We test the relationship between shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issue participation. Building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, and communities could lead to increased shareholder wealth by helping firms develop intangible, valuable assets which can be sources of competitive advantage. On the other hand, using corporate resources for social issues not related to primary stakeholders may not create value for shareholders. We test these propositions with data from S&P 500 firms and find evidence that stakeholder management leads to improved shareholder value, while social issue participation is negatively associated with shareholder value. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

http://faculty.wwu.edu/dunnc3/rprnts.shareholdervaluesocialissues.pdf

Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?

Several years ago we introduced the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992). We began with the premise that an exclusive reliance on financial measures in a management system is insufficient. Financial measures are lag indicators that report on the outcomes from past actions. Exclusive reliance on financial indicators could promote behavior that sacrifices long-term value creation for short-term performance (Porter 1992; AICPA 1994). The Balanced Scorecard approach retains measures of financial performance--the lagging outcome indicators--but supplements these with measures on the drivers, the lead indicators, of future financial performance. THE BALANCED SCORECARD EMERGES The limitations of managing solely with financial measures, however, have been known for decades. [1] What is different now? Why has the Balanced Scorecard concept been so widely adopted by manufacturing and service companies, nonprofit organizations, and government entities around the world since its introduction in 1992? First, previous systems that incorporated nonfinancial measurements used ad hoc collections of such measures, more like checklists of measures for managers to keep track of and improve than a comprehensive system of linked measurements. The Balanced Scorecard emphasizes the linkage of measurement to strategy (Kaplan and Norton 1993) and the cause-and-effect linkages that describe the hypotheses of the strategy (Kaplan and Norton 1996b). The tighter connection between the measurement system and strategy elevates the role for nonfinancial measures from an operational checklist to a comprehensive system for strategy implementation (Kaplan and Norton 1996a). Second, the Balanced Scorecard reflects the changing nature of technology and competitive advantage in the latter decades of the 20th century. In the industrial-age competition of the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, companies achieved competitive advantage from their investment in and management of tangible assets such as inventory, property, plant, and equipment (Chandler 1990). In an economy dominated by tangible assets, financial measurements were adequate to record investments on companies' balance sheets. Income statements could also capture the expenses associated with the use of these tangible assets to produce revenues and profits. But by the end of the 20th century, intangible assets became the major source for competitive advantage. In 1982, tangible book values represented 62 percent of industrial organizations' market values; ten years later, the ratio had plummeted to 38 percent (Blair 1995). By the end of the 20th century, the book value of tangible assets accounted for less than 20 percen t of companies' market values (Webber 2000, quoting research by Baruch Lev). Clearly, strategies for creating value shifted from managing tangible assets to knowledge-based strategies that create and deploy an organization's intangible assets. These include customer relationships, innovative products and services, high-quality and responsive operating processes, skills and knowledge of the workforce, the information technology that supports the work force and links the firm to its customers and suppliers, and the organizational climate that encourages innovation, problem-solving, and improvement. But companies were unable to adequately measure their intangible assets (Johnson and Kaplan 1987, 201-202). Anecdotal data from management publications indicated that many companies could not implement their new strategies in this environment (Kiechel 1982; Charan and Colvin 1999). They could not manage what they could not describe or measure. INTANGIBLE ASSETS: VALUATION VS. VALUE CREATION Some call for accountants to make an organization's intangible assets more visible to managers and investors by placing them on a company's balance sheet. But several factors prevent valid valuation of intangible assets on balance sheets. …

/pdf/transforming-the-balanced-scorecard-from-performance-2itnw9juqa.pdf

Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part II

http://nurmandi.staff.umy.ac.id/files/2012/02/10.1.1.108.71611.pdf

An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the `new public sector'

Most discussions and articles about supply chain metrics are, in actuality, about internal logistics performance measures. The lack of a widely accepted definition for supply chain management and the complexity associated with overlapping supply chains make the development of supply chain metrics difficult. Despite these problems, managers continue to pursue supply chain metrics as a means to increase their “line of sight” over areas they do not directly control, but have a direct impact on their company's performance. We provide a framework for developing supply chain metrics that translates performance into shareholder value. The framework focuses on managing the interfacing customer relationship management and supplier relationship management processes at each link in the supply chain. The translation of process improvements into supplier and customer profitability provides a method for developing metrics that identify opportunities for improved profitability and align objectives across all of the firms in the supply chain.

Supply chain metrics.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~ggd021000/2003_Emerging%20Issues%20in%20Corporate%20Entrepreneurship.pdf

Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship

Traditional accounting-based performance measurement systems are unsuited to current organizations in which the relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders have changed, say these authors. Established measures lack the focus to evaluate intangibles such as service, innovation, employee relations, and flexibility. A stakeholder approach to performance measurement captures strategic planning issues, while the choices a company makes in strategic planning direct the design of the performance measurement system. 

Atkinson et al. define two groups of stakeholders: environmental (customers, owners, and the community) and process (employees and suppliers). The company exists to serve the objectives of the stakeholders, which become its primary objectives. What the company expects from and gives to each stakeholder group to achieve its primary objectives are its secondary objectives. The company must plan for and negotiate explicit and implicit contracts with stakeholders and evaluate whether the plan meets the expectations of all stakeholders. 

Employees design, implement, and manage processes to achieve the secondary objectives, expecting the primary objectives to result. Therefore, according to the authors, the company's performance measurement system must evaluate all processes based on their contribution to achieving secondary objectives. In their view, the system, which is the heart of a company's control system, must: 

1. Help evaluate whether the company is getting expected contributions from employees and suppliers and returns from customers. 

2. Help evaluate whether the company is giving each stakeholder group what it needs to continue to contribute. 

3. Guide the design and implementation of processes that contribute to the secondary objectives. 

4. Help evaluate the company's planning and implicit and explicit contracts with its stakeholders. 

Performance measurement has a coordinating role, in which it directs attention to the company's primary and secondary objectives. It has a monitoring role, in which it measures and reports performance in meeting stakeholder requirements. And it has a diagnostic role, in which it promotes understanding of how process performance affects organizational learning and performance. 

The authors examine the performance measurement system at the Bank of Montreal, whose objective was to maximize long-term return on investment for shareowners. The bank wanted its system to: 

1. Focus decision makers on what drives success. 

2. Help management understand and communicate to people outside and inside the bank what contributes to primary financial objectives. 

3. Diagnose what drives current profitability. 

4. Form a basis for performance management. 

The authors' model is a vital system that includes both financial and nonfinancial measures of performance to help an organization's members understand and evaluate the factors for success.

Anthony A. Atkinson

Papers

A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement