Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

RELATION OF USING TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO FIRM CHARACTERISTICS: AN APPLICATION TO BORSA ISTANBUL

Year 2020, Volume: 11 Issue: 22, 711 - 742, 29.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2020.031

Abstract

Performance measures, which are the most important tools of the performance measurement process, have been changing and improving for years. In this study, traditional and alternative performance measures used by businesses are theoretically discussed. Then, a literature review on the subject is included. Finally, the relationship between traditional and alternative performance measures, which have various business characteristics, has been examined with the least squares method, which is one of the econometric analysis methods. As a result of applying this analysis to eighteen models; there was a significant relationship between the level of use of traditional performance measures and board size, profitability, business size and location; there was no significant relationship between the free float rate, the number of independent board members and the age of the business. On the other hand, a significant relationship was found between the level of use of alternative performance measures and the business size; there was no significant relationship between the free float rate, the number of independent board members, location, and the age of the business.

References

  • Balivo, J. A. (2005). Mathematica Laboratories for Mathematical Statistics. Philadelphia: ASA-SIAM.
  • Deloitte. (2019). Quarterly Financial Reporting Brief. Dublin.
  • Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Çinko, M. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
  • European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). (2015). ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures. ESMA/2015/1415en.
  • Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The Changing Basis of Performance Measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(8), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610125787
  • Karagöz, M. (2015). İstatistik Yöntemleri. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
  • Kenton, W. (2018). Underlying Profit. Investopedia.
  • Kothari, P. (2015). Data Analysis with Stata. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.
  • Kuwaiti, M. E. (2004). Performance Measurement Process: Definition and Ownership. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410510997
  • Miller, M. C., & Loftus, J. A. (2000). Measurement Entering the 21st Century: A Clear or Blocked Road Ahead? Australian Accounting Review, 11(2), 4–18.
  • PwC. (2011). Investor View: Insights from the Investment Community (Issue 4-Non GAAP Measures).
  • Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560
  • Standard Setting Department (HKI of CPA). (2017). Non-IFRS Performance Measures: The Good, Bad and Ugly. Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Technical Articles), ss. 1–2.
  • Tangen, S. (2004). Performance Measurement: From Philosophy to Practice. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(8), 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410569134
  • Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business Results. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1302-1

GELENEKSEL VE ALTERNATİF PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜTLERİ KULLANIMI İLE İŞLETME ÖZELLİKLERİ İLİŞKİSİ: BORSA İSTANBUL’DA BİR UYGULAMA

Year 2020, Volume: 11 Issue: 22, 711 - 742, 29.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2020.031

Abstract

Performans ölçüm sürecinin en önemli aracı olan performans ölçütleri, yıllar içerisinde değişim ve gelişim göstermişlerdir. Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak işletmelerin kullandıkları geleneksel ve alternatif performans ölçütleri teorik olarak ele alınmıştır. Daha sonra ise konu ile ilgili literatür taramasına yer verilmiştir. Son olarak da Borsa İstanbul’da yer alan araştırma kapsamındaki işletmelerde geleneksel ve alternatif performans ölçütlerinin muhtelif işletme özellikleri olan ilişkisi ekonometrik analiz yöntemlerinden en küçük kareler yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Bu analizin oluşturulan on sekiz modele uygulanması sonucunda; geleneksel performans ölçütlerinin kullanım düzeyi ile yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü, kârlılık, işletme büyüklüğü ve konum arasında anlamlı; halka açıklık oranı, bağımsız yönetim kurulu üye sayısı ve işletme yaşı ile arasında da anlamlı olmayan bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Diğer taraftan alternatif performans ölçütlerinin kullanım düzeyi ile işletme büyüklüğü arasında anlamlı; halka açıklık oranı, bağımsız yönetim kurulu üye sayısı, konum ve işletme yaşı ile arasında da anlamlı olmayan bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

References

  • Balivo, J. A. (2005). Mathematica Laboratories for Mathematical Statistics. Philadelphia: ASA-SIAM.
  • Deloitte. (2019). Quarterly Financial Reporting Brief. Dublin.
  • Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Çinko, M. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
  • European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). (2015). ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures. ESMA/2015/1415en.
  • Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The Changing Basis of Performance Measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(8), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610125787
  • Karagöz, M. (2015). İstatistik Yöntemleri. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
  • Kenton, W. (2018). Underlying Profit. Investopedia.
  • Kothari, P. (2015). Data Analysis with Stata. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.
  • Kuwaiti, M. E. (2004). Performance Measurement Process: Definition and Ownership. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410510997
  • Miller, M. C., & Loftus, J. A. (2000). Measurement Entering the 21st Century: A Clear or Blocked Road Ahead? Australian Accounting Review, 11(2), 4–18.
  • PwC. (2011). Investor View: Insights from the Investment Community (Issue 4-Non GAAP Measures).
  • Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560
  • Standard Setting Department (HKI of CPA). (2017). Non-IFRS Performance Measures: The Good, Bad and Ugly. Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Technical Articles), ss. 1–2.
  • Tangen, S. (2004). Performance Measurement: From Philosophy to Practice. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(8), 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410569134
  • Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business Results. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1302-1
There are 15 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hakan Cavlak 0000-0002-5891-7722

Publication Date December 29, 2020
Acceptance Date November 15, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 11 Issue: 22

Cite

APA Cavlak, H. (2020). GELENEKSEL VE ALTERNATİF PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜTLERİ KULLANIMI İLE İŞLETME ÖZELLİKLERİ İLİŞKİSİ: BORSA İSTANBUL’DA BİR UYGULAMA. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 711-742. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2020.031

KAUJEASF is the corporate journal of Kafkas University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal Publishing.

KAUJEASF has been included in Web of Science since 2022 and started to be indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI ), a Clarivate product.

2025 June issue article acceptance and evaluations are ongoing.