Production Performance Assessment at Different Levels …
353
include information on pollution or greenhouse gas emissions to social information
that primarily includes employees and community-related metrics (Mura et al. 2018).
On the other hand, the area classified as critical environmental accounting emphasizes that conventional financial accounting, the triple bottom line and the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) are insufficient conditions for organizations that contribute
to sustaining the ecology of the earth, as they can reinforce highest and usual levels
of non-sustainability. Another important point identified by the authors is related
to the area of sustainability metrics: most studies focus on the development of
environmental and social indicators (Mura et al. 2018).
Still on sustainability metrics, studies based on Simons’ control levers (1995)
show that environmental indicators can be used as interactive and diagnostic controls,
that is, to monitor and control performance, but also to trigger future conversations.
Stimulate innovation, besides being a facilitator of proactive communication with
external parties (Mura et al. 2018).
In terms of social value, social value measures are often considered distinct and
unrelated to other performance measures, such as financial and operational. Only a
few organizations have the “maturity” to integrate socially valuable information into
strategic decision making, most preferring to collect and communicate this information to appeal to external stakeholders. In part, this is due to the traditional belief that
the most important dimension of organizational performance is financial, which also
means that managers often have little awareness of how to measure and manage social
performance. In part, despite a growing appreciation of its relevance, social value
is often treated as a “separate” dimension of performance, which requires expertise
and dedicated practices and reporting flows (Beer and Micheli 2018).
However, when implementing and using a performance management system,
companies face six sources of complexity: function, task, and types of procedural
complexity associated with the social dimension and methodological, analytical, and
technological types associated with the technical dimension (Okwir et al. 2018).
Finally, and based on the Slack et al. (2018) ratings and with some additions to
the Bibliographic Portfolio articles, Fig. 1 shows performance measures at the three
levels.
In Fig. 1, all terms with the expression “(O)” are original terms from the work of
Slack et al. (2018). The other expressions follow the following caption:
• “[38]” represents the terms extracted from Article 38 of Sangwa and Sangwan
(2018);
• “[36]” means terms taken from Article 36 of Winroth et al. (2016);
• “[27]” represents the terms extracted from Article 27 by Behrouzi et al. (2011);
• “[32]” represents the terms extracted from Article 32 by Ishaq Bhatti and Awan
(2014);
• “[31]” represents the terms taken from Busso’s Article 31; Miyake (2013);
• “[23]” represents the terms taken from Bakhtiar et al. (2009); and
• “[24]” represents the terms extracted from Article 24 by Muchiri et al. (2011).
All these performance measures or some dimensions, also called perspectives,
can be grouped into an integrated evaluation system, expanding the information for
353
include information on pollution or greenhouse gas emissions to social information
that primarily includes employees and community-related metrics (Mura et al. 2018).
On the other hand, the area classified as critical environmental accounting emphasizes that conventional financial accounting, the triple bottom line and the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) are insufficient conditions for organizations that contribute
to sustaining the ecology of the earth, as they can reinforce highest and usual levels
of non-sustainability. Another important point identified by the authors is related
to the area of sustainability metrics: most studies focus on the development of
environmental and social indicators (Mura et al. 2018).
Still on sustainability metrics, studies based on Simons’ control levers (1995)
show that environmental indicators can be used as interactive and diagnostic controls,
that is, to monitor and control performance, but also to trigger future conversations.
Stimulate innovation, besides being a facilitator of proactive communication with
external parties (Mura et al. 2018).
In terms of social value, social value measures are often considered distinct and
unrelated to other performance measures, such as financial and operational. Only a
few organizations have the “maturity” to integrate socially valuable information into
strategic decision making, most preferring to collect and communicate this information to appeal to external stakeholders. In part, this is due to the traditional belief that
the most important dimension of organizational performance is financial, which also
means that managers often have little awareness of how to measure and manage social
performance. In part, despite a growing appreciation of its relevance, social value
is often treated as a “separate” dimension of performance, which requires expertise
and dedicated practices and reporting flows (Beer and Micheli 2018).
However, when implementing and using a performance management system,
companies face six sources of complexity: function, task, and types of procedural
complexity associated with the social dimension and methodological, analytical, and
technological types associated with the technical dimension (Okwir et al. 2018).
Finally, and based on the Slack et al. (2018) ratings and with some additions to
the Bibliographic Portfolio articles, Fig. 1 shows performance measures at the three
levels.
In Fig. 1, all terms with the expression “(O)” are original terms from the work of
Slack et al. (2018). The other expressions follow the following caption:
• “[38]” represents the terms extracted from Article 38 of Sangwa and Sangwan
(2018);
• “[36]” means terms taken from Article 36 of Winroth et al. (2016);
• “[27]” represents the terms extracted from Article 27 by Behrouzi et al. (2011);
• “[32]” represents the terms extracted from Article 32 by Ishaq Bhatti and Awan
(2014);
• “[31]” represents the terms taken from Busso’s Article 31; Miyake (2013);
• “[23]” represents the terms taken from Bakhtiar et al. (2009); and
• “[24]” represents the terms extracted from Article 24 by Muchiri et al. (2011).
All these performance measures or some dimensions, also called perspectives,
can be grouped into an integrated evaluation system, expanding the information for