No abstract

Environmental management systems (EMS) seek to make companies simultaneously more competitive and environmentally responsible. Improved environmental performance can be sought from the adaptation of techniques that emphasize reduction of waste and process/product redesign in the quest of reducing environmental impact. However, EMS lacks a framework to quantify improvements and much of the evidence of EMS's impact on financial performance is anecdotal. This lack of theoretical development has served to diminish corporate support, thus reducing the likelihood of EMS implementation due to a perceived cost disadvantage. This paper proposes, and tests, a framework to quantify EMS improvements to determine the impact of EMS strategies on financial performance. Our findings suggest that implementation of an EMS strategy does not negatively impact a firm's financial performance.

Sustainability appears to be at the forefront of business topics for the 21 st century. Over the past twenty to thirty years, businesses have changed their attitude towards sustainability from rejection to elevating it to a key strategic organization goal, based on the realization that sustainability is not only good for the planet, but financially rewarding. This development results in the need for frameworks describing how organizations can successfully manage the change towards sustainability. This paper provides a thorough literature review of the current stage of the development of such frameworks, as well as a comparison with assessments of where 21 st century corporations stand with regards to sustainability. The authors find that while valuable frameworks exist, there is a lack of understanding of whether and how these frameworks work for Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs). Building upon the existing models, this paper proposes a pathway for empirical research leading to the alignment and adjustment of these models to the needs of SMEs.

Purpose -The paper aims to provide an analysis of the principle-agent relationship between owner (principal) and manager (agent) of investment properties by: developing an optimization model for the net profit scenario that any third party manager of properties in multiple locations faces; and describing the principal's (or owner's) problem and likewise developing an income optimization model. The model allows illustrating the misalignment of incentives and compensation arrangements common to the business of managing small investment properties. Design/methodology/approach -The paper provides an in depth review of literature on the agency problem, both in general as well as in real estate research and compares the qualitative findings with analytical results provided by the model. The latter is developed by applying a transaction cost framework to the context of income structures in investment properties and their management. Findings -The optimization model shows that profit maximization for the manger (agent) depends on an optimum number of properties to be managed. It is further shown that the compensation methods customary in small real estate management contracts are inappropriate for the manager to control and cover the transaction costs, which result from the fact that more than one location is managed. The result is a kind of impossibility theorem, stating that management of small investment properties based on customary compensation structures is unprofitable as the number of properties and their distance rises. Practical implications -The analysis shows that industry practice for the compensation of management of small investment properties does not address the inherent principle-agent problem. Consequently, additional compensation and incentive mechanisms as well as control structures need to be employed by the owner. The paper, therefore, provides a starting point to review and improve industry practice. Originality/value -The paper expands the existing literature of the agency problem in real estate by providing an optimization model for management of investment properties. The model and findings are of interest to academics for its analytical treatment of agency relationships; as well as to practitioners, as the analysis reveals inefficiencies in industry practice.

The United Nations (UN) 2030 agenda for sustainable development issues an urgent call to transition to sustainable business models and life styles. Outlining seventeen concrete sustainable development goals (SDGs), organizations and individuals are encouraged to actively participate (United Nations, 2015). However, as of the 2019 report on the SDGs, progress is slow. Organizations that aspire to be economically viable as well as socially and environmentally responsible global citizens, need to understand what sustainability means and how to institutionalize its principles. This paper posits that some of the underlying reasons for slow progress are lack of full understanding of the required knowledge and its systemic nature, as well as potentially insufficient knowledge management processes. It proposes that sustainability knowledge learning should include three “DCA” steps: 1) What to know: identify which knowledge is needed (DEFINE); 2) How to learn : develop strategies to identify sources and learning strategies for the requisite sustainability knowledge (COLLECT); 3) How to use sustainability knowledge: develop knowledge management practices that enable absorption and institutionalization (ACT). Comparing the DCA model to other sustainability knowledge management models reveals that internal processes are emphasized (ACT). Fewer models consider the second step, COLLECT. The necessity to identify knowledge needs, DEFINE is almost entirely absent. Given the complex nature of sustainability knowledge, it appears that currently, knowledge management practices may be inadequately designed to support organizations in their transformational change towards sustainability and in the development of required stakeholder partnerships. Said systemic nature is also ill reflected in knowledge management research for sustainability. Further limiting is a lack of a clear definition of sustainability knowledge. This paper is a call for research to establish a clear view of what sustainability knowledge is, and based on that, a more detailed development of effective knowledge management strategies.