The integration of sustainability targets and their connection to executive compensation is emerging as a new facet of corporate strategies in response to the low-carbon transition, ESG-driven demands from institutional investors, regulatory mandates, and commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR). The purpose of this research is to explore issues related to sustainability target-setting and the associated methodologies. This paper summarizes the prior work on target setting and sustainability targets, and the results from previous studies on the reason and rationality of setting sustainability targets were discussed. It also pointed out the issues in sustainability targets and related incentive design. Based on this, several suggestions are offered to assist companies in developing and setting sustainability targets and goals.

sustainability targets; executive compensation; management incentives

1. Brown K. Global environmental change I. Progress in Human Geography. 2013; 38(1): 107-117. doi: 10.1177/0309132513498837

2. Beermann M. Linking corporate climate adaptation strategies with resilience thinking. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2011; 19(8): 836-842. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.017

3. Anderson SW, Dekker HC, Sedatole KL. An Empirical Examination of Goals and Performance-to-Goal Following the Introduction of an Incentive Bonus Plan with Participative Goal Setting. Management Science. 2010; 56(1): 90-109. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1088

4. Arnold MC, Artz M. Target difficulty, target flexibility, and firm performance: Evidence from business units’ targets. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2015; 40: 61-77. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.002

5. Matějka M. Target Setting in Multi-Divisional Organizations. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 2018; 30(3): 13-27. doi: 10.2308/jmar-52159

6. Feichter C, Grabner I, Moers F. Target Setting in Multi-Divisional Firms: State of the Art and Avenues for Future Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 2018; 30(3): 29-54. doi: 10.2308/jmar-52158

7. Niven K, Healy C. Susceptibility to the ‘Dark Side’ of Goal-Setting: Does Moral Justification Influence the Effect of Goals on Unethical Behavior? Journal of Business Ethics. 2015; 137(1): 115-127. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2545-0

8. Welsh DT, Baer MD, Sessions H, et al. Motivated to disengage: The ethical consequences of goal commitment and moral disengagement in goal setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2020; 41(7): 663-677. doi: 10.1002/job.2467

9. Schweitzer ME, Ordonez L, Douma B. Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal. 2004; 47(3): 422-432. doi: 10.2307/20159591

10. Welsh DT, Ordóñez LD. The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2014; 123(2): 79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.006

11. Vveinhardt J, Sroka W. Mobbing and corporate social responsibility: does the status of the organisation guarantee employee wellbeing and intentions to stay in the job? Oeconomia Copernicana. 2020; 11(4): 743-778. doi: 10.24136/oc.2020.030

12. Kobayashi K, Eweje G, Tappin D. Changing overwork culture: Stakeholder management for employee wellbeing and social sustainability in large Japanese companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2024; 31(5): 5032-5048. doi: 10.1002/csr.2844

13. Kobayashi K, Eweje G, Tappin D. Employee wellbeing and human sustainability: Perspectives of managers in large Japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27(7): 801-810. doi: 10.1002/bse.2032

14. Gorgenyi-Hegyes E, Nathan RJ, Fekete-Farkas M. Workplace Health Promotion, Employee Wellbeing and Loyalty during Covid-19 Pandemic—Large Scale Empirical Evidence from Hungary. Economies. 2021; 9(2): 55. doi: 10.3390/economies9020055

15. Luo L, Tang Q. Corporate governance and carbon performance: role of carbon strategy and awareness of climate risk. Accounting & Finance. 2020; 61(2): 2891-2934. doi: 10.1111/acfi.12687

16. Ioannou I, Li SX, Serafeim G. The Effect of Target Difficulty on Target Completion: The Case of Reducing Carbon Emissions. The Accounting Review. 2015; 91(5): 1467-1492. doi: 10.2308/accr-51307

17. Aranda C, Arellano J, Davila A. Organizational Learning in Target Setting. Academy of Management Journal. 2017; 60(3): 1189-1211. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0897

18. Yitzhaky L, Bahli B. Target Setting And Firm Performance: A Review. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR). 2021; 37(3): 81-94. doi: 10.19030/jabr.v37i3.10375

19. Liu X (Kelvin), Zhang Y (May). Effects of Target Timing and Contract Frame on Individual Performance. European Accounting Review. 2014; 24(2): 329-345. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2014.942337

20. Indjejikian RJ, Matějka M, Schloetzer JD. Target Ratcheting and Incentives: Theory, Evidence, and New Opportunities. The Accounting Review. 2014; 89(4): 1259-1267. doi: 10.2308/accr-50745

21. Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice Hall; 1990.

22. Tosi HL, Locke EA, Latham GP. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. The Academy of Management Review. 1991; 16(2): 480. doi: 10.2307/258875

23. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist. 2002; 57(9): 705-717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705

24. Matějka M, Ray K. Balancing difficulty of performance targets: theory and evidence. Review of Accounting Studies. 2017; 22(4): 1666-1697. doi: 10.1007/s11142-017-9420-4

25. Humphreys KA. The balanced scorecard: Do managers need a strategy map when evaluating performance? Accounting & Finance. 2023; 63(4): 4357-4373. doi: 10.1111/acfi.13097

26. Dorf RC, Raitanen M. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action. Proceedings of the IEEE. 1997; 85(9): 1509-1510. doi: 10.1109/jproc.1997.628729

27. Epstein MJ, Manzoni JF. The Balanced Scorecard and Tableau de Bord: translating strategy into action. Management Accounting (New York, N.Y.). 1997; 79(2): 28.

28. Epstein M, Manzoni JF. Implementing corporate strategy: From Tableaux de Bord to balanced scorecards. European Management Journal. 1998; 16(2): 190-203. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00087-X

29. Ayoup H, Omar N, Abdul Rahman IK. Balanced Scorecard and Strategic Alignment: A Malaysian Case. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues. 2016; 6(4S).

30. Kaplan RS. The balanced scorecard: comments on balanced scorecard commentaries. Hoque Z, ed. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. 2012; 8(4): 539-545. doi: 10.1108/18325911211273527

31. Busco C, Quattrone P. Exploring How the Balanced Scorecard Engages and Unfolds: Articulating the Visual Power of Accounting Inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research. 2014; 32(3): 1236-1262. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12105

32. Hoque Z. 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review. 2014; 46(1): 33-59. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003

33. Chehimi M, Naro G. Balanced Scorecards and sustainability Balanced Scorecards for corporate social responsibility strategic alignment: A systematic literature review. Journal of Environmental Management. 2024; 367: 122000. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122000

34. Bento RF, Mertins L, White LF. Ideology and the Balanced Scorecard: An Empirical Exploration of the Tension Between Shareholder Value Maximization and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 142(4): 769-789. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3053-6

35. Alatawi IA, Ntim CG, Zras A, et al. CSR, financial and non-financial performance in the tourism sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2023; 89: 102734. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102734

36. Richards M. When do Non-financial Goals Benefit Stakeholders? Theorizing on Care and Power in Family Firms. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 184(2): 333-351. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05046-9

37. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/ (accessed on 2 December 2024).

38. Barbier EB, Burgess JC. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics. 2017; 11(1). doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-28

39. Calabrese A, Costa R, Gastaldi M, et al. Implications for Sustainable Development Goals: A framework to assess company disclosure in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 319: 128624. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128624

40. Edmans A. The end of ESG. Financial Management. 2023; 52(1): 3-17. doi: 10.1111/fima.12413

41. Gull AA, Hussain N, Khan SA, et al. Governing Corporate Social Responsibility Decoupling: The Effect of the Governance Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility Decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 185(2): 349-374. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05181-3

42. You L. The Impact of Social Norms of Responsibility on Corporate Social Responsibility Short Title: The Impact of Social Norms of Responsibility on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2023; 190(2): 309-326. doi: 10.1007/s10551-023-05417-w

43. Zaman R, Jain T, Samara G, et al. Corporate Governance Meets Corporate Social Responsibility: Mapping the Interface. Business & Society. 2020; 61(3): 690-752. doi: 10.1177/0007650320973415

44. Serafeim G, Yoon A. Stock price reactions to ESG news: the role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Review of Accounting Studies. 2022; 28(3): 1500-1530. doi: 10.1007/s11142-022-09675-3

45. Haffar M, Searcy C. Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27(7): 1079-1092. doi: 10.1002/bse.2053

46. Ritz R. Climate targets, executive compensation, and corporate strategy. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc; 2020.

47. Ferns G, Amaeshi K, Lambert A. Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 158(1): 201-231. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3733-x

48. Ponomarenko T, Marinina O, Nevskaya M, et al. Developing Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methods for Oil and Gas Companies. Economies. 2021; 9(2): 58. doi: 10.3390/economies9020058

49. Kwarto F, Nurafiah N, Suharman H, et al. The potential bias for sustainability reporting of global upstream oil and gas companies: a systematic literature review of the evidence. Management Review Quarterly. 2022; 74(1): 35-64. doi: 10.1007/s11301-022-00292-7

50. Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science. 2014; 60(11): 2835-2857. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984

51. Dahlmann F, Branicki L, Brammer S. ‘Carrots for Corporate Sustainability’: Impacts of Incentive Inclusiveness and Variety on Environmental Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2017; 26(8): 1110-1131. doi: 10.1002/bse.1971

52. Asiaei K, Bontis N, Barani O, et al. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability performance measurement systems: implications for organizational performance. Journal of Management Control. 2021; 32(1): 85-126. doi: 10.1007/s00187-021-00317-4

53. Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976; 3(4): 305-360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

54. Farmer REA, Winter RA. The Role of Options in the Resolution of Agency Problems: A Comment. The Journal of Finance. 1986; 41(5): 1157-1170. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1986.tb02539.x

55. Dittrich LO, Srbek P. Managerial Compensation and Firm Performance: Is There Any Relationship? International Advances in Economic Research. 2016; 22(4): 467-468. doi: 10.1007/s11294-016-9605-9

56. Khan H ur R, Khidmat WB, Hares OA, et al. Corporate Governance Quality, Ownership Structure, Agency Costs and Firm Performance. Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2020; 13(7): 154. doi: 10.3390/jrfm13070154

57. Cavaco S, Crifo P, Guidoux A. Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance: The Role of Executive Compensation. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. 2020; 59(2): 240-274. doi: 10.1111/irel.12254

58. Maas K, Rosendaal S. Sustainability Targets in Executive Remuneration: Targets, Time Frame, Country and Sector Specification. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2015; 25(6): 390-401. doi: 10.1002/bse.1880

59. Arora A, Alam P. CEO Compensation and Stakeholders’ Claims*. Contemporary Accounting Research. 2005; 22(3): 519-547. doi: 10.1506/8dlt-1rhn-wgbb-chtm

60. Freudenreich B, Lüdeke-Freund F, Schaltegger S. A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 166(1): 3-18. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z

61. Stoelhorst JW, Vishwanathan P. Beyond Primacy: A Stakeholder Theory of Corporate Governance. Academy of Management Review. 2024; 49(1): 107-134. doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0268

62. Cornell B, Shapiro AC. Corporate stakeholders, corporate valuation and ESG. European Financial Management. 2020; 27(2): 196-207. doi: 10.1111/eufm.12299

63. Pandher G, Currie R. CEO compensation: A resource advantage and stakeholder‐bargaining perspective. Strategic Management Journal. 2012; 34(1): 22-41. doi: 10.1002/smj.1995

64. Deegan CM. Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2019; 32(8). doi: 10.1108/aaaj-08-2018-3638

65. Hummel K, Schlick C. The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure – Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2016; 35(5): 455-476. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.06.001

66. Crossley RM, Elmagrhi MH, Ntim CG. Sustainability and legitimacy theory: The case of sustainable social and environmental practices of small and medium‐sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2021; 30(8): 3740-3762. doi: 10.1002/bse.2837

67. Akhter F, Hossain MR, Elrehail H, et al. Environmental disclosures and corporate attributes, from the lens of legitimacy theory: a longitudinal analysis on a developing country. European Journal of Management and Business Economics. 2022; 32(3): 342-369. doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-01-2021-0008

68. Shinkle GA, Hodgkinson GP, Gary MS. Government policy changes and organizational goal setting: Extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm. Journal of Business Research. 2021; 129: 406-417. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.056

69. Alsaifi K, Elnahass M, Salama A. Carbon disclosure and financial performance: UK environmental policy. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2019; 29(2): 711-726. doi: 10.1002/bse.2426

70. Khatib SFA, Al Amosh H. Corporate Governance, Management Environmental Training, and Carbon Performance: The UK Evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2023; 15(3): 14787-14809. doi: 10.1007/s13132-023-01650-w

71. Rohani A, Jabbour M. Carbon media legitimacy in UK companies: actions or words? Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2023; 25(2): 298-324. doi: 10.1108/jaar-08-2022-0200

72. Xu W, Huang W, Li D. Climate risk and investment efficiency. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. 2024; 92: 101965. doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2024.101965

73. Liu H, Shi Y, Yang X, et al. The Role of Business Environment and Digital Government in Mitigating Supply Chain Vulnerability—Evidence from the COVID-19 Shock. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3): 2323. doi: 10.3390/su15032323

74. Kamalipoor M, Akbari M, Hejazi SR, et al. The vulnerability of technology-based business during COVID-19: an indicator-based conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2022; 38(5): 983-999. doi: 10.1108/jbim-10-2020-0455

75. Khan MA, Segovia JET, Bhatti MI, et al. Corporate vulnerability in the US and China during COVID-19: A machine learning approach. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries. 2023; 27: e00302. doi: 10.1016/j.jeca.2023.e00302

76. Zhang H, Hu Z. How does COVID-19 affect firms’ short-term financial pressure? Evidence from China. Applied Economics Letters. 2021; 29(9): 794-800. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2021.1886234

77. Lozano R, Barreiro-Gen M. Corporate Sustainability and COVID-19: Analyzing the Impacts of the Outbreak. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2021; 49(1): 72-80. doi: 10.1109/emr.2021.3049538

78. Kola Benson A, Fortune G. Sensitivity analysis of the impact of Covid-19 on corporate sustainability and company performance. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478). 2022; 11(3): 16-26. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v11i3.1704

79. Alkayed H, Yousef I, Hussainey K, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on sustainability reporting: A perspective from the US financial institutions. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2023; 25(2): 279-297. doi: 10.1108/jaar-12-2022-0345

80. Atkins J, Doni F, Gasperini A, et al. Exploring the Effectiveness of Sustainability Measurement: Which ESG Metrics Will Survive COVID-19? Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 185(3): 629-646. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05183-1

81. Su R, Obrenovic B, Du J, et al. COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(3): 1592. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031592

82. Maji SG, Lohia P. Assessing the effect of core and expanded ESG on corporate financial performance: COVID-19’s moderating role. Journal of Indian Business Research. 2024; 16(2): 244-264. doi: 10.1108/jibr-07-2023-0233

83. Zhong M, Zhao W, Shahab Y. The philanthropic response of substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility strategies to COVID‐19 crisis: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2021; 29(2): 339-355. doi: 10.1002/csr.2204

84. Gennitsaris S, Oliveira MC, Vris G, et al. Energy Efficiency Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Current Situation, Case Studies and Best Practices. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4): 3727. doi: 10.3390/su15043727

85. Jiang Y, Ni H, Guo X, et al. Integrating ESG practices and natural resources management for sustainable economic development in SMEs under the double-carbon target of China. Resources Policy. 2023; 87: 104348. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104348

86. UK Finance. Unlocking the SME Net Zero Transition. Available online: https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/policy-and-guidance/reports-and-publications/unlocking-sme-net-zero-transition (accessed on 2 December 2024).

87. Smith H, Discetti R, Bellucci M, et al. SMEs engagement with the Sustainable Development Goals: A power perspective. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 149: 112-122. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.021

88. Xiong W, Yuan JF, Li Q, et al. Performance objective-based dynamic adjustment model to balance the stakeholders’ satisfaction in ppp projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2015; 21(5): 539-547. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.895409

89. Bridoux FM, Vishwanathan P. When Do Powerful Stakeholders Give Managers the Latitude to Balance All Stakeholders’ Interests? Business & Society. 2018; 59(2): 232-262. doi: 10.1177/0007650318775077

90. Nguyen HTT, Ullah S, Le HTM, et al. Sustainability Targets in Executive Remuneration Contracts and Corporate Sustainability Performance in the United Kingdom and European Union. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2023; 43(3): 393-415. doi: 10.1007/s10669-023-09901-6

91. Barr V, Nisch K, ProQuest. Sustainability for retail : how retail leaders create environmental, social, & cultural innovations. Business Expert Press; 2022.

92. Shalley CE. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal. 1995; 38(2): 483-503. doi: 10.2307/256689

93. Webb RA, Williamson MG, Zhang Y (May. Productivity-Target Difficulty, Target-Based Pay, and Outside-the-Box Thinking. The Accounting Review. 2013; 88(4): 1433-1457. doi: 10.2308/accr-50436

94. Wong J. Tesla Factory Workers Reveal Pain, Injury and Stress: ‘Everything Feels like the Future but Us.’ The Guardian; 2017.

95. O’Kane S. Tesla’s on-Site Health Clinic Accused of Undercounting Worker Injuries. Available online: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/6/18064326/tesla-factory-worker-injuries-clinic-fremont (accessed on 2 December 2024).

96. Anwari Z. Tesla Shares Dip By 8% - A Deep Dive Into Labor Controversies and Market Resilience Amid UAW Strikes. Benzinga Newswires; 2023.

97. Kehr HM. Goal setting theory—Firmly entrenched, but narrow in its focus. Motivation Science. 2019; 5(2): 110-111. doi: 10.1037/mot0000132

98. Pizzetti M, Gatti L, Seele P. Firms Talk, Suppliers Walk: Analyzing the Locus of Greenwashing in the Blame Game and Introducing ‘Vicarious Greenwashing.’ Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 170(1): 21-38. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2

99. Wu Y, Zhang K, Xie J. Bad Greenwashing, Good Greenwashing: Corporate Social Responsibility and Information Transparency. Management Science. 2020; 66(7): 3095-3112. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3340

100. Rhodes C. Democratic Business Ethics: Volkswagen’s Emissions Scandal and the Disruption of Corporate Sovereignty. Organization Studies. 2016; 37(10): 1501-1518. doi: 10.1177/0170840616641984

101. Bol JC, Lill JB. Performance Target Revisions in Incentive Contracts: Do Information and Trust Reduce Ratcheting and the Ratchet Effect? The Accounting Review. 2015; 90(5): 1755-1778. doi: 10.2308/accr-51050

102. Kim S, Shin JY. Executive Bonus Target Ratcheting: Evidence from the New Executive Compensation Disclosure Rules. Contemporary Accounting Research. 2017; 34(4): 1843-1879. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12350

103. Kolk A, Perego P. Sustainable Bonuses: Sign of Corporate Responsibility or Window Dressing? Journal of Business Ethics. 2013; 119(1): 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1614-x

104. Lenihan O, Brennan NM. Difficulty of Sustainability Performance Targets in CEO Bonus Plans. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review. 2023; 31. doi: 10.52399/001c.90764

105. Callery PJ, Kim E. Set & Done? Trade-Offs between Stakeholder Expectation and Attainment Pressures in Corporate Carbon Target Management. Journal of Management Studies; 2024.

106. Edmans A, Gabaix X. Executive Compensation: A Modern Primer. Journal of Economic Literature. 2016; 54(4): 1232-1287. doi: 10.1257/jel.20161153

107. Blagova I, Romanishina T, Bobovnikova A, et al. ESG business transformation as a way to mitigate corporate risks. E3S Web of Conferences. 2024; 548: 01006. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202454801006

108. Baker GP. Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement. Journal of Political Economy. 1992; 100(3): 598-614. doi: 10.1086/261831

109. Bonham JD. Shaping Incentives through Measurement and Contracts. The Accounting Review. 2024; 99(4): 57-81. doi: 10.2308/tar-2019-0248