Search results

Prior research identified conflicts in implementing performance measurement systems that include both financial and non-financial measures. Attempts to incorporate non-financial measures, for example, balanced scorecards (BSCs), have shown short-term success, only to be replaced with systems that rely on financial measures. We develop a theoretical model to explore evaluators’ choice and use of the most important performance measurement criterion among financial and non-financial measures.

Our model links participants’ prior evaluation experiences with their attitudes about relative accounting qualities and with their choice of the most important performance measure. This choice subsequently affects their evaluation judgments of managers who perform differentially on financial versus non-financial measures.

Experimental testing of our structural equation model indicates that it meets the accepted goodness of fit criteria. We conclude that experience has an influence on choice of performance measures and on decision heuristics in making such evaluations. We suggest that an “experience gap” must be considered when deciding which performance metrics to emphasize in scorecards or similar performance reports. We analyzed four accounting qualities, importance, relevance, reliability, and comparability and found that importance, relevance, and reliability have strong effects on how managers prioritize and use accounting measures.

We conducted our study in a controlled, experimental setting, including participants with diverse experiences. We provide direct evidence of participants’ experience and attitudes about the relative accounting qualities of financial and non-financial measures which we link to their choice of the most important performance measure. We link this choice to their performance evaluations.

Issues relating to the financial and non-financial performance of firms are attracting considerable research attention. Four specific factors are focused on this paper, namely quality of information system (IS) information, corporate environmental integration, product innovation, and product quality to investigate the extent to which these variables influence financial and non-financial performance. All four independent variables were found to enhance the performance assessed in non-financial terms. In contrast, the results show that product innovation alone influences financial performance. The findings of this study suggest that the efficacy of these factors may be more effectively assessed by evaluating their impact on performance measured in non-financial terms, thereby suggesting that the inclusion of non-financial measures in performance evaluation models should enhance control system functioning.

Emphasising the significance of managing environmental and social issues for businesses, the chapter aims at highlighting the need of developing a non-financial risk management system for elevating corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance in China. Particularly, through discussing its importance, opportunities, and challenges.

Analysis and discussion of the chapter are based on multiple sources of information. Review of literature includes authoritative academic articles, reports from renowned global organisations, media coverage of corporations, and examples of business cases in China.

Several key findings are covered in the chapter. First of all, environmental and social concerns are usually being deemed as intangible issues that need to be properly articulated and managed by an effective non-financial risk management system for enhancing corporate sustainability in China. Secondly, through different interpretations of sustainability, links could be drawn for non-financial risk management and sustainability. Thirdly, by explaining the impacts from non-financial risk management to sustainable development and profits, the chapter has argued CSR as a clear business case for any company in China. Fourthly, challenges are also portrayed for the effective management of non-financial risk management by corporations. Finally, the need of a well-defined non-financial risk management system for helping businesses to be more competitive, thus, moving closer to sustainability in China and elsewhere is provided.

Integrating environmental and social risks is critical to the effective management of any corporation’s real risks and to improve resource allocation in a sustainable fashion. This demands a systematic and strategic identification of issues through non-financial risk management. Most significantly, this chapter has shown the way this can be achieved by any corporation in China, and the concepts can be applied into other societies.

The contribution of the chapter is thought to be significant. Although there exists a wide body of research on sustainable development, risk management and CSR in China, there is limited insight into how corporations can effectively conceptualise such intangible or non-financial risks in relation to sustainability.

The study contributes to the literature on public value and performance examining politicians’ and managers’ perspectives by investigating the importance they attach to the different facets of performance information (i.e. budgetary, accrual based- and non-financial information (NFI)).

We survey politicians and managers in all Italian municipalities of at least 80,000 inhabitants.

Overall, NFI is more appreciated than financial information (FI). Moreover, budgetary accounting is preferred to accrual accounting. Politicians’ and managers’ preferences are generally aligned.

NFI as a measure of public value is not alternative, but rather complementary, to FI. The latter remains a fundamental element of public sector accounting due to its role in resource allocation and control.

The preference for NFI over FI and of budgetary over accruals accounting suggests that the current predominant emphasis on (accrual-based) financial reporting might be misplaced.

Public value and performance are multi-faceted concepts. They can be captured by different types of information and evaluated according to different criteria, which will also depend on the category of stakeholders or users who assesses public performance. So far, most literature has considered the financial and non-financial facets of performance as virtually separate. Similarly, in the practice, financial management tends to be decoupled from non-financial performance management. However, this research shows that only by considering their joint interactions we can achieve an accurate representation of what public value really is.

This study examines the links between financial performance and executive compensation for high-performance companies (HPC). HPC display sustained and superior cash flow returns, asset growth, and total shareholder returns. In previous empirical analysis, HPC companies displayed specific identifiable financial performance drivers and measures when compared to companies in the S&P 500 (Needles et al., 2004). Most recently, HPC sustained their high performance when compared to the S&P 500 over varied economic periods. Further, the research identified operating asset management characteristics of these companies, especially as they relate to the cash cycle (Needles et al., 2004). Continuing this stream of research, this study first identifies the financial and non-financial performance measures related to compensation of top management of HPC as reported in the companies’ public disclosures. Then, these findings for HPC are matched to a set of comparable non-HPC. Finally, we evaluate the stated performance measures for executive compensation in light of the performance drivers and measures identified by previous research to be distinguishing characteristics of HPC. We hypothesize that HPC will more closely align stated performance measures for executive compensation with performance characteristics that have been shown to be characteristics of HPC. We find that HPC are more focused and unambiguous in their use of both financial and non-financial performance measures in executive compensation.

Models of value creation that have been proposed for supporting value-based management are described and analyzed, including the Balanced Scorecard, the Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, the Deming Management Method, the Service-Profit Chain, and the Skandia Intellectual Capital Model. These models are compared, their potential for guiding the identification of value drivers and performance measures for value-based management is assessed, and management issues that must be addressed if such models are to contribute to long-run value creation are explored. These issues include causally linking value drivers to each other and to financial outcomes, the extent to which the models take a dynamic, or whole-system, view of value creation, and whether multiple value drivers should be explicitly weighted and combined to form a “value index.” Finally, the substantial body of research evidence linking intangible value drivers to financial outcomes is reviewed, and some directions for further research are offered.

Performance management involves budgeting, performance evaluation, and incentive compensation. This study describes a model that encompasses these three elements of performance management. To illustrate the model, survey data were examined using path analysis. The empirical evidence supports the model, and suggests several intervening variables that mediate the direct and indirect effects of budgeting, performance evaluation, and incentives on gaming behaviors and individual performance.

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

This chapter proposes a contingency model that examines the most relevant contingent variables for understanding the factors that explain innovative costing techniques in a sample of firms investing in advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT firms). Furthermore, the aim of this study was also to ascertain whether AMT firms use significantly innovative managerial practices (IMPs).

The chapter uses material from a survey investigation and interviews with financial directors and the survey was conducted using a sample of AMT firms selected from an Italian industry. The method differs from previous studies in that it considers the relationship between a relevant contingency variable of AMT firms (i.e. the levels of integration, but also environmental uncertainty and size) and various innovative costing, a relationship that has not been previously explored. The research was developed from the relevant literature.

The results indicate that there is no association between innovative costing and AMT firms in general, however the findings show that activity-based costing (ABC) is positively associated with fully integrated AMT firms. Large AMT firms have the highest percentage of innovative costing usage, such as ABC and strategic costing (SC). The relationship between AMT firms that perceive a high degree of environmental uncertainty and innovative costing was supported by the data in case of strategic dimension (target costing (TC) and life cycle costing (LCC)). Expectations of a relationship between AMT firms and IMPs, such as just-in-time (JIT), total quality management (TQM) and activity-based management (ABM), were not supported by the data.

We recognise that specific research limitations might reduce their generalisation, especially the number of statistical observations.