企业价值评估文献综述英文版
企业绩效评估的文献综述
企业绩效评估的文献综述企业绩效评估是指对企业在一定时期内所取得的成果、目标的完成程度以及经济效益进行评估，以便发现问题、改进管理，最终达到提高企业绩效的目的。
本文将对企业绩效评估的相关文献进行综述，以期对该领域的发展和应用情况进行了解。
关于企业绩效评估的理论基础，研究者们提出了多种评估方法和模型。
最为经典的是鲍尔斯/Baldrige模型和EFQM模型。
鲍尔斯/Baldrige模型是由美国质量管理专家鲍尔斯提出的评估模型，该模型包括7个标准和32个评估项目，分别从领导力、战略规划、顾客和市场导向、信息与分析、人力资源管理、流程管理、业绩评价等方面对企业进行评价。
EFQM模型（European Foundation for Quality Management）则是由欧洲质量管理专家联盟制定的评估模型，该模型从9个标准和32个评估项目对企业进行评估，包括领导力、政策与战略、资源管理、员工满意度、顾客满意度等。
这些模型为企业绩效评估提供了一种体系化的评估方法，对企业进行全面、系统的评估。
对企业绩效评估方法的研究也比较丰富。
研究者基于不同的角度和目的，提出了各种评估方法，如基于财务指标的绩效评估方法、基于关键绩效指标的绩效评估方法、基于综合评价指标的绩效评估方法等。
这些方法具有各自的优点和适用范围，可以根据企业的特点和目标选择合适的评估方法。
文献中还有很多关于企业绩效评估的实证研究。
这些研究主要从企业内外环境、企业管理、技术创新等方面入手，通过对企业的实际情况进行分析和评估，探索绩效评估对企业绩效的影响。
研究结果表明，通过绩效评估可以有效发现问题，指导管理决策，提高企业绩效。
影响企业绩效评估的因素也是多样化的，不同的企业在评估过程中面临着不同的挑战。
文献中还涉及到一些关于企业绩效评估的应用研究。
这些研究主要从不同角度和层面对绩效评估进行应用和探索，如基于绩效评估的薪酬管理、基于绩效评估的战略规划等。
这些研究为企业在实际运营中进行绩效评估的应用提供了一些有益的启示和借鉴。
企业价值评估文献综述英文版
企业价值评估文献综述英文版Literature Review for the Theory of Business Value measurementABSTRACTBusiness value measurement depends on expectations for the future earnings, there are many ways to assess earnings, and the mainly methods are DCF method, Residual Income valuation theory, Economic Value Added valuation method and Real Options Valuation method. This article bases on the development of domestic and foreign business value theory, and gives a brief summary of the latest research, then compares thedifferent valuation theory at home and abroad.Finally, combining with practical features of Chinese enterprise value assessment concluded that assessments of the latest theories in Chinese enterprises.KEY WORDS : Business Value, Measurement Theory, Literature Review1、 IntroductionBusiness value measurement theory rose in the United States in the earlyth1960 of the 20th century. With the 50 years’ development and application , Westerndeveloped countries have been greatly applied in practice. At present, the theory and method of enterprise value evaluation in Western developed countries have been more and more mature，and it has been used to assess in practice. In China, the application of business value measurement theory is later than western countries which is nowrelatively slowly. Therefore, arranging the present research results and analysis the theory structure have been an important aspects so as to form a tight,coherent theory system. On the guidance of the business valuation practice it can establish new methods of business valuation in China, and it is essential to promote the development of theoretical study.2、 Studies AbroadBusiness value measurement have a history of hundreds of years as an industry in Western countries. During those hundreds of years, many scholars in Western countries on business valuation have done a large number of theoretical studies.Shiller (1981) used the discounted cash flow model to describe stock prices fluctuating boundaries, and the research shows that real stock prices change significantly beyond this range. Because these uncertain information is estimated with hypothesis and data processing technology. Its disadvantage is that it required too many intuition for decision makers, but also achieving many possible distribution[1]hypothesisIn 1995, Ohlson use the conception of clean surplusin residual income valuation model based on the use of clean-surplus (clean surplus) constructing and perfecting the concept of residual income valuation model [2]. Felthan and Ohlson (1995) further developed this theory, that extraordinary income sources are twofold: first, monopoly rents, second, accounting for sound doctrine. Their mostprominent contribution is presented for the evaluation of linear information models (1inear information model) [3]. Evaluation of applying the residual income model, relates to the extraordinary income is not included in the current period in the time series estimates of future earnings, more difficult.1995年，Ohlson在剩余收益定价模型的基础上利用干净盈余(clean[2]surplus)的概念构建并完善了剩余收益估值模型。
企业绩效管理外文翻译文献综述
企业绩效管理外文翻译文献综述企业绩效管理外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文：Can Performance Management Foster Intelligent Behavior?Bjarte BogsnesThe world has changed, not just in increasingly fast-changing and unpredictable ways, but also the competence and expectations of people in our organizations. Unfortunately, too few seem to understand or accept that these developments call for radically new and different ways of leading and managing. Traditional management practices do not make usthe agile organizations we need to be.The problem starts with the label, "Performance Management" implying, "If I don't manage you, there will be no performance."We need a new mindset, one that is less about managing performance and more about creating conditions for great performance to occur. We need self-regulating models, requiring less management, but more leadership from everyone.Think about traffic, where we want good performance and a safe good flow. Traffic authorities have different ways of making this happen. The traffic light is a popular choice, but those managing the process (programmers) are not in the situation; information used in their process is not fresh, which is clear as you wait in front of that red light.The roundabout is a very different alternative. Those managing are the drivers themselves. The information used isreal time, coming from own observations. While that information is also available in front of the traffic light, drivers do not have the authority to act on it. By the way, the "zipper" or "every second car through" is not a rule, but a guiding principle.The roundabout normally is more efficient than the traffic light, because of two significant differences in the decision-making process, information and authority. A third element is also required for the roundabout to be more efficient: while the traffic light is a simple-rulesbased system, the roundabout is values-based. A value-set based on, "Me first, I don't care about the rest," is not a big a problem in front of the red light, but is a serious problem in a roundabout. Here, a positive common purpose of wanting a safe and good flow is critical. Drivers must be more considerate, open about own intentions while trying to understand the intentions of peers. Instead of managing performance, traffic authorities have created conditions for self-managed performance to occur.What would the implications be for the loathed performance review? The principles and practices described at Return Path are sensible and interesting. I like the concept of horizontal commitments toward peers, instead of vertical commitments to higher management. At the same time, we need to broaden our definition of performance. In traditional performance, a commitment is too often about "hitting the number." This is too narrow. We need to ask questions such as, how are we doing compared to peers? How are we using KPIs to reflect on performance, or using hindsight and management assessment to verify results? Did we really move toward our longer-term ambitions? How sustainable are the results? Last but not least, there has to be room for values if performance systems are tofoster intelligent behavior; we need to ask, how where those results achieved?At Statoil our integrated performance management approach links ambitions to actions. Our targets reflect a broad set of ambitions,including people, health, safety, environment, operations and financial performance. Read more about our management model and how we apply a holistic and values-based approach to this broader performance agenda.The words of Dee Hock, former GEO of Visa, should guide the design of our management processes, including our performance reviews: "Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior."While researching my book. Talent Economics, I interviewed employees about what really motivates today's workforce. I discovered a disconnect between the performance support my interviewees wanted versus how managers recounted their contribution to these conversations.Over the last 20 years, the employee mindset has evolved faster than has the art and science of management. Nowhere is this starker than in the area of performance management practices, particularly the annual review. In both the developed and developing world, employees report that this end-of-year activity breeds stress, anxiety and mistrust. How ironic that a process aimed at improving organizational performance, is itself underperforming!It's time to "reboot" our performance management operating system, installing two specific system updates: l. The "Democracy" update. As much as we try to make theperformance appraisal a two way dialogue, we cannot run away from the fact that at its core, the conversation today is often a top-down review. My research shows that many 21st century employees are rejecting conversations that are one-way: in hot job markets today, managers must realize "who is appraising whom." With other offers readily available, many employees enter a performance dialogue privately considering if their manager is worth another year of their career. The performance management conversation now reflects a company's Employee Value Proposition, much as we learn in the lead Perspective.The Democracy update means that managers only gain the right to give feedback when they first genuinely seek the same on their own performance as leaders. Not just through 360-degree reviews, but also through authentic conversations asking, "How am I performing as your manager? " and "How can I help you succeed?" Only then can the conversation shift to, "How you can improve?"and "This is what you should focus on."2. The Success module. Greater employee autonomy and empowerment also changes the meaning of management. We have gone from a "supervisor of task and outcomes" to an "enabler of performance, innovative thinking and collective success." To make this shift, we must give up the judge's robes for the coach's uniform. If employees don't succeed, managers are on the hook, too.This is particularly relevant when coaching a team to success. People bring different skills to a team and how well they work together really matters. If team reviews work better to achieve a goal, so be it. The Return Path story illustrates how review processes can be designed and executed around what matters most, and where everyone dons the uniforms of player and coach.What if, instead of making the heart of a performance conversation the evaluation, it became a vehicle to improve success of the individual, the team and the business? What if performance feedback was paired with dialogue about transforming the business, the product or customer experience? This genuinely reboots and upgrades performance management to focus on individual and organizational success.It is indeed time to upgrade performance management practices: we can no longer manage a 21st century employee using 20th century mindsets.People & Strategy. 2013, V ol. 36 Issue 2, p12-13. 2p.译文：绩效管理能促进自我管理行为吗?Bjarte Bogsnes世界随着时间的推移而变化莫测，连那些与时变化而不可预测的通道也随之改变，与此同时组织人员的能力和期望也顺应时代潮流。
企业绩效评估英文文献
Performance evaluation usually also known as performance appraisal or "performance" is the enterprise borne by each worker in the work of the application of science and qualitative and quantitative methods, workers and the actual results of the enterprise value of the contribution or assessment and evaluation. It is an important corporate personnel management, strong corporate governance is one of the means. The purpose of performance evaluations by each individual assessment improve the efficiency, and eventually realize the goal of enterprise.In the enterprise for performance evaluation work, we need to do a lot of related work. First, the need for performance evaluation of the meaning of scientific explanation, the entire organization of a unified understanding. Performance appraisal is an integral part of modern organizational management tool. It is a periodic review and evaluation of staff performance management system, is in charge of or related personnel to staff the work of the evaluation system. Effective performance appraisal, can not only identify each employee's contribution to the organization or inadequate, but also on the whole of the management of human resources to provide decisive assessment information, so that we can improve organizational feedback function, improve staff performance, but also Motivation, could also serve as a fair and reasonable reward staff basis.Performance appraisal is the sum of a series of related concepts, which include: to the work, performance standards, evaluation, assessment interviews, in-service counselling. Performance Assessment and Application PerformanceTrue performance management system is not just a simple set at the beginning of appraisal standards, and then evaluate the end of the year, but by the beginning of a performance plan for post-job himself clearly in the direction of the efforts in the performance of the ongoing efforts of the year, senior officers provide ongoing guidance and feedback, to help complete the various layers of the target level.Therefore, a performance management system is not just the performance objectives of the completion of the final evaluation, and performance goals should be a whole process of comprehensive management, including performance objectives determined in the implementation of the day-to-day or stage inspection and guidance, feedback, the amendment, the HKEAA , incentives, it is a cyclical cycle process. This cyclical process of the last cycle is a key step is: formulate scientific and rational evaluation methods, performance assessment and appraisal, and the right incentives. Performance Assessment examination usually led by the Human Resources Department is responsible for organizing, coordinating, the relevant departments to coordinate.A performance evaluation(1) PurposeThe actual performance of the past performance and plan for the difference between a formal evaluation to identify ways to improve and enhance the performance of the future.(2) evaluation and assessment content1. Actual performance over the past year review and assessment, including the collection of key performance indicators or targets implementation of the results, and actual results will have set standards for the control and decide the scores level.2. Performance for the next year to develop or adapt key performance indicators, objectives and capacity development plans.3. Determine remuneration adjustments and incentive programme.(3) The results of the implementation of collection1. Human Resources is responsible for organizing from the relevant departments or units to meet.2. The objective of the examination, during examination should be done prior to the meeting and some of the preparatory work, the performance of the officers concerned to collect specific implementation of the various aspects related to listen to the feedback: that the subordinate staff of the internal and external customer feedback. Relevant text files, data information, you recall peacetime observation. And the actual performance of individual employees and conduct performance and capacity than the clear understanding, and preliminary assessment of the performance of staff, Score-level performance and capacity situation. Arrangements for a performance discussion with the staff and meeting time, subordinate to the message: You attach great importance to this meeting.3. For the staff: staff must be assessed prior to the meeting that the agenda for the meeting. Notice two weeks ago and the best in him to get to know the purpose of the meeting, some of the staff had completed its preparations for the performance of prior information and self-assessment.(4) Calculation of individual performance scoresTo enable employees work performance among comparable to the effective implementation of incentive, the commonly used performance percentile calculation method to assess the performance of individual employees completion. Individual performance score is calculated as follows: Individual performance scores = ∑ (KPIi performance percentile × KPIi weight) × KPI total weight + ∑ (target completion percentile × weight) × objective of the total weight(5) individual performance feedbackAfter the annual evaluation, the results should be the timely performance feedback to be evaluated, in the assessment of people have no objection to the circumstances, with the incentive for individuals linked. Who has been assessed objections, the companies can appeal the appeals process.The same as the mid-term review, performance assessment can be conducted to discuss the performance feedback.(6) Performance Evaluation discussion1. Stressed that the purpose of performance evaluation and the meeting will discuss the agendaSet a relaxed atmosphere for the discussion on Performance Evaluation main purpose is to explore how to improve future performance. Reaffirming the importance of participation by staff. Itemized on the completion of targets or goals. In both preparations, the plans and performance evaluation form included in the targets or goals for the article-by-article discussions on the situation, subordinate to each indicator or target for a summary. Share your observation of their performance. No need to be discussed specific details but rather on the results of a highlight goal to reach or exceed the situation.2. Itemized assessment scores levelOn the list of all key performance indicators or targets itemized effect of the completion of discussions, the first to subordinate their key performance indicators or targets in accordance with the completion of standards for measuring scores level, do you think that those more suitable Score - to discuss those differences do you think there are scores level, and review of performance to find the facts, focus on performance rather than the facts themselves, access to the scores of consensus. If the preliminary goals and measurable indicators of a clear, in their daily work and ongoing guidance and tracking of medium-term, comprehensive performance assessment meeting acknowledged the difficulty can be reduced significantly, because they are not the results are particularly surprised.3. Performance for diagnosisIn the assessment of those who completed better performance indicators and targets as well as those who have not completed the targets and goals of the reasons for analysis, in what some staff shown consistent patterns of behaviour to obtain certain strengths or weaknesses led to a certain? What if we adopt a different approach may achieve our goals or standards?4. Discuss improvement planTold the staff and the total score after the personal performance evaluation scores. Asked to maintain good performance, can be taken to resolve issues related to the programme of action. Records of these action programmes for the development of annual performance plans standby. Formulatecorresponding area of capacity development, concrete actions and the desired results.5. Higher-level managers reviewedManagers at all levels will be the performance of its staff assessment results reported to the higher authorities, managers reviewed, the higher their managers for performance evaluation and assessment of the views of the two sides that the final assessment resultsSecond, the results of performancePerformance management and reward must be linked to incentive mechanisms can reflect its value. According to the staff performance appraisal results determine a reasonable pay incentives, performance appraisal is to ensure that the principal means of incentives and the core problem. In the design of the performance management system at the same time, we are also in accordance with their own characteristics for the synchronous design staff at all levels of the performance-related pay system.Performance results will be used normally as follows:1. Promotion wage (because of the specific situation in the promotion case may be)2. Performance bonuses determined (specifically identified because of the way the case may be)3. Career developmentPerformance Management is the ultimate goal of improving productivity and efficiency, through the success of each employee contributed to the success of enterprises. When staff performance evaluation scores of lower-level, we should discuss how to improve the performance required for the completion of the ability to improve performance and develop a plan of action. According to the results of performance assessment, in conjunction with other assessment, identifying outstanding performance, good quality, excellent innovation capability of managers and staff through job rotation, special training, etc., from the quality and the ability to conduct a comprehensive training, adjustments in the team added officers, to give priority to be promoted. At the same time, through the comparison of the results of performance assessment, analysis, evaluation was to identify the quality of representation and the gap between positions, in accordance with company management policy andlong-term development strategy for the management requirements, design and implementation of targeted training and timely improving management capacity and level.For those who can not meet the required performance, capacity is not significantly improve the staff to consider whether there are other suitable positions better than the original position to play its role. Through the careerdevelopment of employees, performance, the ability to work or personal behaviour and the career prospects of staff link to each other, thereby strengthening the ability to improve performance and the awareness of all the staff to improve the ability to complete performance targets. Also the human cost to the performance of transformation, the transformation of human capital to be specific implementation.In order to better the performance of the different performance management, talent can refer to the following matrix model.Table 7: talent Matrix ModelAnd the potential for high capacityInLowMedium outstanding qualified failurePerformance4. Other incentivesImplementation of pay linked to performance, although the performance of the staff to upgrade the level of better incentives, and is also a major incentive. But it is undeniable their own, there are also some limitations, but because of organizational factors, environmental factors and personal factors also caused a fixed wage increases and incentive bonuses specific operational difficulty and complexity of these problems are properly resolved, will be detrimental to performance incentives incentives.In actual operation should be actively avoid these negative factors can be considered in a larger scope reward and incentive approach. The realization of growth in wages and performance bonuses for major awards and incentives, with other incentives, and to reward with a continuous policy framework, and give full play to the potential role of other incentives, can be used to make up for the performance of wages restrictive role. Below other incentives for a brief description:To master the different forms of incentives, as well as the effect of different incentives, is the first step in the implementation of effective incentives. In the broad perspective, the incentives can be divided into two categories:One is external incentives. Including wage increases, performance bonuses and other rewards the nature of incentives, such as job promotion, training opportunities, study tour, tourist resort, from the high-level recognition and commendation.The second category is intrinsic reward. Including its own staff of the incentives (such as a sense of achievement), welfare, conferred the honorarytitle given challenging responsibilities, important and meaningful work, set goals and make decisions, such as the influence.These stresses in the form of incentives, according to different types, different locations, as well as staff time needs of different incentives for different incentives, real incentives to achieve this purpose it is necessary to make things right incentives, rewards employees have liked things that we should follow the implementation of incentive when one of the principles. Another incentive should also be in the grasp of achievement should not be confined to the understanding of the best employees; incentives to specific, and timely.Third, performance plans to amendThe company's strategic direction or will be the focus of the company each year with the different stages of development of the company or outside competition to the changing situation to be adjusted accordingly, the level of departments or work of staff of the target will be adjusted accordingly. Upon completion of performance appraisal, in a wide range of listening to the views of various parties on the basis of performance management should be on the practice of concluding a comprehensive analysis of concrete from the following considerations:1. Performance Performance Assessment Scheme content (including key performance indicators, setting objectives)Identify the most successful part of what? What is the most difficult operation? What is not meaningful? Targets adjustment will be reflected in the major work activities or key regional results. In addition, even if the work is the same or similar activities as the key to regional results, but also because of the completion of the outcome of the capacity of regional or external factors and other factors to be adjusted accordingly, and this adjustment will be reflected in the measurement standards.2. Performance Plan target (including key performance indicators and challenges of the goal indicators indicators, as well as the completion of targets set standards)According to actual performance compared with the objectives to determine whether the targets set reasonable value, and the next year the value of performance indicators defined plan will provide experience and guidance. 3. Performance guidance and enhanced methods and performance evaluation and reporting methods.On guidance and assessment methods to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the test, remove unreasonable factors, and the amendment. In a comprehensive summation of the basis of the analysis, according to the company's new business development plan and the annual operating budget objectives, and revised performance plan to the next round of the operating performance plan.。
英文文献综述万能模板范文
英文文献综述万能模板范文英文回答：Introduction.A literature review is a comprehensive survey of the existing research on a particular topic. It provides a critical analysis of the literature, identifying the key themes, gaps, and areas for future research. A well-written literature review can help readers quickly and easily understand the current state of knowledge on a topic.Steps to Writing a Literature Review.1. Define your topic. The first step is to define the scope of your literature review. This includes identifying the key concepts, variables, and research questions that you will be addressing.2. Search for relevant literature. Once you havedefined your topic, you need to search for relevant literature. This can be done through a variety of sources, including academic databases, Google Scholar, and library catalogs.3. Evaluate the literature. Once you have found a bodyof literature, you need to evaluate it to determine its relevance, quality, and credibility. This involves reading the abstracts and full text of the articles and assessing their strengths and weaknesses.4. Organize your review. Once you have evaluated the literature, you need to organize it into a logical structure. This may involve grouping the articles by theme, methodology, or research question.5. Write your review. The final step is to write your literature review. This should include a clear introduction, a body that discusses the key findings of the literature, and a conclusion that summarizes your findings andidentifies areas for future research.Tips for Writing a Literature Review.Be comprehensive. Include all of the relevant literature on your topic, even if it is not supportive of your hypothesis.Be critical. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the literature, and identify any gaps in the research.Be clear and concise. Write in a clear and concise style, and avoid using jargon or technical language.Proofread carefully. Make sure to proofread your literature review carefully before submitting it.中文回答：文献综述的撰写步骤。
企业价值评估英语
企业价值评估英语Enterprise valuation is the process of determining the worth or value of a company. It involves various methods and approaches that take into consideration the company's assets, financial performance, market conditions, and potential for growth.There are several commonly used methods for enterprise valuation, including the market approach, income approach, and asset-based approach. The market approach looks at comparable companies in the same industry and uses their valuation multiples to determine the value of the company being evaluated. The income approach uses the company's projected future cash flows and applies a discount rate to calculate its present value. The asset-based approach focuses on the company's balance sheet and calculates its net asset value.In addition to these methods, enterprise valuation may also consider other factors such as brand value, intellectual property, customer base, competitive advantages, and management quality. These intangible factors are often difficult to quantify but can significantly impact the overall value of a company.Enterprise valuation is important for several reasons. It helps investors and potential buyers determine how much they are willing to pay for a company. It also provides a benchmark for measuring a company's performance and helps guide strategic decision-making.Ultimately, enterprise valuation is a complex process that requires thorough analysis, financial modeling, and market research. It isessential for providing an objective and accurate assessment of a company's worth.。
房地产企业价值评估文献综述及外文文献资料
本份文档包含：关于该选题的外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献文献信息标题: Toward a New Metrics for the Evaluation of the Social Added Value of Social Enterprises作者: Bassi, Andrea; Vincenti, Giorgia期刊名称: CIRIEC - Espana；第8卷；第3期；页码：29-42年份: 2015Toward a New Metrics for the Evaluation of the Social Added Value of SocialEnterprisesABSTRACTThere is a widespread dissatisfaction among nonprofit leaders and managers, private funders and public decision-makers concerning the current systems of social impact assessment of nonprofit organizations/social enterprises (NPO/SE).The systems of performance measurement of NPO/SE vary greatly in relationship to a series of endogenous and exogenous variables related to different organizational environments: economic, political, social and cultural.The aim of this article is to present an innovative theoretical framework on the basis of which it is possible to define a set of indicators for the evaluation of the social added value produced by NPO/SE.Our hypothesis is that NPO/SE are characterized by their ability to generate different outcome at each of the dimensions of social life: micro, meso and macro. Meaning, a sense of responsibility at the micro level; relational goods at the meso level; and social capital at the macro level.The article illustrates the assessment tool called S.A.V.E. applied, as empirical reference, to three Italian social enterprises operating in the field of health and social services (local welfare systems).KEYWORDS: Social Impact Assessment, Social Added Value, Evaluation, Social1 IntroductionThere is a widespread dissatisfaction among nonprofit leaders and managers, private fenders and public decision-makers concerning the current systems of social impact assessment of nonprofit organizations/social enterprises (NPO/SE).The systems of performance measurement of NPO/SE vary greatly in relationship to a series of endogenous and exogenous variables related to different organizational environments: economic, political, social and cultural.The aim of this article is to present an innovative theoretical framework on the basis of which it is possible to define a set of indicators for the evaluation of the social added value produced by NPO/SE.Our hypothesis is that NPO/SE are characterized by their ability to generate different outcome at each of the dimensions of social life: micro, meso and macro. Meaning, a sense of responsibility at the micro level; relational goods at the meso level; andsocial capital at the macro level.The article illustrates the assessment tool called S.A.V.E. applied, as empirical reference, to three Italian social enterprises operating in the field of health and social services (local welfare systems).The first paragraph deals with the issue of social impact. Taking into account of the fact that there is an increasing and converging interest among policy makers, scholars and researchers, and third sector practitioners concerning the social added value nonprofit organizations and social enterprises create in the society as a whole. We argue that there are many factors inducing this pressure on NPO / SE towards the adoption of assessment systems for the evaluation of the (social) impact produced by their activities and programs; among them a key-role is played by the economic and financial crisis started in October 2008, and the consequent shrinkage of financial resources both for institutional donors (grant-making foundations) and public administration.In the second paragraph we illustrate the logic and the internal dimensions of the theoretical framework we called S.A.V.E. - meaning social added value evaluation model - trying to emphasize it strengths in comparison to other tools of nonprofit performance assessment.The third paragraph is dedicated to present a short history of the evolution of the social cooperative movement in Italy and the research design of the exploratory empirical inquiry we carried on.The fourth paragraph illustrates the characteristics of the three social cooperatives analyzed, and it presents the outcomes of the case studies we conducted.Finally, the conclusive section summarizes the main results illustrated in the article and opens new hypothesis for further research projects.2.- Social Impact Assessment: Whether, Why, What, Who, When, How?There is an increasing pressure toward NPO / SE for the adoption of assessment systems for the evaluation of the (social) impact produced (induced) by their activities, programs, projects, etc. Where does this pressure came from? And why now?In our opinion there are, at least, three main reason explaining these trends.2.1. Converging trendsFirst of all there is a wide change in the attitude of the citizens as consumers towards the role and function of private for profit enterprises in society. This change in life styles, opinions and attitudes put pressure on firms influencing their corporate behavior, pushing them to adopt a more social responsible orientation towards the environment and its stakeholders.The corporations are asked nowadays to fulfill the requirements of a "triple bottom line": the monetary rewards of the shareholders (economic feasibility); the improvement in quality of life of several stakeholders: workers, clients/users, suppliers, people living in the local community where the enterprise is located (social sustainability); the preservation of the natural environment (responsibility towards the new generations).This trends goes in the direction of the necessity for the corporations to act in a more transparent way (publicness social accountability) and be able to demonstrate theirimpacts (positive or negative) in the territories where they are located.Secondly in the last two decades there has been a deep process of reform in the Public Administration, involving the top managerial levels, due to the adoption of the principles of the so called "New Public Management".This new managerial style stresses the public administration officials to embrace "market" or "business-like" techniques in the planning, implementation, delivering and evaluation of services and provisions, such as: cost-benefits analysis, goal-achievement, project-planning, direct personal responsibility, system of incentives (rewards) and penalties.This trend put a pressure on the public managers to demonstrate the results of their actions (efficiency and effectiveness) and of the work of the offices they are leading. Since in many fields of activities (welfare, health, education) the public bodies operate through (by means of) third sector - nonprofit suppliers, this new managerial philosophy implies a growing (increasing) request these organizations to show the (social) impact of their programs and services delivered under contract with the public administration (value for money).In parallel in many western countries the systems of welfare provisions undertake a deep and wide reform process (Hemerijck 2012; Pierson 2011) inspired by the so called "personalization" principle, aimed to give to the citizen (the final beneficiary of services provision) more "power of choice" and "voice" (empowerment).This reform implied a radical change in the way public bodies sustain and finance the delivering of social, health and education services by third parties. This change has been defined as the movement from "supply-side" to "demand-side" model of financing the provision of services (Standing, 2004).The new model of financing implies the implementation of an "accreditation procedure" through which the suppliers should be recognized by a specialized Agency (public body) to be qualified (licensed) to deliver a specific typology of services (or a set of services).The public administration (usually the municipality) than set up a procedure for the citizens in order to be qualified as "having the right" to receive a particular type of service. Those citizens included in this condition than receive a certain amount of "purchase power" in form of vouchers or in form of money (personal budget). The vouchers and the personal budget than can be "spent" in order to buy services from the "licensed" delivering organizations, in the so called "regulated social market".It is easy to see as this new model of financing put the deliverers in competition among them in order to attract (to catch) the former users of welfare provisions, now "clients" in the social market. The competition stresses the capacity and the ability of the social services deliverers to demonstrate the effectiveness of their operational structure, in respect to the other possible competitors (both for profit and nonprofit). This constitutes another very powerful incentive toward the adoption of systems of social impact assessment among the NPO / SE working the welfare field.Thirdly there is a wide movement inside the so called Third Sector (meaning organizations that are not private for profit (business) neither part of the public administration structure) toward the "marketization" or "commercialization" of theiractivities and the "professionalization" of their human resources (both paid staff and volunteers).The first phenomenon "marketization" indicate the growing tendency of NPO / SE to sell their goods and services directly to the clients (Brennan, Cass, Himmelweit, Szebehely 2012; Meagher and Szebehely 2013). The income structure of NPO / SE is undergoing (undertaking) a deep change showing an increasing quota of revenues coming from direct selling and a corresponding decrease of those originated from "donations" and contracts with the public administration.This new differentiation of the portfolio of the NPO / SE entails the outbreak of new forms of organization which present characteristic of the three principal typologies: firms (for profit sector), bureau (public sector) and associations (nonprofit / third sector). Some authors have called this phenomena "hybridization" and the result of the organizational process "hybrid organizations" (Billis, 2010).Also this trend goes in the direction of pushing the capacity of the new (social) enterprises (Defourny, Hulgard, Pestoff, 2014) to demonstrate the (social) impact of their activities comparing to the "traditional" nonprofit organizations based mainly on donatives income.The second aspect, professionalization, is concerning the trend toward a progressive substitution of volunteers with paid staff in the key positions of NPO/SE, which take place in the last two decade of the previous century. This tendency related to the hiring of high skilled and high educated personnel in the mid and top management positions in the nonprofit sector, is due by both the development of Master degrees in "nonprofit management" and "social entrepreneurship leadership" in many Universities (especially in Business Schools); and the increasing complexity of the accreditation process and the requirements imposed by the public administration in order to enter in the "social market" of care services.The presence of more professionals in the organizational structure, also, pushes in the direction of adopting a wide array of systems of evaluation and assessment of organization's performance and impact.2.2. A framework for measuring social performanceIn a very insightful article published in 2010 in the Working Paper Series of the Harvard Business School, Ebrahim A. and Rangan V.K propose a "framework for measuring social performance" using as target the NGOs - nongovernmental organization operating in "third world" or "under developed" countries.The authors recognize that many definitions of impact refer to a logic chain of results in which organizational inputs and activities lead to a series of outputs, outcomes, and ultimately to a set of societal impacts (see Table 2.1).Given the above mentioned framework they state that:"Our normative argument is that it is not feasible, or even desirable, for all organizations to develop metrics at all levels on the logic chain. The more important challenge is one of alignment: building systems and structures for measurement that support the achievement of organizational mission, especially the goals that an organization can reasonably control or influence. We contend that organizational efforts extending beyond this scope are a misallocation of scarce resources." (p. 4)They develop a contingency approach for measuring social performance based on the assumption that - because of the varied work, aims, and capacities of social sector organizations - some organizations should be measuring long-term impacts, while others should stick to measuring shorterterm results. This approach offers a logic for determining which kinds of measures are appropriate, as driven by the mission and goals of the organization.They are aware of the fact that in times of economic crisis the pressures to demonstrate impact are likely to increase across all the actors involved (private funders, nonprofit leaders, government), as public and private resources diminish and as competition for existing resources increases.There is no doubts that the growing emphasis on impact and accountability has increased the pressure on social sector organizations to pay attention to performance measurement. Therefore there are three main challenges in front of the nonprofit managers and leaders:"* What can my organization reasonably measure on the logic chain - inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, or impacts?* What does my organization need to measure for accountability to funders?* How can my organization use measurement to help it better achieve its mission?" (p.17)The authors affirm that two deeper analytical problems are implied by these questions: (a) the problem of causality, meaning how well understood is the relationship between cause and effect of an intervention; and they refer to an organization's causal logic as its theory of change. (b) the problem of control over results, meaning the ways in which managers exercise control over their interventions and results.In order to illustrate their argument Ebrahim and Rangan, choose the example of the role of the social sector in the field of poverty alleviation. They indicate three broad types of activities:"* Emergency relief - activities that address urgent survival needs, such as food and temporary shelter, as well as disaster, crisis and conflict mitigation.* Service delivery - activities that address basic needs, such as education, healthcare, longerterm shelter, community development, employment and income generation.* Policy and rights advocacy - activities that address structural issues related to rights, public policy and regulation, and societal norms." (p. 19)After a very deep and careful analysis of several examples of intervention in this field, they summarize their observations in the following propositions that relate performance measurement to the type of social sector activity:"1. Performance in emergency and relief work can be measured in terms of inputs, activities, and outputs;2. Performance in service delivery work can be measured in terms of activities and outputs;3. Performance in service delivery work, when of large scale and scope, can be measured in terms of outcomes and sometimes impacts;4. Performance in advocacy and rights-based work can be measured in terms of outputs and "influence," an intermediary outcome." (p. 22)Based on this empirical analysis they propose a contingency framework for assessing the different types of results that can be measured (see Figure 2.2).The vertical axis of the matrix refers to the causal logic underlying an activity. As mentioned before a theory of change shows the pathway through which a set of interventions is expected to lead to a certain goal. The key point here is the level of complexity is involved in the relationship between cause and effect, and the degree of awareness. There are at least two situations: focused and complex. In the first one the relationship between cause and effect is linear and clearly understood. The second one refers to cause-effect relationships that are weakly understood, and where there are multiple causal factors.The horizontal axis of the matrix - operational strategy - concerns what an organization actually does in implementing its mission. Also from this point of view there are two main possibilities: focused and complex. In the first case the nonprofit concentrates on a highly specific task or intervention; each organizational actor fills a specific and critical niche. In the second one, the organizations expand its boundaries to absorb other key functions or niches, that play a key role in achieving their mission. Following this line of reasoning Ebrahim and Rangan distinguish among four broad types of results: niche, integrated, institutional, and ecosystem (see Figure 2.2). Regarding the organizations in the niche quadrant, it is feasible to rely on simple measures of the organization's inputs, activities, and outputs. It would not be useful to try to measure long-term impacts, since that is not what niche efforts can reasonably control, nor necessarily what the organization aims to achieve. The organizations in the integrated results quadrant usually are able to measure their outputs and also outcomes.As far as the organizations in the institutional quadrant are concerned, it may be feasible to measure their outputs and their "influence" in shaping key policies (as intermediate outcomes), but not necessarily their impacts. The reason lays in the fact that impacts are more likely to be achieved by networks or coalitions of actors working in concert, than by single organizations acting alone.Finally, organizations in the ecosystem quadrant are focused on issues that are difficult to be clearly defined, and involve multiple interventions and roles. The fulfillment of their mission requires synergistic results that affect entire systems. Measuring these impacts requires long time frames. In this case impacts are more likely to be achieved through partnerships and collaborations, because usually it is not possible to attribute impacts exclusively to any one actor.The authors conclude with the following statement:"The discussions around impact measurement, both within the U.S. and internationally have been somewhat polarized - between those who demand clear and quantifiable measures of impact and those who contend that social sector work is so unique and context-specific that it cannot be readily measured. Our contingency framework attempts to move beyond such reductionism by differentiating among types of results." (p. 30)Assuming this multidimensional approach - and for the purpose of this article - we will adopt the following definition of Social Impact2:A lasting change (positive or negative) in the environment of the organization influenced - directly or indirectly, intended or unintended - by the organizational activities.The decision making process concerning the social impact assessment involve several organizational dimensions that can be summarized by the following questions: whether, why, what, who, when and how.The first point is concerning the degree of awareness that the different internal stakeholders of the organizations have about the necessity/opportunity to measure the social impact. Given the fact that a certain kind of evaluation of organization's social performance is always present, the organizations can differ on the level of consciousness that this process is active and on the way it is implemented: implicit or explicit, directly or indirectly (through the opinions of external stakeholders).The second issue regards the reasons, the motives, on the base of which the governing body of the organization take the decision to undertake a program of social impact assessment/evaluation. These could be leaded mainly by economic rationales (funders and donors concerns); or by political reasons (to increase the organization's reputation and legitimization, or image and visibility in the local community); or by social rationale (to evaluate the quality of the relationships, partnerships, networks, the organization is member of; and the level of trust by other organizations); or by ethical motives (linked to the ideological, religious, moral orientation of the organizations; level of consistency with the mission's values).The third aspect concerns the level and the object of analysis. The social impact assessment could concern, at least, three level of analysis: micro (a project), meso (the organization itself) and macro (a service or a program). The evaluation could be directed towards two main objects: processes or products. Finally it could concern two main type of results: tangible (outputs) or intangible (outcomes).The fourth dimension is taking into consideration the subject/actor of the assessment process. Indeed the social impact can be evaluate or internally (by some sub-unit of the organization) or externally (by a third party: a private or public body, for instance the social audit procedure).The fifth point is relating to the time of realization of the evaluation process, that can be: before the start of a project, program or service (prevision analysis), during its implementation (monitoring the ongoing activities), or after its conclusion (short-medium-long term effects).Finally, the sixth and last aspect, regards a more practical level of the decision making process namely the choice of the best evaluation tools to be adopted. "Best" in this case refers to the "adequacy" and "appropriateness" of the tool in relation to the object and the level of analysis, on one side, and the type of organization's activities, on the other side. The "accuracy" and "correctness" of the tool can be measured in terms of the quantity and quality of social performance indicators it requires in order to operate properly.In the following pages we will present briefly our social impact assessment model called SA VE, namely: social added value evaluation.3.- The Social Added Value Evaluation approachIn order to cope with the issues illustrated in the previous paragraph, a research group at the Department of Sociology - Bologna University began a Research Project3 aimed to develop a theoretical framework based on which to elaborate a methodological tool for the assessment of the social impact that nonprofit organizations and social enterprises produce in the community (environment) in which they operate.At this stage of our scientific program we propose to differentiate the specific contribution (outcome and impact) of the third sector organizations (non-profit organizations and social enterprises) at each of the dimensions of social life: micro, meso and macro.At the micro level the distinctive function of NPO/SE is to produce: a sense of responsibility, both among their members and towards the public (for people/ citizens); at the meso level it is their ability to produce a certain number of relational goods4 (or collective goods, or meritorious goods) for organisations and the local territorial systems; finally at the macro level it is their capacity to generate a solid amount of social capital5 for the complex social systems or the vast community.Following this theoretical approach it is clear that the distinctiveness of NPO / SE type of organizations is to be evaluated not so much looking at what they produced but rather mainly looking at how they produce, and above all with and for whom they produce.We assume that the degree of "sense of responsibility", the amount of "relational goods" and the level of "social capital" that a NPO/SE creates/produces/generates all together represent what we call the social added value that this organization produce for the whole society, at a given time.We can define the social value as follows:* The increase in the quantity and quality of meaningful relationships (social relations) due to the organization activities;* The decrease of consumption of meaningful relationships (social relations) linked to the organization's way of operate.In this research path we elaborated the so called S.A.V.E. (Social Added Value Evaluation) system of assessment based on four internal organisational dimensions:* Resources (both human and economic-financial) management (A);* Political-strategic planning (Governance - G);* Activities and processes (I); and* Culture and values (L).The first dimension regards the way in which NPO/SE manage the process of creating resources (revenues) and the relationships which they establish with donors and financial backers, on one side, and the way in which they are able to attract specific typology of human resources (such as volunteers). The central questions are: do the NPO/SE operate in a transparent and correct way from the point of view of economic resource management? Does their capacity to recruit volunteers and highly motivated persons change (increase, decrease or remain stable) during a certain period of time (i.e. three years)?The second dimension analyses the internal chain of the decision-making process andevaluates the degree to which the members of the organisation participate in it. The fundamental question is, to what extent does the system of governance promote the participation of members and different kind of internal stakeholders, such as: workers, volunteers, etc.?The third dimension constitutes the heart of the SA VE system and takes into consideration the internal process of providing the goods or services produced. It illuminates the way in which the various NPO/SE (external) stakeholders (users, clients, consumers, families, other actors in the community, etc.) are involved in the organisation's activities.The fourth dimension concerns the process of commitment to values or to the creation of values. It shows the impact that the NPO/SE' activities have on the local community or society in general. It aims to measure the level of social capital and of social cohesion created by the organisation (their capacity to create trust, networking, partnerships, etc.).For each dimension were identified key core concepts around which to build a set of indicators for measuring the V AS. Given below are some examples.With regard to the first dimension (economic, financial, human resource acquisition) the semantic nuclei are as follows:a) ability (and development over time) of the NPO/SE to "activate volunteer human resources" in the local community where the NPO/SE operate;b) ability (and development over time) of the NPO/SE to "enable economic resources as donations" in the local (or ideal) community where the NPO/SE operate;c) ability (and development over time) of the NPO/SE to "communicate in a transparent manner" its work to its stakeholders (method of social reporting, and procedures for the dissemination/sharing of this Report: social accountability).With regard to the second dimension (political - strategic, decision-making) the semantic nuclei are as follows:d) ability of the NPO/SE to "promote, encourage, foster democratic participation" of all internal stakeholders in decision-making process;e) the ability of the NPO/SE to "favour, encourage and promote the replacement/turn over" of its leadership (how to manage the succession process of organizational leadership);With regard to the third dimension (managerial and operational, for carrying out the production process, and service delivery), which concerns the production of relational goods, the semantic nuclei are as follows:f) ability of the NPO/SE to "promote, encourage, foster the involvement" of the internal stakeholders (members, paid workers, volunteers, etc.) at different stages of the process of service delivery (design, implementation, evaluation);g) ability of the NPO/SE to "promote, encourage, foster the involvement of" external stakeholders (users, beneficiaries, families, communities, customers / suppliers , etc.) at different stages of the process of service delivery (design, execution, evaluation); With regard to the fourth dimension (production, deployment and activation of meaning, culture and values), which is the ability to generate social capital (trust), the semantic nuclei are as follows:。
企业价值评估参考文献
企业价值评估参考文献以下是一些关于企业价值评估的参考文献：1. Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2008). Principles of Corporate Finance. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.2. Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset. John Wiley & Sons.3. McKinsey & Company. (2017). Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. John Wiley & Sons.4. Parrino, R., Kidwell, D. S., & Bates, T. W. (2011). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance. John Wiley & Sons.5. Pratt, S. P., & Grabowksi, R. (2019). Cost of Capital: Estimation and Applications. John Wiley & Sons.6. Penman, S. H. (2013). Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation. McGraw-Hill Education.7. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2009). Theory and Measurement of Economic ValueAdded. Routledge.这些参考文献提供了企业价值评估的基本原理、方法和工具。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Literature Review for the Theory of Business Value measurementABSTRACTBusiness value measurement depends on expectations for the future earnings, there are many ways to assess earnings, and the mainly methods are DCF method, Residual Income valuation theory, Economic Value Added valuation method and Real Options Valuation method. This article bases on the development of domestic and foreign business value theory, and gives a brief summary of the latest research, then compares the different valuation theory at home and abroad.Finally, combining with practical features of Chinese enterprise value assessment concluded that assessments of the latest theories in Chinese enterprises.KEY WORDS : Business Value, Measurement Theory, Literature Review1、IntroductionBusiness value measurement theory rose in the United States in the early 1960th of the 20th century. With the 50 years’ development and application , Western developed countries have been greatly applied in practice. At present, the theory and method of enterprise value evaluation in Western developed countries have been more and more mature，and it has been used to assess in practice. In China, the application of business value measurement theory is later than western countries which is now relatively slowly. Therefore, arranging the present research results and analysis the theory structure have been an important aspects so as to form a tight,coherent theory system. On the guidance of the business valuation practice it can establish new methods of business valuation in China, and it is essential to promote the development of theoretical study.2、Studies AbroadBusiness value measurement have a history of hundreds of years as an industry in Western countries. During those hundreds of years, many scholars in Western countries on business valuation have done a large number of theoretical studies.Shiller (1981) used the discounted cash flow model to describe stock prices fluctuating boundaries, and the research shows that real stock prices change significantly beyond this range. Because these uncertain information is estimated with hypothesis and data processing technology. Its disadvantage is that it required too many intuition for decision makers, but also achieving many possible distribution hypothesis [1]In 1995, Ohlson use the conception of clean surplusin residual income valuation model based on the use of clean-surplus (clean surplus) constructing and perfecting the concept of residual income valuation model [2]. Felthan and Ohlson (1995) further developed this theory, that extraordinary income sources are twofold: first, monopoly rents, second, accounting for sound doctrine. Their most prominent contribution is presented for the evaluation of linear information models (1inear information model) [3]. Evaluation of applying the residual income model, relates to the extraordinary income is not included in the current period in the time series estimates of future earnings, more difficult.1995年，Ohlson在剩余收益定价模型的基础上利用干净盈余(clean surplus)的概念构建并完善了剩余收益估值模型[2]。
Felthan和Ohlson(1995)进一步发展了这一理论，认为非常收益的来源有两个方面：其一，垄断租金；其二，会计的稳健主义。
他们最突出的贡献在于提出了用以价值评估的线性信息模型(1inear information model)[3]。
运用剩余收益模型进行价值评估，涉及到对没有包含在当期非常收益中的未来非常收益的时间序列估计，难度较大。
Jackson(1997)认为，计算EVA能够使现金流量折现模型计算，更能反映企业真实经营状况并且容易评价企业历年的经营业绩[4]。
JohnA．Compbell(2002)应用实物期权分析方法讨论了IS(information System)的投资时机决策问题[5]。
2000年,Copeland等几位专家合著《价值评估:公司价值的衡量与管理(第三版)》中,把价值评估方法分为现金流量法与非现金流量法两大类别。
由于Copeland推崇现金,因而他将现金作为价值评估方法的分类标准。
他主要论述了现金流量法,对于非现金流量法仅点到为止[6]。
2003年,David Fryman和Jakob Tolleryd在合著的《公司价值评估》专著中,将价值评估方法分为四大类:①基于现金流量的估值——股利折现模型、折现现金流量模型与投资的现金流收益;②基于收益的估值——经济增加值(EVA);③基于资产的估值——净资产估值;④期权估值——实物期权法[7]3、Domestic Research我国企业价值评估理论及技术的运用比较晚，而且发展较为缓慢。
在我国的价值评估研究体系中，主要以DCF及其衍生模型为主。
早期提出的现金流与股利贴现模型随着我国市场经济的发展，已很难适应现代快速发展中的企业的价值评估。
为解决未来不确定性因素对现代企业的影响，我国学术界引进了以期权理念为基础的价值评估理论。
更加完善了我国企业价值评估的理论体系。
李姚矿、童昱(2006)回顾了期权定价理论在企业不确定性资产评估中的研究成果，根据科技型中小企业的特点对期权定价模型进行了修正，并以合肥市高新区内的一家科技型中小企业为案例，说明了具体的评估计算过程[8]。
肖留华 (2007)提出的企业价值评估体系是：P=NV+AV+sV，其中NV即净资产价值是目标企业的实际账面价值，在总额上等于所有者权益；△V即资产溢价是指由无形资产带来的企业潜在的价值，△V=NV*d，d是溢价系数，由企业成长性、管理能力、创新能力三个方面来衡量；SV是协同溢价[9]。
白登顺与贺强(2009)对比了EVA估价法与自由现金流量折现法，发现EVA 估价法优于自由现金流量折现法。
与FCFF估价法相比EVA估价法具有双重优势：一方面EVA与企业价值相关联，便于了解企业每年的经营情况，对价值实效计算考核；另一方面EVA克服了自由现金流量波动较大的缺点，不受前后年度资本随意投资额的影响[10]。
黄朔，赵银川(2010)指出由剩余收益模型计算出的企业价值并不能完全代表股票的实际价格。
其原因主要表现在以下四个方面：首先，股票的实际价格往往与其内在的价值不一致，股票的内在价值由上市公司的财务数据分析而来，具有一定的稳定性；而影响股票实际价格的市场因素有很多，二者很难完全一致。
其次，“清洁盈余关系”是EBO模型的—个重要前提假设。