Impact investors aim to achieve measurable financial returns while maintaining positive social and environmental impacts. Recent empirical research has shown that value investors consider Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices in their investment decision-making processes, although the emphasis on these indicators varies across industries.
However, impact investing is not a new concept. In fact, it could be traced back to 1928 when the first screened investment fund was established in the United States. As environmental awareness grew, the concept of responsible investing gained more traction within the investment community. This trend continued to evolve until the rise of Stakeholder Capitalism Theory in the 1950s and 1960s, which advocated maximizing value for all stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, and local communities.
During the ’60s and ’70s, socially conscious investors began avoiding funds with investments in industries like tobacco or weapons. Presently, many companies are embracing balanced performance goals known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). Some investors are even willing to pay a premium for companies demonstrating positive ESG impacts, indicating a growing preference for environmentally and socially responsible investments.
Given the varying ESG priorities across sectors, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy or performance measures to be adopted by companies that want to attract and retain value investors and their equity capital. To illustrate this, former Forbes staff writer Kathryn Dill said, “Certain indicators are prioritized over others across industries. For example, safety rankings are not particularly important to banks, as the financial sector work doesn’t pose physical danger. But safety performance is an important measure of sustainability in the transportation industry, where physical well-being can be at stake”. Henceforth, strategists and performance management professionals may need to emphasize specific aspects of ESG based on their investors’ preferences, as shown in the figure below:
Energy Sector: Due to the energy industry’s inherently high carbonated emissions and the amount of waste generated and water used, strategists within this sector should focus on initiatives related to lowering CO2 Emissions, material use, waste production, and water usage. To measure this, they may use KPIs such as % CO2 reduction, $ Material waste, and # Water usage reduction, respectively. In this regard, the environmental aspect of ESG takes precedence.
Consumer Sector: Similar to the energy sector, there is an emphasis in the consumer sector related to reducing emissions, material use, and waste production as part of the environmental dimension of ESG. However, this is in addition to the need for further focus on decent labor practices—falling under in the social dimension of space of their ESG strategy—which could be measured using the # Labor Satisfaction Index.
Financial and Insurance Sectors: In these sectors, organizational culture, diversity, and inclusion matter with regards to the environmental dimension. Meanwhile, governance structures, advocacies, and business ethics matter in the governance dimension. The potential KPIs used in these industries may include: # Culture Profile Index, % Employees trained in business ethics and compliance, # iNPS, and # CGI.
Pharmaceutical and Medical Sectors: Strategists in these sectors need to worry about community impact and labor practices, which fall under the social dimension. They must also focus on business ethics in the governance dimension. Candidate KPIs here may include # Culture Profile Index and $ CSI spending.
All the strategic themes and underlying indicators proposed above should only be considered guides at best. A better approach is for companies to communicate with their communities and involve stakeholders in their policies, decisions, and operations to cultivate a fully supportive investment strategy implementation system.
In conclusion, performance management professionals should collaborate closely with strategists to align sustainability objectives and KPIs with strategic initiatives through cascading and appropriate KPIselection techniques, regular measurement frameworks such as the strategic scorecard, and implementation of performance improvement best practices such as regular performance review meetings which are all crucial to ensure that the company remains on track with its sustainability goals relevant to today’s investment community.
**********
About the Author
Tarig Malik is a seasoned Strategy and Performance Management Professional with extensive expertise in enhancing strategic, operational, and individual performance. Holding multiple certifications (SPP, C-BSC, C-OKR, C-KPI), Tarig leverages a strong academic foundation and practical experience to drive continuous improvement and foster a performance-oriented culture across various organizations.
Assessing core competencies should be a top priority for all organizations that want to distinguish themselves from the competition and seek to gain competitive advantage. The concept of core competencies gained traction in the ‘90s, when academicians C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel emphasized its importance in an article titled The Core Competence of Corporation, linking its utility to the organization’s evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.
In the article, Prahalad and Hamel assert that managers should consider identifying and evaluating the company’s unique skill sets and the technologies that distinguish them from their competitors to improve resource allocation, leverage current strengths, and select opportunities based on their alignment with those strengths. Thus, the conceptualization of core competencies has led to a rethinking of the concept of corporation, shifting the focus from restructuring and decluttering to identifying, cultivating, and exploiting competencies.Recognizing and leveraging these competencies can be the key to gaining a sustainable competitive advantage, yet this begs the question: how do we evaluate and identify core competencies?
Depending on the industry and organization, core competencies can vary among: buying power, company culture, customer service, partnerships, adaptability to product design, low product prices, or niche specializations. However, there are three criteria that Prahalad and Hamel consider of greatest importance when assessing core competencies: rare, challenging to imitate, and beneficial to customers. Those criteria represent the starting point for developing a competency framework.
For example, The University of Newcastle, Australia has developed a competencies framework to map individual competencies for professional staff, with the main competencies evaluated being: communication & engagement; organisational [sic] planning & project management; professional & technical expertise; business understanding & business intelligence; and creative & strategic thinking. Although the same principle applies when assessing competencies at the organizational level, the context is different because the focus shifts from the staff to the organization as a whole, covering processes, activities, technology, products, partnerships, culture, synergies, etc. Building a competency framework can be done in various ways as long as it respects the three criteria mentioned earlier.
Establishing a Core Competency Framework
Start by reviewing the organization’s foundation, like the mission and value statements. Afterward, identify competencies embedded into the foundation, create competency levels, and interview or survey internal staff and major clients. Last but not least, use valuable, rare, imitable, and organization (VRIO) analysis to measure competencies on a scale and determine which of them meet all the criteria to be considered core competencies. The final step should be to validate your core competency framework with both internal and external stakeholders, i.e. top management, managers, supervisors, employees, and partners.
Leveraging Core Competencies
Below are some examples of core competencies identified among globally recognized brands that shaped and consolidated their market position, helping them build an undeniable reputation. McDonald’s managed to stand out and achieve supremacy in the fast-food industry due to positive brand awareness and portfolio of trademarks, Netflix excels in innovation, brand equity, and product mix, while Starbucks’ core competencies include high-quality products, aesthetically appealing locations, and strong market position.
Here’s the bottom line: knowing where you stand out as an organization can impact the entire business, outlining areas of improvement, contributing to better resource allocation and driving innovation.
Click here for more articles that discuss corporate performance.
Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production, expressed as the ratio of output to inputs used. Performance is defined as the accomplishment of a given task measured against preset standards of achievement, such as accuracy, completeness, cost and speed.
In the wider context of performance management, productivity is measured against productivity KPIs. In their simplest form, productivity KPIs, such as # Units per man-hour, stand at the basis of both modern and older performance evaluation systems. However, it is only but natural that we ask ourselves the following question: How much productivity is there left to both measure and reflect on performance?
In her book, The Measurement Nightmare: How the Theory of Constraints Can Resolve Conflicting Strategies, Policies, and Measures (1999), Debra Smith talks to her readers about a real-life situation, based on one of the most common productivity KPIs in use: # Units per man-hour. And it all starts with defining the KPI. According to her, # Units per man-hour is a “summary of standard costing’s use of standard labor hours and standard labor rates, resulting in labor variance analysis and decisions designed to improve.”
“There is not one productivity indicator that does not reflect on performance. And there is not one neglected faction of performance that does not impact productivity in one way or the other.”
From here on, Debra Smith describes this particular situation in which, on an intuitive basis, some executive manager from a manufacturing company decides to increase # Units per man-hour by cutting labor costs with highly automated machines. So, instead of six loom operators, four were assigned to tend to one loom per shift.
And the effect was as expected…at first. # Units per man-hour had increased at the loom. However, because of the downtime of the looms which now increased, the total output of the looms had decreased.
Due to a lack of attending operators, the downtime of the machines escalated up to a point where it impaired all subsequent processes. When that happened, all downstream processes began to suffer from starvation. % On-time delivery of products declined, $ Labor costs went up due to # Overtime and, instead of going up, $ Net profit went down.
Debra Smith’s account of the negative side effects one productivity measure can propagate, when taken out of the context of performance, stand to show that there is more to productivity in performance than counting outputs per unit of input. And this is more visible when dealing with the most popular dimension, which is labor productivity.
In the context of performance management, labor productivity can be translated through individual KPIs. When dealing with employee performance, individual productivity KPIs become part of a more complex performance evaluation system. The overall individual performance index simulates an average between the score of the individual performance scorecard, the individual competencies score, and the employee behaviors score.
Where do KPIs fit into this equation? Productivity KPIs are mindfully incorporated into the individual performance scorecard, to best reflect the quantitative aspects of employee performance. And this is where everything gets tricky and we start asking ourselves: How much of one employee’s performance should be measured in terms of quantity?
Image Source: Freepik
Let’s take, for example, the automotive industry. With automotive manufacturing, productivity is a key performance indicator that measures the total production volume of the actual manpower, while taking into consideration the effective days officially scheduled for each automobile.
The core performance indicator of the automotive industry is # Hours per unit or # HPU, and it reveals the number of hours required to build a car. However, at its basis, this # HPU cannot be measured outside # Available manpower, # Effective working time, and # Individual production volume. Let’s add % Absenteeism rate to this reasoning.
When dealing with target production volumes it is important that the plant works at its full throttle to achieve those targets. Given this requirement, % Absenteeism rates should not be overlooked, as they have a major impact on the # Effective working time, which here on, impacts the # Production volume, and, ultimately, the # HPU.
However quantifiable, % Absenteeism rates also reflect on less quantifiable variables. This further takes us to the issue of % Employee engagement: a roughly quantifiable, uncontrollable driver of not only productivity but of performance as well.
So, how much productivity is there left, to both measure and reflect on performance? A great deal. And maybe the best way to look at it is by envisioning this revolving cartwheel…this continuous circle, which turns productivity into performance and vice versa.
All things considered, there is not one productivity indicator that does not reflect on performance. And there is not one neglected faction of performance that does not impact the former in one way or the other.
For more articles on productivity improvement, click here.
**********
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated as of September 18, 2024.
Remote work and the implications of continuing the process, including its potential impact on employee performance, are widely discussed. However, there is no right answer, and it is not one-size-fits-all.
The future of work includes flexibility, employee experience, agility, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI)—these significant shifts impact where and how employees work. With an increase in remote work options, we have seen positive trends in work-life balance, employee empowerment, inclusivity, and an increase in diverse talent. These factors are also known to increase employee productivity and retention. According to BCG, a considerable population of employees are ready to leave their jobs if they find their flexible work arrangements unsatisfactory. Based on their survey, approximately 90% of women, caregivers, individuals identifying as LGBTQ+, and those with disabilities, deem flexible work options as crucial in determining whether they will continue or resign from their current employment.
Remote work productivity is subject to debate due to various factors that must be considered. Some suggest remote work can increase productivity due to a flexible schedule, no commute, and fewer interruptions. While many employees thrive in a remote work environment, some find it challenging due to the discipline it demands.
Remote work was on the rise even before the COVID-19 pandemic. A July 2023 report from Stanford University found that working remotely has doubled every 15 years. Then, when the pandemic occurred, although devastating, it provided a new perspective for those previously constrained, forced to relocate, or live in less favorable locations to work for a specific company and advance their career. Worldwide ERC states that around 56 million Americans moved to new residences between December 2021 to February 2023 due to COVID-19-related shutdowns and the surge in remote work and online education. With such a huge increase in their number over the past few years, this begs the question: do employees working remotely demonstrate productivity?
Taking a deeper look into the study by Standord University, researchers shared that remote work employees’ productivity differs depending on perceptions—the nature of the research and the conditions under which it was conducted. The report revealed that workers believed productivity was higher at home (approximately 7% higher), while managers perceived it lower (around 3.5% lower). Another example, according to a poll by the video presentation applications mmhmm, 43% prefer office work and 42% favor working from home for peak productivity. Moreover, 51% of employees stated that working asynchronously or having the flexibility to set their schedules contributed positively to their productivity. Perceptions aside, the Stanford analysis found a 10% to 20% reduction in productivity across various studies.
The bottom line is today’s company culture is crucial. Ensuring work-life balance and putting the employees in the driver’s seat are the best ways to retain and increase productivity because they will feel valued and empowered. In a 2022 Microsoft employee engagement survey, 92% of employees say they believe the company values flexibility and allows them to work in a way that works best for them. An even higher percentage (93%) are confident in their ability to work together as a team, regardless of location. People have different preferences—some individuals opt for a hybrid approach, while others choose either remote or in-person work exclusively.
Regardless of the work setup, company leaders and human resources (HR) or human capital management (HRM) executives should ensure that they can still make a lasting impact on employee performance. One measure involves establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) that assess innovation, program, project, and product success—the output, not the physical location. Another crucial step is developing a strategy that includes all future work options, such as in-person, hybrid, and remote choices. Employees tend to be more productive if there is a level of empowerment that allows them to decide where to do their best work.
Planning in person events makes a difference. Leaders who bring new hires and internal transfers, new to the team, on-site for several days should see an uptick in productivity post-gathering. In-person team or company-wide gatherings 1-4 times per year provide employees an opportunity to reset and socialize. Moreover, managers should bring teams together for major program and project kick-offs. When onsite in person, people being present makes a difference. Discourage using Teams or Zoom when employees are in the general vicinity. I have seen companies spew the importance of in-person just to fly employees into a specific location and have people take meetings from their desks or in a different on-site building-conference room, defeating the purpose of in-person interaction.
Having organizations foster all work options is critical and foregoes having to decide which is best. There is no right or wrong answer to this challenge; it should be considered a new way of working and requires future-forward ways of thinking, just as we do with emerging technologies.
Interested in more articles on productivity improvement? Click here.
**********
About the Guest Author:
Dr. Malika Viltz-Emerson is a Senior Global Human Resource Leader at Microsoft. She has over 20 years of experience in human capital management. Her mission is to identify and address the real-world challenges and opportunities for employees and the company, and design and implement optimal solutions that leverage the latest tools, technologies, and processes.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated as of September 18, 2024.
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is one of the most important performance management tools used to improve business functions and their outcomes. This tool is used not only at the organizational level but also at the departmental level.
By using departmental scorecards, managers are able to get detailed insights into the performance of their departments. The scorecards can also determine the responsibilities of the employees in terms of achieving strategic objectives.
To implement an effective balanced scorecard for the departmental level, organizations should take into consideration these best practices.
Develop the Right Template
Employees are often asked to collect data since every manager knows that it is essential in generating qualitative insights. However, the different performance reports could easily lead to different interpretations. A well-designed template leads to a clear, structured reporting and improves communication through standardization.
The template should contain four perspectives that meet the organization’s strategic needs. The most commonly used perspectives are Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, People Learning, and Growth.
Moreover, the template should also display the objectives associated with each perspective and the KPIs associated with each objective. For each KPI, the target and thresholds, the trend, and the previous and current result should also be presented.
Choose the Right Objectives
When preparing a departmental scorecard, one of the most important steps is to select the right objectives for the different categories, and those objectives should align with the organizational and departmental strategy. Through the cascading process, the organizational objectives and KPIs are translated from the strategic level down to the departmental level.
The departmental scorecard must contain some specific objectives depending on the activities of the operations team. The same objective can be cascaded to more departments, each of them measuring it through different KPIs. Some organizational objectives may not be cascaded to lower levels.
For example, the objective of the Financial perspective is to Increase profit. This organizational objective can not be directly cascaded to the human resources department since the human resources department has no direct influence on the revenue of the organization. However, they could reduce their spending in order to increase organizational profit. Therefore, the objective for the human resources department could be to minimize operational costs. Since the sales department is responsible for profit generation, they can cascade down this organizational objective without any modification.
Choose the Right KPIs to Measure Chosen Objectives
As mentioned before, it is recommended not to cascade all objectives and KPIs from the organizational level to the departmental level, but organizations may add specific ones that represent the department. The most important attributes in KPI selection are relevance, clarity, and balance.
In many cases, organizational and departmental scorecards may not be enough to communicate the organizational strategy to all employees. Therefore, individual scorecards should also be created for them.
Data Sources for a Balanced Scorecard
During the scorecard development process, organizations may find it hard to determine the right objectives and KPIs. Objectives and KPIs must be based on relevant data. There are two types of sources of data to consider: primary and secondary.
Feedback from internal stakeholders can be considered as an internal primary data source, while feedback from external stakeholders is an external primary data source. Secondary internal sources could a company’s previous reports and strategy plans, while smartkpis.com and academic articles are external secondary sources.
Figure 2: Marketing Departmental Scorecard Example
About the Guest Author:
