Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS): An evaluation of success factors in the agricultural sector. The case of Italy's Emilia Romagna region.

Different tools have been used to set up and adopt the model for the fulfillment of the objective of this research. 1. The Model The base model that has been used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) adapted with the aim to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis. The AHP developed by Thomas Saaty is a multicriteria decision - making technique which decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discreet and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. These comparisons may be taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale that reflects the relative strength of preferences and feelings. 2. Tools and methods 2.1. The Expert Choice Software The software Expert Choice is a tool that allows each operator to easily implement the AHP model in every stage of the problem. 2.2. Personal Interviews to the farms For this research, the farms of the region Emilia Romagna certified EMAS have been detected. Information has been given by EMAS center in Wien. Personal interviews have been carried out to each farm in order to have a complete and realistic judgment of each criteria of the hierarchy. 2.3. Questionnaire A supporting questionnaire has also been delivered and used for the interviews . 3. Elaboration of the data After data collection, the data elaboration has taken place. The software support Expert Choice has been used . 4. Results of the Analysis The result of the figures above (vedere altro documento) gives a series of numbers which are fractions of the unit. This has to be interpreted as the relative contribution of each element to the fulfillment of the relative objective. So calculating the Benefits/costs ratio for each alternative the following will be obtained: Alternative One: Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0, 877 Costs ratio: 0, 815 Benfit/Cost ratio: 0,877/0,815=1,08 Alternative Two: Not Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0,123 Costs ration: 0,185 Benefit/Cost ratio: 0,123/0,185=0,66 As stated above, the alternative with the highest ratio will be the best solution for the organization. This means that the research carried out and the model implemented suggests that EMAS adoption in the agricultural sector is the best alternative. It has to be noted that the ratio is 1,08 which is a relatively low positive value. This shows the fragility of this conclusion and suggests a careful exam of the benefits and costs for each farm before adopting the scheme. On the other part, the result needs to be taken in consideration by the policy makers in order to enhance their intervention regarding the scheme adoption on the agricultural sector. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Benefits: - Legal compliance seems to be the most important benefit for the agricultural sector since its rank is 0,471 - The next two most important benefits are Improved internal organization (ranking 0,230) followed by Competitive advantage (ranking 0, 221) mostly due to the sub-element Improved image (ranking 0,743) Finally, even though Incentives are not ranked among the most important elements, the financial ones seem to have been decisive on the decision making process. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Costs: - External costs seem to be largely more important than the internal ones (ranking 0, 857 over 0,143) suggesting that Emas costs over consultancy and verification remain the biggest obstacle. - The implementation of the EMS is the most challenging element regarding the internal costs (ranking 0,750).

On the Efficiency of the Benchmarks Used in the Asset Management

In this work we studied the efficiency of the benchmarks used in the asset management industry. In chapter 2 we analyzed the efficiency of the benchmark used for the government bond markets. We found that for the Emerging Market Bonds an equally weighted index for the country weights is probably the more suited because guarantees maximum diversification of country risk but for the Eurozone government bond market we found a GDP weighted index is better because the most important matter is to avoid a higher weight for highly indebted countries. In chapter 3 we analyzed the efficiency of a Derivatives Index to invest in the European corporate bond market instead of a Cash Index. We can state that the two indexes are similar in terms of returns, but that the Derivatives Index is less risky because it has a lower volatility, has values of skewness and kurtosis closer to those of a normal distribution and is a more liquid instrument, as the autocorrelation is not significant. In chapter 4 it is analyzed the impact of fallen angels on the corporate bond portfolios. Our analysis investigated the impact of the month-end rebalancing of the ML Emu Non Financial Corporate Index for the exit of downgraded bond (the event). We can conclude a flexible approach to the month-end rebalancing is better in order to avoid a loss of valued due to the benchmark construction rules. In chapter 5 we did a comparison between the equally weighted and capitalization weighted method for the European equity market. The benefit which results from reweighting the portfolio into equal weights can be attributed to the fact that EW portfolios implicitly follow a contrarian investment strategy, because they mechanically rebalance away from stocks that increase in price.