Search results

The paper aims to explore the effect of stakeholder pressure on the disclosure of key performance indicators (KPIs) and the patterns of this disclosure in large public interest entities (PIEs).

The study is based on the content analysis of the disclosures provided by 169 large (PIEs) operating in Poland in 2019. The data was hand-collected from the companies’ non-financial statements. The research hypotheses were empirically tested with the use of linear regression.

The explanation for the disclosure of KPIs can be found in stakeholder theory, operationalized by stakeholder pressure linked to industry. In line with the expectations, business-related KPIs are disclosed by companies operating in industries with high pressure from investors, environment-related KPIs are presented by companies operating in environmentally sensitive industries and companies operating in industries with high pressure from employees disclose society-related KPIs. According to the results of the study, reporting on employee-related KPIs is accompanied by environmental and social KPI disclosures.

The study contributes to the literature on corporate non-financial disclosures as it provides new insights into non-financial KPI disclosures in a new and relatively unexplored institutional setting established by the Directive 2014/95/EU. While researchers recognize the stakeholders’ environmental and social concerns, there is nevertheless a lack of understanding of their implications for KPIs in measuring social practice. The research fills that gap by addressing the specific impact of different stakeholder groups on the disclosure of KPIs.

The paper aims to examine if corporate characteristics, general contextual factors and the internal context differentiate the quality and quantity of the disclosed non-financial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The study is based on content analysis of the disclosures provided by large public interest entities operating in Poland after the introduction of the Directive 2014/95/EU. The quality of the KPIs disclosures is measured with the disclosure index. Regression analysis and selected statistical tests are used to examine the influence of the selected factors on the differences in the index value and corporate disclosure choices as regards the KPIs.

The study findings indicate that the sample companies provide a variety of non-financial KPIs in a manner that makes their effective comparison difficult. The research confirms that mainly industry, ecologists and the reporting standard determine the significant differences in the quality of the KPIs disclosures and the quantity of presented KPIs.

The paper adds to the understanding of the differences in the quality of KPIs presentation and the choice of disclosed KPIs.

The paper includes suggestions on how to change corporate practice with regard to the non-financial KPIs disclosures.

We shed additional light on the importance of internal contextual factors such as the reporting standard and the reporters' experience in providing non-financial KPIs disclosures.

This paper aims to investigate whether managers use impression management through the presentation of non-financial information in an integrated reporting setting.

The authors performed an experiment with experienced professional controllers and part-time students enrolled in the executive master’s degree in finance and control at universities in the Netherlands. In this experiment, we manipulated the financial performance to test if managers present non-financial information differently based on the firm’s financial performance.

This study found that impression management is not applied by including or excluding non-financial key performance indicators (KPIs) in the integrated report, but by using more prominent presentation forms for positive non-financial performance and non-prominent ones for negative non-financial performance. However, the use of impression management through the presentation form decreased when the firms’ financial performance was positive. In that instance, this study noted that managers statistically significantly more often decided to present poor non-financial performance in a prominent presentation format in comparison to managers who were not aware of the financial performance.

A limitation of this paper is that the authors focused on only two impression management strategies: opportunistic/under-reporting and the presentation form. This analysis shows that the use of impression management mainly seems to occur through the presentation format. Future research could investigate other impression management strategies in an integrated reporting setting.

The results of this study are of importance for users of integrated reports, because it will provide more insight into whether firms are truly transparent in their integrated reports. Furthermore, the theoretical implication of this study is relevant to regulatory authorities, because it sheds light on the different forms of impression management used in integrated reporting and the influence of positively or negatively performing KPIs on the decisions of preparers of integrated reports.

Therefore, in this study, the authors add to prior literature by investigating the concept of impression management in an integrated reporting setting. More specifically, the authors perform an experiment and focus on different forms of impression management (the presentation format and under-reporting) through non-financial KPIs in an integrated reporting setting and link it to firm financial performance.

The purpose of this paper was to investigate what types of supply chain strategies (SCS) are implemented within luxury fashion companies, according to the drivers that regulate competitiveness in this sector (brand positioning, distribution channel, type and line of product). Moreover, the objective was to define which key performance indicators (KPIs) should be measured according to the chosen strategy, and finally to evaluate the alignment of luxury fashion companies with the proposed indicators.

The literature review was the first step performed. Thereafter, a case study was conducted and the sample, composed of six companies, was selected, a questionnaire was then developed to guide the interviews, after which the data were collected. From the data, a primary case analysis was conducted, from which cross-case patterns were also researched.

From the results obtained, it was possible to state that companies involved in the case study adopted different SCS within the same company according to the drivers that regulate the sector competitiveness. As a result, the product line was shown to be the only driver that affected both the alignment between the expected and implemented SCS, respectively, and the alignment with the selected KPIs.

The paper provides valuable insights to companies that are trying to align SCS and KPIs. The close link between these aspects had not yet been explored previously. In particular, there were no indications about the KPIs that have to be measured for a specific SCS.

Measuring shared value (SV) created in innovation ecosystems (IEs) is increasingly relevant but complex, given the multidimensional and multiactor nature of both concepts, which challenges traditional performance measurement systems (PMSs). Moving from this gap, the authors propose an integrated approach to extend the balanced scorecard (BSC) for measuring and monitoring SV creation at IE level.

The proposed approach combines the most recent contributions on PMS in IEs and SV to define perspectives and dimensions that are better suited to deal with the nature of both IEs and SV. The approach is also applied to the real case (Alpha) of an Italian IE through a step wise method. Starting from the IE vision, the authors identify in the strategy map the specific objectives related to each perspective/dimension combination and then associate a performance indicator with each objective.

The resulting SV BSC is composed of indicators interconnected along different perspectives and dimensions. The application of the approach to the real case proves its feasibility and highlights characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the SV BSC when used at IE level. The authors also provide guidelines for its application to other IEs.

The study contributes to the research on PMS by introducing and applying to a real case an integrated approach to assess SV in IEs, overcoming the shortcomings of PMS framed for single firms. It can be of interest for both researchers in the field of ecosystems value creation and practitioners managing or promoting such complex structures.

This paper presents a new and well-structured framework that aims to assess the current environmental impact from a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions perspective. This tool includes a new set of Lean Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which translates the well-known logic of Overall Equipment Effectiveness in the field of GHG emissions, that can progressively detect industrial losses that cause GHG emissions and support decision-making for implementing improvements.

The new metrics are presented with reference to two different perspectives: (1) to highlight the deviation of the current value of emissions from the target; (2) to adopt a diagnostic orientation not only to provide an assessment of current performance but also to search for the main causes of inefficiencies and to direct improvement implementations.

The proposed framework was applied to a major company operating in the plywood production sector. It identified emission-related losses at each stage of the production process, providing an overall performance evaluation of 53.1%. The industrial application shows how the indicators work in practice, and the framework as a whole, to assess GHG emissions related to industrial losses and to proper address improvement actions.

This paper scrutinizes a new set of Lean KPIs to assess the industrial losses causing GHG emissions and identifies some significant drawbacks. Then it proposes a new structure of losses and KPIs that not only quantify efficiency but also allow to identify viable countermeasures.

Firms frequently struggle with measuring the performance of their radical innovation activities. Due to the uncertainty and ambiguity involved, key performance indicators (KPIs) used for incremental innovation projects are often not useful in this context. The purpose of this paper is to explore suitable KPIs particularly useful for radical innovation projects.

This study first reviews commonly used measures for innovation projects, which is then followed by case-study evidence from three industry-leading international firms. This study includes 13 in-depth interviews with innovation managers and directors in these firms, providing insights on how they measure the progress and performance of radical innovation projects.

KPIs used commonly in incremental innovation showed lackluster results in the case firms and were problematic for radical innovation context. A key finding was that radical innovation project performance should be evaluated based on the process rather than on the expected outcome. Concurrently, based on the literature review and the cases, three sets of KPIs with 13 specific KPIs useful for radical innovation projects are proposed.

The paper addresses a core challenge in using established KPIs in a radical innovation context. The paper gathers and synthesizes a range of measurement points suitable for radical innovation projects and provides specific suggestions for appropriate metrics that innovation managers can use.

The main target of the study represented in developing a proposed Quantitative Model for the purpose of measuring the administrative performance of public governmental organizations, taking into account the validity of the model for many different contexts in practice through governmental sector.

Depending on statistical approach, both authors tried to handle this issue through assessing institutional performance in the state owned units on many levels starting from individual level (HR and leaders), sub-units, organization level, then deriving an aggregated formula for assessing general institutional performance of the whole public body in one state, depending on reviewing some of concerned literatures.

The authors could already formulate some proposed criteria for assessing and measuring institutional performance on three different levels.

Although the topic is considered one of the most complicated areas of institutional reform trends, the idea remains very vital as a step forward to improving public policy implementation in the governmental sector, besides that it is correlated to institutional capacity building process in practice.

While all recoveries are good, some are better than others with regard to their speed and/or magnitude. Many revenue-related key performance indicators (KPIs), such as comparisons to budgets and forecasts that were designed pre-pandemic to assess a hotel's or destination's performance are no longer valid. Therefore, the primary purpose of this conceptual paper is to highlight the need to peg financial-related KPIs relative to competitors' performance during and following a radical market disruption. The secondary purpose of this paper is to summarize advances reported in the literature and in the industry related to competitor benchmarking and accurately identifying competitor sets.

This conceptual paper synthesizes research from disparate sources to offer a series of recommendations to the industry regarding best practices for developing and monitoring revenue-related KPIs during pandemic recovery. Such KPIs will be different based upon hospitality or tourism sector but must be largely founded upon benchmarking off comparable operations.

Industry disruptions triggered by COVID-19 underscore the need (1) to increasingly utilize competitor-based revenue KPI benchmarks; (2) to have reliable competitor benchmarking data more readily available for use by hotels and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and (3) for both hotels and DMOs to more accurately identify their competitive sets.

The recommendations offered in this paper are anchored with appropriate theories and empirical research; and as a consequence, offer guidance for the industry for KPI formulation during and following the pandemic.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss contemporary knowledge relevant to the application of performance measurement (PMe) in the concept of OPM and to compare findings from a literature review with solutions recommended for utilization by managers from general contractors operating in Poland. There are few studies related to the mentioned topic, much fewer describing the geographical area of Eastern Europe.

Triangulation of research methods was selected. First literature review, next desk research and finally descriptive statistical analysis and interview were conducted. The research methods were applied in three steps whose beginnings overlapped and the mid-term findings from one study complemented others.

PMe should be focused on management and governance issues. Its evaluation is related to various organizational levels (permanent organization, portfolio, program, project, construction site and supply chain), most of them are under valuated by practitioners. The conducted study pointed out that there are numerous supporting tools and measures applicable in organizational project management (OPM). The managers recommend combining various tools in one comprehensive OPM system, to limit multiple manual incorporations of the same data to the various databases. The managers call to increase the practical usefulness of researchers’ proposals, to educate the construction managers in the application of complex performance systems and to promote portfolio thinking.

The comparison of performance measurement solutions proposed by academia with experience collected from Polish construction managers could support the better application of theoretical ideas in practice.