<<
>>

3.3.2 Strategic target: increase of productivity of the program Ur the companies

In dissertational research the technique of an estimation of results of activity of the company in a part Ur on the basis of grouping of indicators Ur in three aspects is offered: economy, ecology, social sphere.
According to the author, division of criteria Ur on three groups allows the company to be focused on the most actual for it spheres and thus to observe necessary balance of development.

by the definition offered by the author of dissertational research, the factor of productivity of the program of a sustainable development of the company is the relative size characterising the weighed parity of actual and is standard-target significances of criteria Ur of the company, defined with the assistance of internal and external stejkholderov.

Factor of productivity of the program Ur (SDR -

sustainable development rate) settles up as:

SDR = a w a ´ S a , where S - significances of factor of productivity on aspects, w - weight of separate aspects

Social

aspects

Ecological

aspects

Economic

aspects

In the EC (w a ) w s oc w en w ec
Significance (S a ) S s oc S en S ec

the Design procedure of factor of productivity of the program Ur and an example of account for the considered company are presented more low.

Significance of factor of productivity on separate aspects (S) settles up as average significance of the indicators entering into this aspect

n a ? I a o

S a = a ç

k = 1 è

k n ÷ , where a - aspects Ur, n a - quantity of criteria

a o

estimations on the given aspect, I k - the indicator of fulfilment of target significances of criteria

the Indicator of fulfilment of target significances of criteria I k , settles up, proceeding from a parity actual (IF) and target (IG) indicators by criteria k.

the Actual value (IF) is defined by results of an accounting period (for this purpose in the company the system of the tax of the information on activity in a part Ur should be provided). The list of criteria of productivity is developed by the author of dissertational research on the basis of management GRI as most widespread standard. However, because in management GRI are not registered concrete izmerimye estimation indicators, the author had been conducted adaptation of offered criteria for practical use. Thus, by working out of the list of criteria of productivity in a part Ur the indicators offered in management GRI, methodology Global 100 and RSPP, and also own offers of the author were used.

The list of indicators Ur developed by the author of dissertational research, is presented in the appendix, Table 28.

For the further analysis indicators Ur have been divided on two groups: indicators of type "indemnification" (C - compensation), the companies characterising the positive contribution to company development (for example, a share of reusable materials), and indicators of type "damage" (D - damage), characterising negative effects (for example, volumes of emissions). These two groups differ from the point of view of management: Significances of indicators of the first group are maximised (thus target significance should be not

less flowing), and indicators of the second group - are minimised

(target significance, accordingly, does not exceed flowing).

As target significance (IG) indicators of the nearest competitors, leaders, sredneotraslevye the significances, legislatively established specifications, expert judgements can act. Target significances are established by results of discussions on dialogues with stejkholderami and reflect a company reference point for the planned period.

in offered model excess of target indicators is not considered as the positive contribution, that is, the purpose overfulfillment does not lead to excess of the indicator of fulfilment of the purpose over

100 %. The given restriction is reasonable for some reasons:

- restriction limits possibilities of indemnification of negative influence in one sphere to special attention to other;

- achievement of results above target on some indicators can be expressed in economic terms (for example, trade in quotas on emissions);

- results above target indicators not always are justified (for example, a parity of salaries of men and women or a share of women in board of directors).

Thus, the indicator of fulfilment of target significances

criteria Ur I k r asschityvaetsja under following formulas:

? IF o

I = m i n ç 1 ; k ÷

With k IG

and egrave; k o

- the Indicator for indicators of type "indemnification"

? IG o

I = m i n ç 1 ; k ÷

D k IF

and egrave; k o

- the Indicator for indicators of type "damage"

Weight factors of various aspects in total significance of factor of productivity of the program Ur (w)

are defined on the basis of an expert judgement by results of the conducted dialogues with stejkholderami. For definition of specific weights of criteria it is offered to use a method of the analysis of the hierarchies, developed by Thomas Saati [30]. The choice of the given method is caused by that in the conditions of absence of objective data for ranging of importance of aspects, the method of the analysis of hierarchies allows not only to receive quantitative estimations from experts, but also to check up their coordination.

for account of weight factors of various aspects Ur in the investigated company 7 experts have been interrogated, each of which has conducted paired comparison (the standard scale of an estimation of relative importance, Table 16 was used).

Table 16. Measurement of relative importance of factors

Intensity

Definition
1 Equal importance of two aspects Ur
3 the Moderate superiority of one aspect over other
5 the Essential or strong superiority
7 the Significant superiority
9 very strong superiority
2,4,6,8 Intermediate decisions

the Example of result of definition relative weight significances of aspects Ur is presented relative importance in the table (Table 17)

Table 17. Definition of weight factors

Social aspects Ecological aspects Economic aspects Own vector Weight
Social

aspects

1 1 5 1,71 48 %
Ecological

aspects

1,00 1 3 1,44 41 %
Economic

aspects

0,20 0,33 1 0,41 11 %
3,56

the Index of a coordination of the received Estimations IS = 1,45 %, the relation of a coordination of OS = 2,51 % (correspond to recommendations Saati about neprevyshenii level =10 of %)

Similar estimations have been received from six experts (are resulted in the Appendix, Table 27; estimations of the expert 6 have been excluded from the further analysis, as not co-ordinated). Average estimations of scales of separate aspects Ur in total SDR are presented in the table (Table 18).

Table 18. Average significances of weight factors

Average arithmetic the Average geometrical

(normirovannoe)

the Median

(normirovannoe)

Social

aspects

37,9 %

36,5 %

42,9 %

Ecological

aspects

50,2 %

51,3 %

45,0 %

Economic

aspects

11,9 %

12,3 %

12,2 %

In spite of the fact that at a considerable quantity of the received estimations the results received by various methods of averaging, differ slightly [18], for the further accounts indicators mediannyh estimations were used, As because of a small amount of the interrogated experts average significances can be displaced. Thus, the most priority directions Ur for the analyzed company are the social sphere and environment protection; questions Ur in economy sphere are less actual.

at more detailed analysis probably definition of importance of separate criteria in aspects similarly (for example, emissions in atmosphere can be more important factor, than a share of reusable water). However, according to the author, because of change of priorities stejkholderov with the course of time the given procedure becomes too labour-consuming, therefore at the initial stages use of equal scales of criteria in aspect is recommended. Thus by strategy working out Ur is considered all list of criteria but only those from them,

which have been defined as the most important during conducted dialogues with stejkholderami (focus = 1, Table 28).

For the evaluated company factor of productivity of the program Ur in 2012 has made 87,8 % (Table 19). The given significance is calculated on the basis of results on separate aspects (target indicators and actual values on is strategic

are presented significant indicators in the Appendix, Table 28):


Table 19. Productivity Ur for the evaluated company

Weight factor w a

Significance S a

Social aspect (S s o c ) 42,9 % of 83,9 % Ecological aspect (S e n ) 45,0 % of 89,9 % Economic aspect (S ec ) 12,2 % of 93,0 % SDR of 87,8 %

Key difference of the offered approach to a level estimation Ur the companies is that it is offered to analyze not only productivity of the company in activity on Ur, but also its purposefulness. While rating agencies consider only comparison of indicators Ur with branch indicators, in a technique of an estimation offered by the author such indicator, as a share of the executed purposes (p) is entered. According to the author, ability of the company to reach the declared target indicators is the indicator of controllability activity in a part Ur.

For the analyzed company target indicators on 23 of 33 is strategic significant criteria are reached, that is, the share of the executed purposes has made 69,7 %.

<< | >>
A source: PERTSEVA Elena Jurevna. REALIZATION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF DESIGN-PORTFELNOJ METHODOLOGY. 2013

More on topic 3.3.2 Strategic target: increase of productivity of the program Ur the companies:

  1. 5. The method of consecutive optimisation of a portfolio of projects for increase of productivity of the program Ur the companies
  2. the Technique of a strategic choice (decision-making) within the limits of the strategic program of branch development
  3. 2. Labour productivity increase.
  4. APPENDIX N the Basic target indicators of productivity of basic university OmGtU
  5. 3.2 Directions of increase of productivity nemateriyoalnyh factors of development of regional economy
  6. 3.4 Bases of technology of increase in productivity of chinks
  7. Quality management and productivity increase
  8. Recommendations about increase of organizational productivity of universities at entry in the international educational alliance
  9. the strategic program of customs cooperation of Russia and EU of 2010
  10. 2. The indicator factor of productivity of the program Ur is offered the company, used for an estimation of level of a sustainable development of the company
  11. CHAPTER 3 the LABORATORY SUBSTANTIATION of APPLICATION of ACID COMPOSITIONS FOR INCREASE in PRODUCTIVITY of CHINKS
  12. 3.3.1 Description of the program Ur companies "Kimberleys-Clarks"
  13. Strategic business model and an evaluation procedure of organizational productivity of integration of university in the international educational alliance
  14. Chapter 1. Teoretiko-methodical aspects of increase of productivity of non-material assets of development regional ekonoyomiki
  15. 3.1 Organizational algorithm of entry of university in the international alliance and a technique of increase of organizational productivity aljansovogo interactions
  16. 3.2 Acid composition "HIMEKO ТК-2" for increase in productivity of chinks nizkopronitsaemyh terrigennyh collectors of deposit Uzen
  17. NAZAROV Alexey Jurevich. INCREASE of PRODUCTIVITY of NON-MATERIAL FACTORS of DEVELOPMENT of REGIONAL ECONOMY. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Econ.Sci. Kursk - 2019, 2019