Primary navigation:

QFINANCE Quick Links
QFINANCE Topics
QFINANCE Reference
Add the QFINANCE search widget to your website

Home > Business Ethics Best Practice > Improving Corporate Profitability Through Accountability

Business Ethics Best Practice

Improving Corporate Profitability Through Accountability

by Marc J. Epstein and Priscilla Wisner

Executive Summary

  • Traditional measures of performance are of limited use to modern businesses, being rooted in evaluating past performance. They are a poor guide to true value, often missing the key factors that promote long-term worth.

  • It is essential to include the leading financial and nonfinancial indicators of performance that drive long-term value. This provides broader and more sophisticated information that highlights future trends.

  • Effectively managing and communicating a broader set of performance measures reduces uncertainty, ensures better relationships with stockholders and analysts, and enables improved financial performance.

  • Full accountability and disclosure, combined with improved measures and new systems to drive the process throughout the organization, create greater value for stakeholders, promoting future success.

 

Introduction

Improved governance requires the right employees, the right culture and values, and the right systems, information, and decision-making. Unfortunately, most organizations are attempting to steer their information-age businesses using industrial-age measurements. Managers have struggled for decades with accounting systems that fail to measure many of the variables that drive long-term value. The historical lagging indicators of performance that are commonly used by accountants are of limited value in determining the value of businesses for external stakeholders, and are of little use in guiding the business internally. Financial data on profitability and return on investment are valuable measures of corporate performance, but they are lagging indicators that measure past performance. A broader set of financial measures is necessary (for example, measurement of intangible assets such as intellectual capital and research-and-development value), in addition to an expanded set relating to customers, internal processes, and organizational measures.

The metrics must include the leading financial and nonfinancial indicators of performance that are the drivers and predictors of future financial performance. For example, fines and penalties may be a leading indicator of corporate reputation, employee turnover is a leading measure of future recruitment and training costs, and product quality is a leading measure of customer satisfaction, which in turn is a leading measure of market share. Each of these factors (reputation, employee-related costs, customer satisfaction, and market share) impacts financial performance.

Back to Table of contents

Further reading

Books:

  • Epstein, Marc J., and Bill Birchard. Counting What Counts: Turning Corporate Accountability to Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2000.
  • Epstein, Marc J., and K. O. Hanson (eds). The Accountable Corporation. Westport, CT: Praeger Publications, 2006.
  • Monks, Robert A. G. The Emperor’s Nightingale: Restoring the Integrity of the Corporation in the Age of Shareholder Activism. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1999.
  • Ward, Ralph D. Improving Corporate Boards: The Boardroom Insider Guidebook. New York: Wiley, 2000.

Articles:

  • Botosan, Christine. “Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital.” Accounting Review 72:3 (July 1997): 323–349.
  • Epstein, Marc J., and Krishna Palepu. “What financial analysts want.” Strategic Finance (April 1999): 48–52.
  • Healy, Paul, Amy Hutton, and Krishna Palepu. “Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosure.” Contemporary Accounting Research 16:3 (Fall 1999): 485–520.
  • Hutton, Amy. “Beyond financial reporting—An integrated approach to corporate disclosure.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 16:4 (Fall 2004): 8–16.
  • Sengupta, Partha. “Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt.” Accounting Review 73:4 (October 1998): 459–474.

Report:

Back to top

Share this page

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Bookmark and Share