This article discusses the impact of institutional pressures on the selection of the performance indicators in 83 Balanced Scorecards (BSC) used in French real estate companies. I studied the way in which two factors that are representative of institutional pressures in the real estate sector – namely, “ecology” and “digital innovation” – were incorporated into the BSC causal chains My methodology is that of action research. In order to analyze the balance of indicators between short and long term, I classified the companies according to their strategic acuity, i.e., their ability to balance an organizational vision (near vision) and an environmental one (distance vision) when choosing their performance indicators. This resulted in a company classification with three categories: emmetropic, hypermetropic, and slightly myopic. The research enabled to observe that the selected ecological indicators in BSCs derive mainly from coercive institutional pressure. Hence, in companies with fewer legal requirements in ecological matters, the selected ecological indicators are included in the BSC causal chain in that they are used as a commercial argument with a view to improving financial performance. These results are similar to the reactionary and reputational perspectives of the sustainability business case. With regard to the incorporation of digital innovation indicators into BSCs, I found that the companies that have the most digital innovation indicators are those that mobilize the most ecological indicators. Digital innovation indicators are part of the companies’ internal process perspective and are linked to organizational learning indicators.These results are similar to the responsible and collaborative perspectives of the sustainability business case. I also found that the companies incorporate digital indicators into their BSCs by institutional mimicry insofar as the selected indicators are not always consistent with a strategic rationale but are chosen by copying what is done in other companies. My research has two main limitations related to the methodology used. On the one hand, the mobilization of part-time management students to have access to companies can influence the emergence of mimetic isomorphisms. Indeed, these students follow the same training and advise the companies that welcome them according to the training they have followed. On the other hand, my research stops at the development of the BSC. I do not study the impacts or changes that occurred after the implementation of the tool. This could be the subject of future research on the appropriation and use of the BSC by the company’s actors and their impact on the optimization of global performance measurement system. This study may be of interest to researchers and managers who wish to reconcile sustainable development and digital innovation in global performance management. It analyzes the impact of institutional pressures on the performance measurement system. It offers insights on how to integrate ecological indicators and digital innovation indicators into the BSC causal chains. It identifies the tensions that managers may face. It reports on practices adopted in the field by managers in action. This article reveals the feasibility of measuring global performance integrating ecology and digital innovation. It responds to a preoccupation of recent years in academic research on how to reconcile CSR and technological innovation. It shows that the companies that have the most digital innovation indicators are those that mobilize the most ecological indicators. However, it highlights the difficulties encountered by managers in the field when faced with institutional pressures. My reflection is in line with the literature of recent years that reconciles sustainable development and innovation. I study how “ecology” and “digital innovation” are incorporated into the BSC causal chains. To my knowledge, this is the first time this type of study has been conducted in the literature.