A framework for analysing business performance, firm innovation and related contextual factors: Perceptions of managers and policy makers in two European regions

The aim of this paper is to propose a novel reference framework that can be used to study how different kinds of innovation can result in better business performance and how external factors can influence both the firm's capacity to innovate and innovation itself. The value of the framework is demonstrated as it is applied in an exploratory study of the perceptions of public policy makers and managers from two European regions - the Veneto Region in Italy and the East of England in the UK. Amongst other things, the data gathered suggest that managers are generally less convinced than public policy makers, that the innovativeness of a firm is affected by factors over which policy makers have some control. This finding poses the question "what, if any, role can public policy makers play in enhancing a company's competitiveness by enabling it to become more innovative?".

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal.

Each stage in the life cycle of coal-extraction, transport, processing, and combustion-generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered "externalities." We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.

Is performance measurement and management fit for the future?

Performance measurement and management (PMM) is a management and research paradox. On one hand, it provides management with many critical, useful, and needed functions. Yet, there is evidence that it can adversely affect performance. This paper attempts to resolve this paradox by focusing on the issue of "fit". That is, in today's dynamic and turbulent environment, changes in either the business environment or the business strategy can lead to the need for new or revised measures and metrics. Yet, if these measures and metrics are either not revised or incorrectly revised, then we can encounter situations where what the firm wants to achieve (as communicated by its strategy) and what the firm measures and rewards are not synchronised with each other (i.e., there is a lack of "fit"). This situation can adversely affect the ability of the firm to compete. The issue of fit is explored using a three phase Delphi approach. Initially intended to resolve this first paradox, the Delphi study identified another paradox - one in which the researchers found that in a dynamic environment, firms do revise their strategies, yet, often the PMM system is not changed. To resolve this second paradox, the paper proposes a new framework - one that shows that under certain conditions, the observed metrics "lag" is not only explainable but also desirable. The findings suggest a need to recast the accepted relationship between strategy and PMM system and the output included the Performance Alignment Matrix that had utility for managers. © 2013 .