Search results

Fast‐growth companies illustrate, over a short space of time, the opportunities, threats, problems and pitfalls of business growth. After carrying out a general survey of fast‐growing companies in Britain, the authors carried out an in‐depth study of 30 of them. Organic growth and growth by acquisition were examined, as well as their strategic planning and implementation, their control of operations and their company development. Successful fast‐growth companies were found to be anti‐bureaucratic and task‐focused. The keys to their success were size flexibility and opportunism. The companies studied were bold in their strategy but unsophisticated in developing and implementing strategic plans. The main weakness of the companies was a lack of attention to managing transitions – i.e. controlling the evolution of the company as it grew. These weaknesses were revealed in the worsening business climate of the late 1980s, when many of these star performers of the early 1980s hit major problems.

Fast‐growth companies illustrate, over a short space of time, the opportunities, threats, problems and pitfalls of business growth. After carrying out a general survey of fast‐growing companies in Britain, the authors carried out an in‐depth study of 30 of them. Organic growth and growth by acquisition were examined, as well as their strategic planning and implementation, their control of operations and their company development. Successful fast‐growth companies were found to be anti‐bureaucratic and task‐focused. The keys to their success were size flexibility and opportunism. The companies studied were bold in their strategy but unsophisticated in developing and implementing strategic plans. The main weakness of the companies was a lack of attention to managing transitions – i.e. controlling the evolution of the company as it grew. These weaknesses were revealed in the worsening business climate of the late 1980s, when many of these star performers of the early 1980s hit major problems.

Successful growth companies represent the future. Their opportunistic, customer‐responsive styles and operating practices are just what today′s turbulent, competitive environment demands. As they grow, they will become powerful forces in the economy and their successful planning and operating practices will be adopted by other aspiring organisations. The focus is upon the fast‐growing companies in Britain. Their experience over a relatively short time frame demonstrates the opportunities, threats, problems and pitfalls attached to dramatic business growth. A new set of rules which would guide companies through the necessary and predictable transitions of growth are sought. It is hoped that chief executives and strategic planning directors will use the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented to shape the future practices of their own organisations.

The importance of reviewing the opportunities for, and the barriers to, growth are examined. Ways of measuring growth are discussed, and five routes to business growth are outlined – market development, product and service innovation, investment in “capability”, business organisation and control, and acquisition, considering the aims, advantages, disadvantages and tools needed for each. The principles of drift and discontinuity are described in relation to fast growth, and three examples of fast‐growth companies are considered. Some detailed recommendations for chief executives who wish to lead their companies towards growth are provided, including: understand the business environment; develop the business for growth; and develop a management style to match. A summary of the findings of the research is reported, recapping the four management systems, the five growth rules and the eight characteristics of fast‐growth companies. It is suggested that the way to sustain growth and avoid problems, is to develop service brands, which will be the growth area of the 1990s.

President, Charles S. Goldman, M.P.; Chairman, Charles Bathurst, M.P.; Vice‐Presidents: Christopher Addison, M.D., M.P., Waldorf Astor, M.P., Charles Bathurst, M.P., Hilaire Belloc, Ralph D. Blumenfeld, Lord Blyth, J.P., Colonel Charles E. Cassal, V.D., F.I.C., the Bishop of Chichester, Sir Arthur H. Church, K.C.V.O., M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sir Wm. Earnshaw Cooper, C.I.E., E. Crawshay‐Williams, M.P., Sir Anderson Critchett, Bart., C.V.O., F.R.C.S.E., William Ewart, M.D., F.R.C.P., Lieut.‐Colonel Sir Joseph Fayrer, Bart., M.A., M.D., Sir Alfred D. Fripp, K.C.V.O., C.B., M.B., M.S., Sir Harold Harmsworth, Bart., Arnold F. Hills, Sir Victor Horsley, M.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.S., O. Gutekunst, Sir H. Seymour King, K.C.I.E., M.A., the Duke of Manchester, P.C., Professor Sir Wm. Osler, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., Sir Gilbert Parker, D.C.L., M.P., Sir Wm. Ramsay, K.C.B., LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., Harrington Sainsbury, M.D., F.R.C.P., W. G. Savage, M.D., B.Sc., R. H. Scanes Spicer, M.D., M.R.C.S., the Hon. Lionel Walrond, M.P., Hugh Walsham, M.D., F.R.C.P., Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., Evelyn Wrench.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a retrospective review of an early marketing text, Marketing Methods (1918) by Ralph Starr Butler.

Marketing Methods is summarized, and perspectives of scholars that have occurred since its publication are provided.

Marketing Methods represents the first college textbook to use the term “marketing” and, thus, represents a major and important early work in the field.

This review of Marketing Methods provides a retrospective on the development, structure, critical reviews and influence of this text.

Does the method of divisor adjustment used for stocksplits in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) cause a downward bias in the average’s level and does this method of adjustment cause increased volatility in the average? To investigate these issues, two averages are created using DJIA stocks. One average is adjusted for stock splits through adjustment in the divisor. This method is identical to the DJIA method of adjustment.The other average makes adjustment for stock splits by adjusting the stock value in the numerator. Relative to these two methods of adjustment for stock splits, there sults of the study demonstrate that there is no downward bias of the DJIA. Additionally, it is found that the method of divisor adjustment for stock splits does not increase the volatility of the average. When compared to the Standard and Poor’s Industrial Index, the DJIA does show downward bias.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity reporting practices and trends of the top 50 Australian mining companies before and after the United Nations (UN) declared the period 2011-2020 as the “Decade on Biodiversity”.

Using content analysis and interviews, this study compares the extent and type of biodiversity disclosures made by the Australian Stock Exchange’s top 50 metals and mining companies both before and after the UN’s “Decade on Biodiversity” declaration in 2010.

A significant increase in the amount of biodiversity reporting is observed between the 2010 fiscal year preceding the UN’s declaration and the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years following the declaration. The findings reveal, however, that the extent of biodiversity reporting is quite variable, with some companies showing substantial increases in their biodiversity reporting and others showing modest or no increases. In particular, the larger companies in the sample showed a statistically significant increase in their disclosures on biodiversity in 2013 compared with 2010, while the increase in biodiversity disclosures by smaller companies was not significant. While interviewees spoke about their companies being more open and transparent, the biodiversity information that is being reported would not enable external parties to assess the company’s biodiversity performance.

To minimise an organisation’s use of biodiversity reporting as an impression management tool, it is suggested that biodiversity reporting should be more impact based and organisations should provide a report of their activities and their direct and tangible impacts on short-term and long-term biodiversity in and around their operating sites. A possible limitation of the present study pertains to its focus on companies’ voluntary disclosures made in their annual reports and sustainability reports, as opposed to other possible formal or even informal disclosure mediums.

Australia is one of 17 mega-diverse wildlife countries in the world. Finding ways to support the country’s biodiversity framework and strategy are crucial to this continued status. Due to the mining industry’s significant impact on Australia’s biodiversity, a strong need exists for biodiversity reporting by this industry. Furthermore, this reporting should be provided on a site-by-site basis. At present, the reporting aggregation typically conducted by mining companies produces obscure information that is neither useful for stakeholders who are impacted by the mining companies’ activities nor for policymakers who are vested with responsibility for protecting and sustaining the world’s biodiversity.

This study examines the biodiversity reporting and discourse practices of mining companies in Australia and develops a 50-item biodiversity reporting index to measure the biodiversity reporting practices.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity and threatened species reporting of the top 150 Fortune Global companies. The paper has two main objectives: to explore the extent to which the top 150 Fortune Global companies disclose information about their biodiversity and species conservation practices, and to explore the effects of biodiversity partners and industry on companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting.

The study’s sample is the top 150 Fortune Global companies. Each company’s fiscal year ending 2014 annual report, its 2014 sustainability report, and its company website were content analyzed for evidence of biodiversity and threatened species reporting. This content analysis is supplemented by a detailed analysis that focusses on the sample’s top five reporters, including a phone interview with a senior sustainability manager working at one of these companies. Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the associations between companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting and the presence/absence of biodiversity partners and a company’s industry F&C Asset Management industry category.

The reporting on biodiversity and threatened species by the top 150 Fortune Global companies is quite limited. Few companies (less than 15) are providing any substantial reporting. It was further observed that even among the high scoring companies there is a lack of consistent reporting across all index items. A subsequent empirical examination of these companies’ disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species showed a statistically positive association between the amount of reporting and companies’ holding of biodiversity partnerships. It was also observed that firms categorized as red- and green-zone companies made more disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species than amber-zone companies.

This is the first study to systematically analyze corporate disclosures related to threatened species and habitats. While some prior studies have included the concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’ environmental disclosures, they have done so by examining it as one general category out of many further categories for investigating organizations’ environmental reporting. In the present study, the focus is on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures. As such, this study has the twin research objectives of seeking to illuminate the current state of biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the world’s largest multinationals and provide an appreciation for how certain organizational and industry variables serve to influence these reporting practices. These multiple insights offer companies, and potentially regulators, understanding about how to include (or extend) disclosures on biodiversity loss and species under threat of extinction.