MODERN TOOLS FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF

Budapest University of Technology and Economics Faculty of Economic- and Social Sciences PhD School in Business and Management

THESIS BOOKLET

MODERN TOOLS FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF

SUSTAINABILITY

Doctoral Dissertation

Prepared by:

Piroska Harazin

Supervisor:

Kálmán Kósi, PhD

T

SUMMARY ... 1

RESEARCH BACKGROUND (EXPLANATION OF THE SUBJECT) ... 2

OBJECTIVES ... 6

STRUCTURE, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 8

RESULTS ... 10

THESES ... 15

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS CONNECTING TO THE THESES ... 18

REFERENCE LIST – REFERENCES USED IN THESIS-BOOK ... 19

S

My work focuses on observing what approach or solution can support the performance evaluation of the sustainability dimensions, reinforcing sustainability as generating a competitive advantage – as against leading to additional burdens for the economic entity.

Furthermore, the methodology of assessment follows/takes into account the overall changes of performance evaluation; It applies integrated, scorecard-based assessment manifesting the crucial importance of the intellectual capital, as opposed to the conventional assessment solutions.

As a response to my research question, I will express three hypotheses, and in order to prove these hypotheses, I will set two objectives. My goal is to provide an overview (’Basics’) of the performance evaluation of the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level.

In addition, I intend to expand the range of instruments capable of supporting the performance evaluation of the sustainability dimensions, as well as their modernization/improvement (’Modernization’). My purpose is to develop a new instrument for performance evaluation - essentially a theoretical model illustrating the logic of assessment - following/taking into account the overall changes of performance evaluation. Implementing this model will not lead to additional burdens throughout the operation of the economic entity.

In order to accomplish these goals, I will provide a theoretical overview, in terms of the performance assessment of the dimensions of sustainability. I will summarize the characteristics of performance assessment in the information era, elaborating on the intellectual capital and innovation (in particular, environmental and social innovation).

Following the theoretical sections, I will draw my conclusions. I will formulate the principles of performance analysis which appear as minimum requirements regarding the innovative performance analysis in the dimensions of sustainability. Relying on these principles, I will formulate the concept of sustainability. As a next step, I will develop my theoretical- conceptual model, under the name Integrated Sustainability Performance Evaluation (ISPE).

Having demonstrated the logic and the structure of this model, I will examine the practical aspects of the model including its verification. In the concluding section of my work, I will draw my conclusions. I will gauge the level of accomplishing my goals, as well as the accuracy of the hypotheses. Finally, I will expose my thesis.

R

(

)

My work focuses on performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level, also highlighting the modernity of this evaluation, as a field of research.

As a result, I consider necessary to explain my choice of subject, that is the background for the research as well as the objectives of my work, based on two lines.

(I) The notion of sustainable development (sustainability) has been turning into a key concept more and more frequently discussed, since it has been widely mentioned as a factor granting development and competitive advantage.

A substantial body of literature can be referenced as an interpretation of this concept (Bartus, 2006, 2008; as per the Brundtland Commission (1987), 1988; Csete, 2009; Daly, 1990, inter alia). However, in my work, I use the term ’sustainability’ in agreement with the views of Szlávik (2005): in the triangle of the environment, economics and society, the realisation of a sustainable society can be interpreted taking sustainability in the strict sense.

That is, showing consideration for natural capital restraints. At the same time, the economic capital must show development even amongst those restraints, adhering to the restraints. My work supports the principles set out in the Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, referenced by the NFFT (National Council for Sustainable Development) website, n.d.)), namely, the first principle: ‘Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.’ In my interpretation, this can be associated with the reflections of the NFFT Strategic Framework (NFFT, 2012) on the dimensions of sustainability. By adding the human dimension to the social dimension, the Strategic Framework (NFFT, 2012) affirms the importance of four resources and dimensions, keeping the objective of sustainability in focus as well. The Strategic Framework (NFFT, 2012) refers to humans (even based on economic calculations) as the most important resource of the state. Therefore, the satisfactory and continuous upholding, preservation and expansion of the four crucial resources (i.e. the human, social, environmental and economic resources) is regarded as the responsibility held for the future generation. A vast literature can be linked to sustainability on the level of economic entities as well (Labuschagne, Brent, & van Erck, 2005; Schaltegger, Herzig,

Kleiber, & Müller, 2002, inter alia). Based on these sources, my work highlights the mutual and incorporated existence of the dimensions of sustainability throughout the operation of the economic entities.

Beyond the concepts, the literature offers copious evidence discussing the influence of sustainability on success and competitive advantage (Allee, 2000; González-Benito &

González-Benito, 2005; Kapusy, 2007; Kulcsár, 2009; Schaltegger et al., 2002, inter alia).

This reinforces the crucial importance of the concept of sustainable development at the microeconomic level. Taking all these into consideration, I believe that an awareness of the associations (in terms of influence, status and performance) between sustainability and the entities is inevitable. In our previous publication (Harazin & Kósi, 2013), we already settled that performance evaluation needs to evolve to turn into a new area of modernisation. At the same time, the literature also indicates the requirement of measuring, evaluating and quantifying sustainability (Singh, Murty, Gupta, & Dikshit, 2009; Tsoulfas & Pappis, 2008, inter alia).

In our view (Harazin & Kósi, 2013), as regards the measurement and evaluation taken at the microeconomic level:

• The (previously known) evaluation methods for environmental performance (EPE) are listed as features of the environmental dimension;

• In addition, several proposals have been made on the evaluation of the social dimensional approach, under the name of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

On the subject of evaluating sustainability, it is important to review the qualities of the evaluations conducted by sustainibility assessors providing guidance on the macroeconomic level, as well as the so-called ‘external’ surveyors, since they can supply guidance in terms of the performance evaluation carried out by the economic entity.

Taking the influence of sustainibility inducing competitive advantage into consideration, it is inevitable to make evaluation a significant area as well. In order to achieve this, performance evaluation with respect to the dimensions of sustainability, i.e. the understanding on the basics as comprehensive as possible, is also a necessity.

(II) Performance evaluation and assessment is inevitable during the operation of the economic entities in this day and age. As for the international literature, it is reasonable to rely on the studies of Kaplan and Norton (Kaplan & Norton, 1998, 2002, 2004 inter alia), or the publications of Neely (e.g. Neely, Adams, & Kennerley, 2004). In the field of human resource management, in particular, performance management, Gergely (2012) –based on her literary research, primarily referencing the papers of Mártonné Karolinyi –presents an outstanding historical summary, and the work of Bakacsi and his co-authors (2006) can also be mentioned here. Wimmer's thesis (2000), based on literary research, demonstrates the basic concepts and requirements of corporate performance evaluation. She also elaborates on the implementation of performance indicators. Hungarian literature also includes (but is not limited to) the work of Gyökér és Finna (Gyökér & Finna, 2007; Gyökér, 2004, inter alia) as well as the comprehensive essay of Veresné Somosi and Hogya (Veresné Somosi & Hogya, 2011).

Regarding the topic of my work, the transformation having occurred in the second half of the 20th century, with the advent of the so-called information age, is of utmost importance.

Whereas initially, the evaluation of financial performance was capable of satisfying all needs, nowadays, the methods focusing on the ‘immaterial’ values (intangible properties, intellectual capital) supplementing financial performance, have paved the way for the establishment and expansion of several modern, integrated performance evaluation/assessment schemes using scorecard with indicators.

A vast literature has examined the insufficiency of traditional indicators, and the criteria of the new types of evaluation (H. Kacsó, 2009; Kaplan & Norton, 1998; Wimmer, 2000, inter alia). The deficiencies of the conventional evaluation are discussed in the work of Sveiby (K. E. Sveiby, 2001), for instance, who pointed out why the specific indicators are incapable of adequately illustrating the characteristics of the intangible property. There are some further authors discussing the problematics and incompatibility of the intellectual capital and the conventional evaluation solutions, such as the work of Kaplan and Norton (1996) or Tóth (2008), to name a few.

The altered circumstances made the Performance Prism, providing an integrated insight, a vital tool, a key concept, phylosophy in the field of performancemanagement (Gyökér & Finna, 2007, p. 21; Neely et al., 2004), as well as the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC), appearing as a component of the integrated performance evaluation methodology. The BSC developed by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992, revolutionised the approach towards performance evaluation, as stated by the editors of Harvard Business Review, emphasizing that the scorecard is unique in the sense that this method made it possible for

generations of managers to grasp the genuine performance of their organisations, beyond the conventional indicators of performance (HBR ed., 2007). In addition to the BSC methodology, though, there are a number of ways supporting the organisatory performance evaluation (i.e. The Invisible Balance Sheet (K. E. Sveiby, 1989), Skandia Navigator (Edvinsson, 1997), Intellectual Capital Navigator (Stewart, 1998, p. 246), stb.). While discussing the methodology of evaluation, the role and characteristics of performance indicators are also worth putting an emphasis on (H. Kacsó, 2009; Havasi, 2007; Parmenter, 2008; Peterson, 2006; K. E. Sveiby, 2001, inter alia).

Overall, with respect to nowadays’ performance evaluation, a number of modernisations have emerged and have been persisting, giving and representing the essence of the modernity of evaluation.

Throughout my analysis of the cohesion between the two lines, along with their integration, the main objective of my work is to provide an outline of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level, supplying the basis for identifying the modern tools of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability.

O

Looking at the literature explaining the concept and the dimensions of sustainable development, the complexity of the notion becomes perceptible. Several variables, and more importantly, the integrated system of these variables will influence the completion of the objective covered by the concept. This complexity, this integrated approach is underpinned by the literature covering the evaluation and the usage of the indicators, due to the emerging requirement for an approach being integrated, covering all the different dimensions.

Sustainability shows an influence on competitive qualities at the microeconomic level, and I consider this feature to trigger and enhance the necessity for measuring and evaluating sustainability at the level of the economic entities as well. In the field of performance evaluation, we can observe various changes, which help develop and make the process of evaluation up-to-date and modern, bringing representative returns. I have formulated my research question taking all these into account.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What approach or solution can support the performance evaluation of the sustanability dimensions, resulting in an evaluation

(1) reinforcing sustainability to generate competitive advantage, as opposed to leading to additional burdens throughout the operation of the economic entity. In addition, it is

(2) following/taking into account the overall changes of performance evaluation, that is, following/taking into account the integrated, scorecard-based evaluation expressing the crucial importance of the intellectual capital, as opposed to the conventional evaluation methodology?

My work aims to respond to the research question, primarily (essentially) in theory.

With an understanding on the literature presenting the theoretical background for the research question, I am expressing the following hypotheses.

HYPOTHESES

During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the dimensions of sustainability:

(H1) The implementation of the integrated approach is inevitable.

(H2) The characteristics of the evaluation are built on up-to-date performance evaluation.

(H3) Integrating the characteristics of the up-to-date evaluation entails the necessity for taking into account the dimensions of sustainability – raising new aspects on the way - in an integrated way.

I am going to verify the hypotheses by completing the following objectives.

OBJECTIVES

In the course of my work, my primary goal is to

(1) provide an overview (’Basics’) of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level, providing the grounds for identifying the modern tools of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, at the microeconomic level; In addition,

(2) expanding the range of instruments capable of supporting performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, as well as their modernisation (’Modernisation’). My overall purpose is to develop a new instrument – essentially a theoretical model, illustrating the logic of evaluation – following/taking into account the overall changes in performance evaluation, not leading to additional burdens throughout the operation of the economic entity.

S

,

In order to complete my objectives, I will follow these steps, also providing the framework of my essay (see Figure 1 for the structure of the essay).

In the interest of my primary objective (’Basics’), I will provide a theoretical overview, and therefore, in Chapter 2,

- I will inspect the field of environmental performance evaluation, with a view to the environmental dimension of sustainability,

- The potential solutions for evaluating social responsibility, with a view to the social dimension of sustainability,

- As well as the ways of integrated approach towards performance evaluation, in the dimensions of sustainability.

In Chapter 3, as a link between ’Basics’ and ’Modernisation’, I will bring together the touchstones of modern performance evaluation:

- I will summarize the meaning and evaluation of the intellectual capital, - coupled with the characteristics of evaluation from the viewpoint of

innovation, environmental innovation and social innovation.

In order to complete my objectives, and in particular, to complete my objectives of

’Modernisation’, adapting my secondary research, I will convey my conclusions, leading to the performance evaluation principles of Chapter 4, which will be listed as the minimum requirements of the up-to-date performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability.

These performance evaluation principles will be identified as:

- Based on Chapter 2: The cardinal requirements being essential for the evaluation of the dimensions of sustainability, along with their integrated approach.

- Based on Chapter 3: The characteristics being displayed as the criteria of modernisation.

In Chapter 5, I will define the logic of the evaluation model, the instrument I have constructed. I have built this model on theoretical grounds, and therefore, it can be perceived as a conceptual model. It has been given the name Integrated Sustainability Performance Evaluation (ISPE).

In Chapter 6, I will highlight the practical implementation of the model established, and I will encapsulate my pilot primary research. My model will be verified using the method of comparative analysis.

My model endeavors to illustrate one possible evaluation logic. However, in order to promote its practical implementation, I will make recommendations with examples, in terms of the specific indicators that can be applied in the model.

Finally, in Chapter 7, I will draw conclusions, along with taking measure of the level of completing my objectives. In this chapter, I will examine the accuracy of my hypotheses, defining and presenting my thesis.

1.

Figure 1. Structure of the essay Source: own work

In order to accomplish the primary objective of my work, I will perform a review and create a summary on theoretical grounds, and as such, I will predominantly rely on secondary information. My work is built up on my conclusions based on the results of my secondary research. The results were also used as a fundament while constructing my model. As part of my work, for verification reasons, I conducted primary research as well, applying the methodology of in-depth interview (questionnaires). Moreover, I will verify my model

Sustainability Evaluation of

sustainability Indicators Performance evaluation

Performance evaluation of environmental

dimension of sustainability (2.1)

Performance evaluation of social dimension

of sustainability (2.3)

Integrated performance evaluation of sustainability (2.4)

Practical implementation of the model (verification, examples) (6.)

Conclusions, thesis (7.) Basics of sustainable development (1.1) Basics of performance evaluation (1.2)

Research question (1.3)

Hypotheses (1.3)

’Modernisation’

Indicators

Evaluation of the intellectual capital and innovation (3.)

Basics'

Objectives (1.3)

Sustainability Performance and model of Integrated Sustainability Performance Evaluation (ISPE) (5.2)

Relationship of intellectual capital and innovation with the dimensions

of sustainability (5.1) Conclusions = The principles of performance evaluation = The minimum requirements of the up-to-

date performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability (4.)

R

In my work, on the basis of my research question and my hypotheses, I have devised my dual purpose. First, I intended to complete ’Basics’, that is, providing an overview of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, at the microeconomic level. For this purpose, in the light of my secondary research, I have analysed the Hungarian and international literature, regulations and standards referring to performance evaluation in the environmental and social dimensions, in conjunction with the integrated evaluation of sustainability. Throughout the secondary research, I have gained a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, allowing me to draw my conclusions in terms of the overall characteristics of the evaluation. This component, this result of my work is acting as a gap filler; In terms of providing a theoretical overview on performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level, it can be perceived as a novelty.

Furthermore, I have set ’Modernisation’ as a goal, in particular, to provide a model supporting economic entities in conducting their performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, following/taking into account the overall changes in performance evaluation, and not adding to the burdens throughout the operation of the economic entity. As a basis for addressing the question and achieving my goal, I have been conducting secondary research as well. I have observed the criteria for modern performance evaluation, including the characterisation of the iltellectual capital, as well as innovation – with environmental and social innovation involved -, and I analysed the literature pertaining to their evaluation. This component, this result of my work also functions as a gap filler, and in terms of providing an overview, it can be perceived as unique. Evidently, there is a vast literature on hand in the sphere of summaries on analysing the intellectual capital; However, there is no literature available on innovation discussing the concept of innovation – environmental as well as social innovation – and its evaluation simultaneously.

In my work, the secondary research was followed by drawing my conclusions. I am referring to these conclusions as the principles of performance evaluation, setting the minimum requirements of the up-to-date performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability. I defined the performance evaluation principles, as well as the minimum requirements as attributes which support the process of the modern performance evaluation in

the dimensions of sustainability. These principles appear as original in my work, devised as the outcome of my secondary research and/or my own analysis.

Relating to the objective of 'Modernisation', I was observing the foundations of integration. Previously, for the reasons of 'Modernisation', I had been inspecting the evaluation attributes of the intellectual capital and innovation, leading me to conclusions creating a link between the evaluation of the intellectual capital and innovation, and the evaluation of the sustainability dimensions. All these have facilitated the integration of the evaluation attributes of the intellectual capital and innovation into the process of modern performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability. This means that the intellectual capital can be associated with the sustainability dimensions. With adequate management in place, the sustainability endeavours (in particular, the responsible behaviour towards society and the stakeholders) of the organisation might be encouraged, underlining the significance of the intellectual capital, in terms of the sustainability endeavours of the organisation. This led me to the conclusion that the integrated approach, viewing sustainability and the intellectual capital concurrently, will grant the success of the economic entities thriving on sustainability.

The modern performance evaluation of the sustainability dimensions needs to include the aspect of evaluating the intellectual capital, as a supplement to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. In the transition process towards sustainability, therefore, the intellectual capital, as well as the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability need to be identified and evaluated. Due to their similar or in some cases, identical performance evaluation attributes, the performance evaluation of these factors can be conducted in an integrated way. The concept of innovation, including environmental and social innovation shows correspondence with the dimensions of sustainability, as well as the aspect of the intellectual capital, allowing the available means of their evaluation to become inputs of the modern performance evaluation, in the dimensions of sustainability. My work putting these factors in the context of integration, can be perceived as unique; I have recorded my arguments referencing the preceding literature as well.

With my work, I have achieved the objective of 'Modernisation', and established the new logic of evaluation presenting the theoretical side of the evaluation logic, on the whole.

The model was established in respect of the previously formulated performance evaluation

of modern performance evaluation. Illustrated by Figure 2, I took the principles of performance evaluation into account in two ways: Some of the principles served as a basis for devising the indicator categories of the ISPE model, while others were considered in the process of defining the characteristics of the ISPE model. I recorded the characteristics and the structure of the ISPE model as well, setting evaluation criteria and indicator categories featuring the sustainability dimensions and aspects (i.e. the intellectual capital and innovation) of the model. I also made proposals regarding the operational steps of the model. (see Figure 2) My work, as the first of its kind, introduces the ISPE model providing the theoretical outline for the up-to-date performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability at the microeconomic level.

Figure 2. Two ways as the principles of performance evaluation were integrated into the ISPE model and the structure of ISPE model

Source: own work¹

1 This model is prepared used the principles of performance evaluation, which are defined by me; during the preparation process I used steps from literature (Bukodi, 2001, pp. 21-36 referred Havasi, 2007)

Evaluation criteria

(EC_n)

Indicator categories

(IC)

Indicators (I) IC¹1 I1…In

IC¹_n I1…In

ICⁿ₁ I1…In

ICⁿ_n I₁…I_n IC¹₁ I₁…I_n IC¹n I1…In

ICⁿ1 I1…In

ICⁿn I1…In

IC¹1 I1…In

IC¹_n I1…In

ICⁿ₁ I₁…I_n ICⁿn I1…In

IC¹₁ I₁…I_n IC¹n I1…In

ICⁿ₁ I₁…I_n ICⁿn I₁…I_n The principles of performance evaluation Characteristics of the ISPE

model

Environmental dimension

Social dimension

Aspect of intellectual

capital

Structure of the ISPE model

Evaluation criteria and indicator categories of the ISPE model

EC1

EC_n

EC₁

EC₁

EC_n Aspect of

innovation

ECn

EC1

EC_n

The model I established completes the criteria set out as the objective of 'Modernisation', based on the fact that I have developed the model upon the principles of performance evaluation. Therefore, the model covers characteristics having emerged due to the overall changes in performance evaluation. The model is built upon performance evaluation in general, and consequently, it offers a logic equipped with the attributes already known and applied by the organisations; therefore, it will not lead to additional burdens during the operation of the economic entity. The integrated system will also allow the already available records and performance values to be utilised. This argument can be underpinned, above all, by considering the aspect of the intellectual capital: Provided that the organisation already used performance evaluation to measure and follow up on their efficiency, their existing records may be good indicators in terms of sustainability as well. All this is reinforced by the necessity for the forth pillar set out in the NFFT Strategic Framework.

Provided that we consider the itellectual capital as the demonstration of the forth pillar taken at the microeconomic level, taking into account the concept of intellectual capital might be apparently advantageous in terms of preventing additional burdens to arise due to the activities targeting sustainability. The transition towards sustainability might be aided by relying on the already existing concepts as well as the management solutions being present in the organisation’s operation. My proposal aims at serving as a guidance for identifying and evaluating the concept of sustainability without producing additional burdens for the organisations.

Based on the results discussed above, I consider the logic of the ISPE model to be a response to my research question. The concept established, my model might function as a guiding thread during the economic entities’ performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability. It can be perceived as a guiding thread as it (1) draws the attention to the aspects – including the evaluation criteria they consist of –that need to be examined, as well as the indicator categories capable of incorporating and defining the suitable indicators. In addition, it (2) emphasises that the already implemented means of performance evaluation might be appropriate for performance evaluation, in terms of the methodology to be adopted (2A), and/or (2B) the information gained during their application, to make use of. My approach, my model, the necessity of the aspects and the integrated approach were supported by conducting literary research; At the same time, my results, or the presence of further

verification), further aspects are added to the three dimensions of sustainability evaluation, authenticating my approach.

At the same time, the question arises: What kind of novelty my work brings, viewing from a practical perspective? My work is unique in the sense that it aims at bringing practice and theory together. I have arrived at my results by conducting my predominantly theoretical research, which, partially – taking the results of its verification (primary research) into account as well –, are already present in the practicionary attitude and are part of company practice. Recording the verification of theory and practice is fundamental, however, and my work brings novelty in this respect. That being stated, I have indicated the term ‘modern’ in the title of my work not only in the respect of establishing a new model (the ISPE model) but tracking the transformation of the methodology of performance evaluation as well as amalgamating those changes as part of a concept.

T

For the verification of my hypotheses (H), I am expressing the following theses (T). (In my PhD dissertation – Appendix no. 15. – relation between theses and publications are more explained.)

(H1) During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the dimensions of sustainability, the implementation of the integrated approach is inevitable.

The hypothesis is verified, as the research is certified it.

This hypothesis can be formulated as a thesis. Breaking it down into the dimensions of sustainability, it becomes evident that while evaluating the environmental dimension, the process of environmental performance evaluation relies on the records generated throughout the overall operation of the company, as well as those generated by environmental accounting.

It can be seen that the environmental dimension can be made an element while forming solutions suitable for evaluating the intellectual capital. The literature verifies the hypothesis and therefore, there is no thesis being expressed regarding the environmental pillar. As for the evaluation of the social dimension, there has been an integrated approach demonstrated, reinforcing the hypothesis as well as the thesis expressed, which can be broken down into sub-theses, though.

FIRST THESIS (T1-T1.1)

T1: During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the dimensions of sustainability, an integrated approach is demonstrated.

T1.1: During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the social dimension of sustainability, the integrated approach is highlighted; In addition, the relevance of performance evaluation in terms of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be expanded by integrating the solutions suitable for evaluating CSR.

Demonstration Of The Thesis Publication

Integrating the various aspects for the purpose of sustainability

(3) pp. 39-40

The integrated approach and model discussed in the thesis

(4) pp. 739-749, Table 2 See also (2), (5), (6), (7)

H2 and H3 being closely related hypotheses, will be verified collectively.

(H2) During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the dimensions of sustainability, the characteristics of the evaluation are built on up-to-date performance evaluation.

(H3) During the performance evaluation of the economic entity, in the dimensions of sustainability, integrating the characteristics of the up-to-date evaluation entails the necessity for taking into account the dimensions of sustainability – raising new aspects on the way - in an integrated way.

Both hypotheses are proved and verified.

The logic of evaluation designed during my research, the ISPE model helps verify the hypotheses, based on the logic of a previous pilot evaluation model. The model is built up on the principles of performance evaluation, that is, integrating the core requirements of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, and the criteria of modern performance evaluation. The characteristics of the model reflect on the criteria of modern performance evaluation.

The specifics of evaluation producing up-to-date criteria are associated to the intellectual capital as well as innovation, and they are integrated as an additional aspect to the dimesions of sustainability. One achievement of my work is the demonstration of the link – which is conceptual and also taking performance evaluation into account –between the intellectual capital as well as innovation, and the dimensions of sustainability.

SECOND THESIS (T2-T2.1)

T2: To support the transition of economic entities towards sustainability, performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability should involve and integrate further aspects beyond the dimensions of sustainability, which, conceptually and also taking performance evaluation into account, show correspondence with the dimesions of sustainability.

T2.1: The intellectual capital and innovation can be perceived as further aspects of this kind.

Demonstration Of The Thesis Publication

The thesis as an initial statement. The definitions of the aspects appearing in the

thesis and their illustration using figures. (3) pp. 39-40, Figure 1 See also (5),(7),(8)

THIRD THESIS (T3-T3.1-T3.2)

T3: The performance evaluation characteristics of the aspects included/integrated into the process of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability, might qualify as inputs or principles, supporting the up-to-date evaluation of the dimensions of sustainability, making it more comprehensive and representative.

T3.1: The concepts of innovation, in particular the environmental and social innovation, show associations to the concept of the dimensions of sustainability as well as the concept of the intellectual capital; Therefore, the tools available for their evaluation might serve as inputs for the up-to-date performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability.

T3.2: Social innovation can be perceived as a sequence of innovative steps realising social responsibility, achieving continuous improvement. This reinforces the connections between social innovation and sustainability.

Demonstration Of The Thesis Publication

Topic of the thesis: evaluation approach and new aspects. The relationship

discussed in the thesis – an illustration using figures (3) pp. 38-57, Figure 1.

Publication examining the relationship between social innovation and CSR (2) pp. 27-38 See also (5), (8)

FOURTH THESIS (T4-T4.1-T4.2)

T4: The methodology of integrated performance evaluation applies constant, fixed indicator categories being valid for any (profit-oriented or non-profit) organisations in terms of performance evaluation in the dimensions of sustainability; Also, these categories include specific indicators which can be used as an option during the evaluation.

T4.1: The performance indicators established to evaluate the dimensions of sustainability, support the (profit-oriented or non-profit) organisational decisions concerning sustainability as well.

T4.2: The presence of the specific indicators as part of an indicator set facilitate the widespread application of sustainability indicators in the course of the decision-making process.

Demonstration Of The Thesis Publication

The thesis as an initial statement; Referencing the pilot model and its characteristics. Characteristics of integrated evaluation – which are appearing in

the publication – confirm (result) the thesis.

(3) pp. 39-40

Characteristics of DSS model – which is appearing in the publication confirm

(result) the thesis. Characteristics of DSS model strenghten, promote the (1) Chapter 4

S

P

(1) Harazin, P., & Horváth, G. Á. (2016). A framework for an industrial ecological decision support system to foster partnerships between businesses and governments for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner ProductionCleaner Production, 114, 214-223. Journal article/Professional/Scientific; Journal article; Reviewed;

Web of Scienc; Scopus

(2) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2013). Social Challenges: Social Innovation through Social Responsibility. Periodica Polytehnica-Social and Management Sciences, 21(1), 27–

38. Journal article/Professional/Scientific; Journal article; Reviewed; Scopus (3) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2013). Innováció nyújtotta teljesítményértékelési

alapvetések: innovációs aspektusok egy integrált, az intellektuális tőke és fenntarthatóság kapcsolatát prezentáló szemléletben, modellben. Információs társadalom, (2), 38–57. Journal article/Professional/Scientific; Journal article;

Reviewed; Hunagrian language; Published in Hungary; Web of Science; Scopus (4) Harazin Piroska, Kósi Kálmán: Performance Evaluation of Corporate Social

Responsibility According to the Logic of ISO 26000 (Guidance on Social Responsibility) Standard; REGIONAL AND BUSINESS STUDIES 3:(1) pp. 739- 749. (2011) Journal article/Conference/Scientific; Journal article; Reviewed;

Foreign language; Published in Hungary in addition

(5) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2012). Relationship between Social Innovation and Pillars of Sustainable Development. International Journal of Sales and Retailing &

Marketing, 1(2), 80–90. Journal article/Conference/Scientific; Journal article;

Reviewed; Foreign language; Published in abroad

(6) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2012). Model of the Basic Relationship between External Sustainability Reports (Sustainability Indexes) and Internal Corporate Sustainability Performance Evaluation. International Journal of Sales and Retailing & Marketing, 1(3), 91–102. Journal article/Conference/Scientific; Journal article; Reviewed;

Foreign language; Published in abroad

(7) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2011). Integrated approach of knowledge, environment and society based performance evaluation. In 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Management Conference Proceedings: Towards Sustainable Technologies (pp. 138–144). Chapter/Conference/Scientific; International conference; Foreign language; Published paper

(8) Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2013). Teljesítményértékelési alapvetések az Európa 2020 stratégia prioritásainak vonalán. In Tehetséggondozás a BME GTK Gazdálkodás- és

Szervezéstudományi Doktori Iskolában. (pp. 81–89).

Chapter/Conference/Scientific; Hungarian language; Published conference paper

R

L

–

-

Allee, V. (2000). The value evolution. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 17–32.

Bakacsi, G., Bokor, A., Császár, C., Gelei, A., Kováts, K., & Takács, S. (2006). Stratégiai emberi erőforrás menedzsment. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Bartus, G. (2006). A fenntartható fejlıdés rejtélyes fogalmáról. Kommentár, 1(6), 55–63.

Bartus, G. (2008). Piac és környezet (Az ökológiai közgazdaságtan bírálata). Doktori értéekezés. BME. Retrieved from

https://repozitorium.omikk.bme.hu/bitstream/handle/10890/779/ertekezes.pdf?sequence=

1

Brundtland Bizottság (1987) alapján. (1988). Közös Jövőnk, A Környezet és Fejlesztés

Világbizottság Jelentése; Our common future; (World Commission on Environment and Development., Ed.). Budapest: Mezőgazdasági Kiadó.

Csete, M. (2009). A fenntarthatóság kistérségi vizsgálata. Doktori értekezés. BME.

Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development.

Ecological Economics, 2, 1–6.

Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 320–373.

Gergely, É. (2012). Teljesítménymenedzsment vizsgálatok egyes profitorientált szervezetek és polgármesteri hivatalok humán erőforrás gazdálkodásában. PhD értekezés. Retrieved from

https://dea.lib.unideb.hu/dea/bitstream/handle/2437/129494/Gergely_Eva_nyilvanos- t.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, Ó. (2005). Environmental proactivity and business performance: an empirical analysis. Omega, 33(1), 1–15.

Gyökér, I. (2004). A vállalat szellemi tőkéje a számolatlan vagyon. Harvard Business Manager, December.

Gyökér, I., & Finna, H. (2007). Teljesítménymenedzsment - KG Oktatási segédanyag.

Retrieved from www.mvt.bme.hu

H. Kacsó, E. (2009). Vállalati teljesítmények vizsgálata: új eszközök, régi gyakorlat.

PERIODICA OECONOMICA, II. évf(Május), 32–43.

Harazin, P., & Kósi, K. (2013). Innováció nyújtotta teljesítményértékelési alapvetések:

innovációs aspektusok egy integrált, az intellektuális tőke és fenntarthatóság kapcsolatát prezentáló szemléletben, modellben. Információs társadalom, (2), 38–57.

HBR szerk. (2007). A balanced scorecard mint stratégiai menedzsmentrendszer. Harvard Business Manager, 2007.dec -.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action (p. 322). Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publication Corp.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1998). Balanced Scorecard, Kiegyensúlyozott stratégiai mutatószám-rendszer. Budapest: KJK.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2002). A stratégiaközpontú szervezet - Hogyan lesznek sikeresek a Balanced Scorecard vállalatok az új üzleti környezetben? Panem Kft.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets. Harvard Business Review, February, 1–13.

Kapusy, P. (2007). A fenntartható fejlődés és a vállalatok kapcsolata. Minőség és Megbízhatóság, 1.

Kulcsár, D. (2009). A fenntartható fejlődés: mi a valóság? Valóság, 3.

Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373–385.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007

Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2004). Teljesítményprizma – Az üzleti siker mérése és menedzselése. Budapest: Alinea Kiadó.

NFFT. (2012). A fenntarthatóság felé való átmenet nemzeti koncepciója, Nemzeti Fenntartható Fejlődési Keretstratégia 2012-2024. Retrieved from

http://www.nfft.hu/dynamic/NFFS_rovid_OGYhat_melleklete_2012.05.16_vegso.pdf NFFT honlap. (n.d.). Rioi Nyilatkozat a Környezetről és a Fejlődésről.

http://www.nfft.hu/dynamic/Rio_Decl_m.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.nfft.hu/dynamic/Rio_Decl_m.pdf

Parmenter, D. (2008). How to Implement a Balanced Scorecard in 16 Weeks Not 16 Months.

Retrieved from www.controllingportal.hu

Peterson, E. T. (2006). The Big Book of Key Performance Indicators. Web Analytics Demystified. Retrieved from http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com

Schaltegger, S., Herzig, C., Kleiber, O., & Müller, J. (2002). Sustainability management in business enterprises. (BMU/BDI, Ed.). Lueneburg: BMU/BDI.

Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.011

Stewart, T. A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The new wealth of organization (p. 320). New York: Crown Business.

Sveiby, K. E. (1989). The Invisible Balance Sheet. Key indicators for accounting, control and valuation of know-how comapnies. The Konrad Group (p. 139). The Konrad Group.

Retrieved from http://www.sveiby.com/books/DenOsynligaEng.pdf

Sveiby, K. E. (2001). Szervezetek új gazdagsága: a menedzselt tudás (1997). Budapest: KJK- KERSZÖV Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó Kft.

Szlávik, J. (2005). Fenntartható környezet- és erőforrás-gazdálkodás. Környezetvédelmi Kiskönyvtár 14. (p. 318). Budapest: KJK-KERSZÖV Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó Kft.

Tóth, Z. E. (2008). Az intellektuális tőke mérési lehetőségeinek vizsgálata önértékelési modellek alapján. Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Retrieved from http://www.omikk.bme.hu/collections/phd/Gazdasag_es_Tarsadalomtudomanyi_Kar/200 8/Toth_Zsuzsanna_Eszter/ertekezes.pdf

Tsoulfas, T. G., & Pappis, P. C. (2008). A model for supply chains environmental

performance analysis and decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1647–

1657.

Veresné Somosi, M., & Hogya, O. (2011). Teljesítménymenedzsment. Retrieved from http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop425/0049_02_teljesitmenymenedzsment/a datok.html

Wimmer, Á. (2000). A vállalati teljesítménymérés az értékteremtés szolgálatában, a működési és a pénzügyi teljesítmény kapcsolatának vizsgálatában. PhD értekezés. Retrieved from http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/559/1/Wimmer_Agnes.pdf