Search results1 – 10 of 159
This article identifies current performance measurement practice within state, territory and federal government departments in Australia with a particular emphasis on the…
This article identifies current performance measurement practice within state, territory and federal government departments in Australia with a particular emphasis on the importance of sustainability performance measures. Whilst voluntary sustainability reporting by private sector organisations aligned, for the most part, with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines is growing, there is little sustainability reporting by organisations in the public sector. This raises questions as to the extent to which public sector sustainability performance is managed. This research aims to assess the use of sustainability performance measures for supporting organisational performance improvement.
A mail out survey approach has been adopted within government departments.
The performance measures utilised by organisations to a great extent were in the areas of cost efficiency and quality measures and those utilised to least extent were for learning and growth measures and to satisfy legislative requirements and manage programs. Sustainability, environmental or social responsibility measures are the least used performance measures, and those utilised are mainly measures of employee diversity and non-financial economic aspects that are identified.
The public sector is unlikely to adopt comprehensive sustainability performance measures while they remain voluntary and while there is no perceived need to be competitive in these areas. Either mandatory reporting is required or some form of competitive process based on performance measures implemented.
The findings make a contribution to the academic literature on sustainability performance measures in public sector organisations and point to policy measures that may lead to improvements in practice.
Of milk alone no less than 36,000 samples were purchased during 1904, almost as many as the total for all articles 10 years ago. Of these 4,031 (or 11.1 per cent.) were returned as adulterated. In the previous year 10.4 per cent. were condemned. The difference is not of necessity due to any increase in adulteration, as the figures are admittedly inaccurate owing to the differences of procedure on the part of Public Analysts in making out their reports. In support of this view it is mentioned that in 14 Metropolitan Districts where 6,270 milks were examined, 4.9 per cent. were reported as containing percentages of added water under 5 per cent., while in 15 other districts, where 3,205 samples were submitted, only 0.56 per cent. were returned as being adulterated to this extent. The explanation is that in the former case the Public Analyst adhered more or less rigidly to the standard fixed by the “Sale of Milk Regulations,” while in the latter, in most instances, where the amount of adulteration was under 5 per cent., the samples were reported as genuine. Here the Report takes what is a more or less new and certainly welcome departure, in definitely expressing an opinion for the guidance of those in doubt, and stating that so long as the “Sale of Milk Regulations” remains in force, “Public Analysts have no warrant for the adoption of a still lower standard.”
A few years ago, in an effort to promote co‐operation between the two professional associations of librarians in Ireland, a Liaison Committee, consisting of members nominated by the Council of the Library Association of Ireland and members nominated by the Committee of the Northern Ireland Branch of the Library Association was formed. The first fruit of its endeavours was found in the establishment of an Annual Joint‐Conference of the two bodies, the first one being held at Portrush, in Northern Ireland in 1963.