Managing the Indirect Effects of Environmental Regulation and Performance Measurement

  • Tan, Kim Hua ;
  • Shi, Lei ;
  • Tseng, M.L. ;
  • Cui, Wen-Jie
  • Received : 2014.02.03
  • Accepted : 2014.05.14
  • Published : 2014.06.30


Sustainable development has always been the top agenda of many governments. Especially, the concept of 'Ecological Civilisation (EC)' is gaining substantial attention from China's new leaders. However, regional government officers may manipulate or change top level policy in order to suit their own interests or if they are unable to meet the varied pressures of achieving the set measures. Thus, policy makers can unwittingly cause a negative or positive impact on the firms or regional development through the implementation of EC regulations and the requirement to measure, monitor and report performance measurement (PM) information. This can potentially have significant consequences for the firms, the industry sector, and China as a whole. The aim of this research is to explore and evaluate previous work focusing on the relationship and links between regulation and PM. This research will make a significant knowledge contribution to the emerging and yet important area in EC related research. A good understanding of the linkages between PM and EC will assist policy makers to better formulate suitable regulatory control mechanisms at the field level. Moreover, they may take the PM and EC linkages into consideration when setting policy frameworks by minimizing the negative effects and take advantages of the positive consequences.


Ecological Civilisation;Performance Measurement;Unintended Effect


  1. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. (1968), Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
  2. Parsons, H. M. (1974), What happened at Hawthorne? New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies, Science, 183(4128), 922-932.
  3. Powell, A. A., White, K. M., Partin, M. R., Halek, K., Christianson, J. B., Neil, B., Bloomfield, H. E. (2012), Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local practice, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27 (4), 405-412.
  4. Ridgway, V. F. (1956), Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 240-247.
  5. Saretsky, G. (1972), The OEO PC Experiment and the John Henry Effect, Phi Delta Kappan, 53(9), 579-581.
  6. Shaffer, B. (1995), Firm-level responses to government regulation: theoretical and research approaches, Journal of Management, 21(3), 495-514.
  7. Tan, K. H. and Rae, R. H. (2009), Uncovering the links between regulation and performance measurement, International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1), 449-457.
  8. Thorndike, E. L. (1920), A constant error in psychological ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
  9. Unahabhokha, C., Platts, K., and Tan, K. H. (2006), A framework for developing and using a predictive delivery performance measurement system, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 8(4), 308-329.
  10. Yin, R. K. (1994), Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
  11. Adcroft, A. and Willis, R. (2005), The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance measurement, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(5), 386-400.
  12. Brigham, B. H. and Fitzgerald, L. (2001), Controlling measurement in a regulated water company, Report, Warwick Business School, Centre for Management under Regulation, Coventry, UK.
  13. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
  14. Ellickson, R. C. (1987), A critique of economic and sociological theories of social control, Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 67-99.
  15. Gibbs, J. P. (1989), Control: Sociology's Central Notion, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
  16. Gilliland, D. I. and Manning, K. C. (2002), When do firms conform to regulatory control? The effect of control processes on compliance and opportunism, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(2), 319-331.
  17. Goulder, L. H., Jacobsen, M. R., and Van Benthem, A. A. (2012), Unintended consequences from nested state and federal regulations: the case of the Pavley greenhouse-gas-per-mile limits, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(2), 187-207.
  18. Hart, C. (1999), The mysterious placebo effect, Modern Drug Discovery, 2(4), 30-40.
  19. Humphreys, I. and Francis, G. (2002), Performance measurement:a review of airports, International Journal of Transport Management, 1(2), 79-85.
  20. Meredith, J. (1998), Building operations management theory through case and field research, Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441-454.
  21. Merton, R. K. (1936), The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action, American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904.
  22. Meyer, M. W. (2004), Rethinking Performance Measurement:Beyond the Balanced Scorecard (reprinted ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cited by

  1. Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility Leading to Sustainable Development vol.13, pp.3, 2014,
  2. Sustainable Chinese manufacturing competitiveness in the 21st century: green and lean practices, pressure and performance pp.1362-3052, 2016,
  3. Managing social responsibility in Chinese agriculture supply chains through the “a company + farmers” model vol.29, pp.3, 2017,
  4. Sustainable Product Strategy in Apparel Industry with Consumer Behavior Consideration vol.9, pp.6, 2017,
  5. Dual Institutional Pressures, Sustainable Supply Chain Practice and Performance Outcome vol.10, pp.9, 2018,
  6. How Social Capital Affects the Quality Performance of Agricultural Products: Evidence from a Binary Perspective of China vol.10, pp.9, 2018,