it may be quite difficult and involve high resources expenditure for a company that does not possess any previous skills for identifying and specifying them. When an indicators database is not available, it should be necessary to use a template like the one showed in Table 1, in order to reduce ambiguity and increase the quality of the indicators.
Indicators, in the same way as objectives, have to be defined in the strategic, tactical an operational levels of the firm, and they can be voluntarily split according to structural criteria in different business units, departments and so on.

Table 1. Template for indicators definition (adapted from Lohman et al. (2004)). 


Phase 7: Validation
A complete validation of the designed system of indicators and cause-effect relations is realized. The idea here is to use the results achieved over a period of time in order to look for a relation among the cause and effect indicators, and to measure the relation among the variables chosen so that further adjustments to the proposed system can be made. Regression analysis can be used to adjust the indicators and to achieve a better system design. If these results have not been recorded, its management staff can estimate the results to make the indicator systems fit better.
In addition, an audit of the selected set of measures must be realized. Those measures which are not relevant and those not selected are identified. Another aspect is to detect whether the deployment of the measurements has been carried out in a suitable manner.
Phase 8: SBSC Implementation 
In this phase the Computer System that aids the Sustainable BSC is implemented and is integrated within the information system of the enterprise. Figure 7 shows the computer solution proposed for the SBSC methodology defined as a system of integrated components that combines different technologies (adapted from Chalmeta and Grangel, 2005).
Integration of the SBSC computer system with the ERP, which can be seen as being complementary systems, is an important factor for the success of the project (Rom and Rohde, 2006). ERP systems are complex but flexible solutions that are easily integrated within other systems and can also be extended to the functionalities of a BSC. Like other business intelligence technologies they are capable of automating, informing or transforming the organization. ERP provide part of the information that is required by the SBSC to evaluate the indicators, and even help to account for the deviations between the goals that were set and the actual results. Nevertheless, not all the information is contained in the ERP.
The proposed solution consists in storing the information in a Data Warehouse (DW) that is set up following a process involving the integration of data in specific business systems, such as ERP, CRM, SCM, and so forth, which are a mixture of operational and decisional systems. It may be possible that no system exists to store information about sustainability, such us stakeholders’ interests, best available techniques, social concerns and so on, so it may be necessary to develop a Sustainability Management module. To automate the SBSC, a business intelligence tool can be chosen and parameterized or software can be developed and integrated within the ERP of the enterprise.



Figure 7. The Computer Solution for SBSC (adapted from Chalmeta and Grangel, 2005).

The system uses the data integrated in the DW to generate models for the analysis of the organisation with data-mining tools that are useful for performing analyses of financial aspects, customers, markets, and so forth. The system also includes On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) techniques that make it possible to carry out complex analyses of the information contained in the DW which are then used to draw up reports and summaries containing strategic information to assist in making decisions (Bose, 2006).  As a result, the system enhances organization’s internal communication capabilities, with may influence performance through improved future strategic decision making, better coordination of strategic actions and by facilitating learning from strategic initiatives and stimulating innovation The training of the Human Resources to understand the SBSC designed and how to use the computer system is a key element in the success of the project. To achieve this, it is necessary seminars and courses to be organised/held to help interpret the implementation of the SBSC. 
Phase 9: Monitoring
Measurement systems are not simply designed and implemented, but they also involve they being monitored over extended periods of time. SBSC systems succeed when they provide relevant facts and data on what is good about a current sustainability performance and what needs to be improved either immediately or in the future.
In this phase, a set of procedures for keeping track of the SBSC should be designed. Hence, the implementation of the SBSC is regularly checked and evaluated by monitoring the system in real time and then honing it to peak efficiency. 
As more results become available, the hypotheses formulated in the strategy can be tested and a process of feedback and ongoing learning is started. Depending on the organisational level (operational, tactical, strategic), the strategy is reviewed periodically (usually monthly, quarterly or annually), which gives rise to a process of continual learning achieved through readjustment of the indicators or by undertaking actions to fulfil the goals proposed.
SSPM Methodology validation.

After an initial design of the methodology, the authors tested it through a case study. The reason to the use of this methodology was because its applicability to lineal process analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989) and to the acquisition of a holistic perspective of complex phenomena.
The validation of the methodology was carried out through a real application in a medium manufacturer enterprise which was in latest stages of the implementation of a new information system and in which the authors were acting as external advisers for the process. During the application procedure, the steps of the methodology were revised and improved according to obtained results and company’s feedback, bringing the theoretical design of the methodology closer to companies’ reality. 
In order to provide the case study research with higher scientific validity, the authors followed the methodological stages based on inductive analysis of qualitative data (Yin, 1994) for the improvement of existent methodologies. As recommended in literature (Yin 1998), throughout the case study process the four tests that are commonly used to judge the quality of a case study were applied. These tests and the scrupulous application of the proposed stages for the improvement of existent methodologies allowed authors to assess that the study had construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability.
 Validation limitations
The application of the SSPM methodology is a complex process which has to be overcome carefully in order to be successful. Despite its applicability to any type of organizations, there are some key factors that have to be overcome by companies using the methodology to integrate sustainability in their operations.
On the one side, sustainability strategic planning requires a deep change in the nature of companies’ objectives and goals. SSPM methodology implementation demands managers to broaden their view of the company, being conscientious of all impacts, and searching for new opportunities that CSR model offers. In this way, stakeholder engagement plays a key role, but it is a really hard task that has to be performed carefully, since it requires the collaboration of external groups that can not be managed easily. In this way, literature proposes some tools (e.g. Jackson, 2001) that companies can use in order to improve their stakeholder engagement.
On the other side, an effective SBSC implementation has also a series of barriers, some of them identified for Kaplan and Norton (1996): visions and strategies that are not actionable; strategies that are not linked to departmental, team and individual goals; strategies that are not linked to long- and short-term resources allocation; and feedback that is tactical, not strategic. 
As a result the use of SSPM methodology, does not guarantee the integration of social, environmental and economic aspects in the global strategy just by themselves, and therefore, sustainability could not be reached even when a correct implementation is done. SSPM methodology and SBSC are only tools intended to help companies where willingness and CSR culture exists, and with such propose, managers play a key role in providing the necessary environment, such as education and resources, and serving as an example for the whole company. For this reason, the performed validation was centered in testing whether the different steps and tools provided by the SSPM methodology can be applied successfully to companies.
 Participant company
The company where the application of SSPM methodology was performed considered that a BSC could enhance considerably the strategic functionalities of the ERP, providing them support to plan, manage and follow strategies. The company did not have previous experience in using BSCs, but since the enterprise manufactured ceramic printers that use chemical components that were environmental damaging, and both their clients and providers operated globally, top management at the company considered that their BSC should provide support to manage social and environmental perspectives. The SBSC model presented in this research article turned out to be considered as the most convincing option for them.

Table 2. Company profile and general details of SSPM methodology. 


 Case description
The application of the methodology in the company was perform with the authors acting as involved researchers, participating actively in the day to day happenings of the methodology application in company during the research period. This situation allows the researchers to collect data from different sources (interviews with managers, project-leaders, super-users, consultants and project team members).
Before planning the application of the SSPM methodology, a presentation was given at the enterprise so that top management could see the importance of integrating sustainability matters in the company and the aims of the SSPM methodology. This presentation was accompanied by a detailed explanation of SSPM methodology and how it could easily merge with the ERP implementation process.  The presentation enabled the directors at the firm to quickly understand (a) the benefits that it was going to offer them, (b) the activities in which they would have to collaborate, (c) the resources that would have to be assigned, and (e) the impact that the project would have on the enterprise. 
Phase 1 
The enterprise included two new members into the committee that was responsible for decision making in issues related to ERP implementation project. As a result, the initial committee which included the controller, the logistic manager and the manufacturing manager, was improved to include the human resources manager and the quality assurance manager. During actual implementation other participants were also involved, including managers from each departPhase 1 
The enterprise included two new members into the committee that was responsible for decision making in issues related to ERP implementation project. As a result, the initial committee which included the controller, the logistic manager and the manufacturing manager, was improved to include the human resources manager and the quality assurance manager. During actual implementation other participants were also involved, including managers from each department and offered employees a clear understanding about why the project was essential to the company’s survival, persuading them to embrace –or at least not fight- the prospect of such a major change. 
Phase 2 
A meeting was kept were top management and the authors reviewed the existing mission statement, which was redacted in a manner that included more stakeholders than clients, which were the only ones that appeared in the previous statement. Due to the new of the sustainable perspective for managers, it was not easy to reach an agreement, but finally a suitable for all mission statement was achieved: “Having satisfied customers and creating value for them and society is our biggest aim. We listen to our stakeholders. We put ourselves in their shoes. Our daily challenge is responding to society needs in ceramic decoration taking care of environmental healthy. Their positive opinion about our sustainable results is our best reward. 
Phase 3
The project committee ant the authors kept a meeting where the more influent stakeholders for the company identified and prioritised. Since stakeholder term was not familiar for committee members, the authors provided them with a closed list containing most significant stakeholders. Not having enough resources to engage them properly, their interests and expectations were established according committee knowledge and experience and a list of common interests provided by the authors. Top manager considered the previously elaborated lists provided by authors as indispensable tools for manager not used to work having environmental and social performance in mind.  
Phase 
A complete Sustainable BSC was then developed according SBSC model. A first meeting was conducted where authors showed to top manager some examples of SBSC designed according their experience. During near two weeks, top manager members thought about what could be the sustainable objectives for their company. Finally, a complete definition of objectives and relations among them were agreed among top managers with the help of the authors. Not being used to work with BSC and having limited resources for its proper management, top management decided not to define tactical and operational maps. Top managers felt considerably proud to include top level objectives such improve environmental performance that was expected to be reached by means of lowers level objectives such as implementing the ISO14001 Norm, training employees to reduce environmental impacts and progressively replacing most damaging inks. 
Phases 5, 6, 7 & 8
These phases were accomplished almost together as ERP consultants were implementing the new information system. The implementation carried more than 6 months, and along this period, processes at company were reengineered to include Corporate Social Responsibility considerations and to fit with ERP capabilities in order to provide support to the strategic plan definition. 
Indicators were defined according the Template for Indicators Definition and were based on objectives included in the previously defined BSC, being department managers the people designed to be the keepers of indicators directly linked to their departments and the controller the keeper of indicators dealing with the whole organisation. No target values were still determined for indicators, since the company did not have experience in managing information such as the number of customer complaints or the roles, competences and abilities of their employees. The indicators definition was then deliver to ERP consultants, who were responsible for the parameterisation of the information system in a manner that provide support to record the necessary data for indicators calculation. Not all indicators and their links could be validated with historical data, but it planned to validate them during monitoring phase.
Finally, trainings were performed at same time as consultants trained users to use the new systems and validate the implantation. The high level of integration among the new tasks required by CSR and the new information system meant an important save in training users. 
Phase 9
Monitoring phase is intended to be as long as strategy term and its execution should be adapted to company. The participant company planned a monthly meeting were the person responsible for each department would explain to the top management and the people responsible for the other areas the obtained results.  The IS provides automatically the indicators; therefore the strategy progress can be effortlessly supervised.

Results of the project should be deeply analysed on a long-term, since both the new information system and the new socially responsible processes will take long time until company fell comfortable with them and can therefore to receive the expected benefits.
Discussion
As well as improving the methodology as a result of applying it to the company, the potential for developing research in this area has been proved, since there is still a lot of research to overcome until sustainability is adopted by organisations in its wider range. In addition, series of lessons concerning the main factors involved in the successful inclusion of sustainable concerns in business strategic planning and management have been learnt:
Step-by-step planning. Dividing the complexity of the project into stages produces more manageable sub-stages, with specific objectives that enable significant results to be obtained in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time this arouses greater interest in the new system among users: “Divide and Conquer”.
Use trained and experienced consultants in sustainability, strategy and computers who are capable of transferring the needs of the business to the strategy map, the action plan and the configuration of the software that is going to be installed or developed, as well as the later management of change.
Get end users involved in designing the SBSC. Development of a SBSC requires working directly with the end users of the processes and the software, since we may run the risk of developing a system that is not useful or usable by those who are going to utilize it.
Permanent control and evaluation of the sustainable strategy. The sustainable strategy implementation does not end when the computer system begins to operate. It is something that is under continuous development and evaluation due to the continuous changes of the organisation context. It is therefore important to systematically measure, control and analyse its effectiveness in order to improve results.
Conclusions
To successfully carry out a project aimed at developing and implementing a SBSC, it is essential to have a step-by-step methodology that directs the development and implementation processes. However, existing methodologies for implementing BSCs or developing information systems are not oriented towards the specific problems arising in triple bottom line based projects.
Along this research work the SSPM methodology for sustainability strategic planning and management has been presented, which is intended to help the made-aware-of-sustainability companies to act in a socially responsible manner by integrating sustainable approaches from their mission statement into their day-to-day activities. Managers could therefore use the step-by-step methodology as a supporting procedure to define and manage strategies at their companies.
The application of the SSPM methodology will produce changes in the companies, providing them with the expected benefits from strategic planning and sustainable behaviour. Companies would increase the shareholder’s value and at the same time fulfil all their responsibilities and compromises with society and other stakeholders.
Acknowledgements: 
The authors would like to acknowledge the sponsorship of the CICYT DPI2006-14708 and SEJ2006-08317/ECON projects, as well as the University Jaume I via the PREDOC/2005/38 PhD scholarship and the P1·1B2006-16 investigation project.
References

Bieker, T., Dyllick, T., Gminder, C. U. and Hockerts, K. (2001), “Towards A Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: Linking Environmental and Social Sustainability to Business Strategy”, Conference Proceedings of Business Strategy and en Environment 2001 in Leeds, UK, ERP Environment, pp. 22-31.
Bieker, T. and Waxenberger, B. (2002), “Sustainability Balanced Scorecard and Business Ethics – Developing a Balanced Scorecard for Integrity Management”, proceedings of 10th International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network.
Bose, R. (2004), “Knowledge management metrics”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 457-68.
Bose, R. (2006), “Understanding management data systems for enterprise performance management”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Bryson, J.M. (1995), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Carroll, Archie B. (1979), “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Chalmeta, R. and Grangel R. (2005), “Performance measurement systems for virtual enterprise integration”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 73-84.
Clarkson, M. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Danchev, A. (2006), “Social capital and sustainable behaviour of the firm”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 953-965.
David, F.R. (1995), Concepts of Strategic Management, Macmillan.
Eisendhart, K.M. (1998), “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.  
Falshaw, J.R. and Glaister, K. W. (2006), “Evidence on formal strategic planning and company performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 9-30.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2002), “The sustainability balanced scorecard – Linking sustainability management to business strategy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.11, pp. 269-248.
Grant, R.M. (2003), “Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidences from oil majors”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 491-517.
Husted, B.W. and de Jesús Salazar, J. (2006), “Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Jackson, J. (2001) “Prioritising customers and other stakeholders using the AHP”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7/8, pp. 858-871.
Jancic, Z. (1999), Celostni marketing, 2nd revised edn, Ljubljana: FDV.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1992 No. January-February, pp. 71–79.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), Translating Strategy into Action: the Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1997), Balanced Scorecard: Strategien erfolgreich umsetzem. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001), The Strategy-Focused Organization: how Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
León, R., Chalmeta, R., Muñoz, M.J. (2007) “Methodology to determine CSR information requirements and efficient indicators for a successful disclosure”, proceedings of Management International Conference, Portorož, Slovenia.
Lohman, C”, proceedings of Management International Conference, Portorož, Slovenia.
Lohman, C. Fortuin, L. and Wouters, M. (2004), “Designing a performance measurement system: a case s”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156, pp. 267-286.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), “A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing”, European Journal of Marketing,  Vol. 39 No. 9/10, pp. 956-977.
Mingfang, L. and Ye, L.R. (1999) “Information technology and firm performance: Linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts”, Information & Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Mintzberg, H. (1978), “Patterns in strategy formation”, Management Science, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 934–948.
Mitchell, R. K. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a Theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-886.
Moneva, J.M., Rivero-Lirio, J.M. and Munoz-Torres, M.J. (2007), “The corporate stakeholders commitment and social and financial performance”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 107 No.1, pp. 84-102.
Muñoz, M.J., Moneva, M. and Rivera, J.M. (2008), “ Evaluating sustainability in organisations with a fuzzy logic approach”, Industrial Management & Data Systems Vol. 108 No. 6, 2008 pp. 829-841.
Niven, P.R. (2002), Balanced Scorecard Step-by-step: Maximizing Performance and Mantaining results, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
Pearce II, J. (1982) “The company mission as a strategic tool”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 15-24.
Porter, M.E. (1979), “How competitive forces shape strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 137-145.
Preble, J.F. (1997), “Integrating the Crisis Management perspective into the Strategic Management Process”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 769-791.
Rom, A., Rohde, C. (2006), “Enterprise resource planning systems, strategic enterprise management systems and management accounting”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 50-66.
Saad, G.H. (2001), “Strategic performance evaluation: descriptive and prescriptive analysis”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 8, pp. 390-399.
Van Der Woerd, F., Van den Brink, T. (2004), “Feasibility of a Responsive Business Scorecard – a pilot study”, Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 55, pp. 173-186.
Wagner, C. (2004), “Enterprise strategy management systems: current and next generation”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 105-128.
World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Yin, R.K. (1994).