Financial Key Performance Indicators and the strategy of six DAX companies. An analysis

The evaluation of annual reports and application of a balanced scorecard


Bachelor Thesis, 2019

146 Pages, Grade: 1,7

Anonymous


Excerpt

Contents

IndexofFiguresandTables

ListofAppendices

1 INTRODUCTION

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2.1.1 Keyfigures
2.1.2 Differentiation of key performance indicators
2.2 Strategy
2.2.1 Delineation
2.2.2 Strategyclassification
2.3 Strategic controlling tools
2.3.1 Definition
2.3.2 BalancedScorecard
2.4 DAX COMPANIES
2.4.1 DeutscherAktienindex
2.4.2 Annual reports
2.4.3 Presentation ofsixDAXcompanies

3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sampleselection
3.2 Annual reports
3.2.1 Strategyclassification
3.2.2 Selection of key performance indicators
3.2.3 Development of key performance indicators 2009 - 2018
3.2.4 Interrelation between key performance indicators and strategies
3.3 Adjusted Balanced Scorecard

RESULTS

CRITICAL APPRAISAL

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Index of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Balanced Scorecard perspectives

Figure 2: Exemplary strategy map

Table 1: Exemplary table of the financial perspective

Table 2: Exemplary table of the financial perspective Daimler

Figure 3: Simplified financial Strategy Map Daimler

Table 3: Exemplary table of the financial perspective BASF

Figure 4: Simplified financial Strategy Map BASF

Table 4: Example of a segment KPI Bayer

Table 5: Exemplary table of the financial perspective Bayer

Figure 5: Simplified financial Strategy Map Bayer

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Exemplary formulae of relevant key performance indicators

Appendix 2: Examples for BSC key figures of the four different perspectives

Appendix 3: Revenue of DAX companies in 2017 (in milion €)

Appendix 4: Strategy classifications - Coding guides

Appendix 5: Annual report 2009 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 6: Annual report 2010 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 7: Annual report 2011 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 8:Annual report 2012 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 9: Annual report 2013 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 10: Annual report 2014 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 11: Annual report 2015 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 12: Annual report 2016 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 13: Annual report 2017 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 14: Annual report 2018 BASF Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 15: BASF KPIs

Appendix 16: Economic targets BASF

Appendix 17: Calculation of KPIs and Definitions BASF

Appendix 18: Annual report 2009 Bayer Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 19: Annual report 2012 Bayer Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 20: Annual report 2015 Bayer Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 21: Annual report 2018 Bayer Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 22: Bayer KPIs

Appendix 23: TargetsBayer

Appendix 24: Bayer: Calculation of KPIs and Definitions

Appendix 25: Annual report 2009 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 26: Annual report 2010 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 27: Annual report 2011 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 28: Annual report 2012 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 29: Annual report 2013 Daimler Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 30: Annual report 2014 Daimler Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 31: Annual report 2015 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 32: Annual report 2016 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 33: Annual report 2017 Daimler group - Strategy classification

Appendix 34: Annual report 2018 Daimler Group - Strategy classification

Appendix 35: Daimler KPIs

Appendix 36: Daimler: Calculation of KPIs and Definitions

List of Abbreviations

BSC - Balanced Scorecard

DAX - Deutscher Aktienindex

CVA - Cash Value Added

EAT - Earnings After Taxes

EBT - Earnings Before Taxes

EBIT - Earnings Before Interest and Taxes

EBITDA - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization

EPS - Earnings Per Share

EVA - Economic Value Added

KPI - Key performance indicator

MCEV - Market Consistent Embedded Value

NOPAT - Net Operating Profit After Taxes

PLC - Public limited company

ROE - Return on Equity

ROCE - Return on Capital Employed

ROI - Return on Investment

RONA - Return on Net Assets

ROOA - Return on Operating Assets

ROS - Return on Sales

SE - Societas Europaea

VW - Volkswagen

1 Introduction

Key figures make a significant contribution to the management of organisations as they create transparency through providing information about the corporate perfor­mance and the progress towards its stated goals - its strategy. Indicators and strategies seem inevitably linked, so that they lose their meaning or significance with­out each other.1

Due to a study on key performance indicators (=KPIs) of PwC in the year 2017 in Luxembourg with over 40 executives surveyed, only 45 % of respondents were of the opinion that their key performance indicators monitor the performance of long­term strategic goals and 31 % are not clearly aware of the link between their KPIs and their long-term strategy.2 Those are alarming numbers as “[KPIs] are more in the spotlight than ever before due to the real need for guidance in the current market uncertainty and volatility, coupled with the abundance and diminishing cost of data.”3

Often companies use too many, outdated or even too few KPIs and the progress of the company’s KPIs towards its strategic objectives is not regularly updated and communicated to the staff and workforce. A lack of information makes the general company performance be the main reason forthe executives for monitoring KPIs.4

The need for change is known as 52 % of the executives surveyed see a need for improvement of their currently followed set of KPIs. One of the challenges which affected the companies surveyed within their KPI process - including a lack of stand­ardised processes across the industry - is the unclear business strategy and the KPIs’ irrelevancy towards the existing business/strategy itself.5

This arises the question how target-oriented do German companies align their KPIs and how much do they depend on the corporate strategy? Is there a correlation between the strategic alignment and the selection of KPIs? Could their partially im­precise definition the reason why the strategy reference does not become clear and should the KPIs be adapted or even changed in the long term? Which strategy leads to which KPIs and which value drivers influence them?

To narrow down the topic of this thesis, the objective was to put the focus on financial KPIs of six DAX companies to show the time course of strategies and KPIs. The main research question is if a correlation between strategies and financial KPIs is preva­lent and how their mutual interdependence developed over time- if a change of KPIs is happening, is there also a change of the strategy and if the strategy is changing is it essentially changing the KPIs?

Therefore, this work selectively focuses on the evaluation of annual reports from 2009 to 2018 and the development and application of an adjusted Balanced Score­card (=BSC) through the further investigation of its financial perspective.

The bachelor thesis is divided into three parts. Firstly, the theoretical background defines key terms and describes the differentiation from KPIs to key figures. The term strategy is defined and classified more in detail. Also, the controlling tool BSC is put in the focus and the terms Deutscher Aktienindex (=DAX) and Annual Reports are defined and the subsequent sample selection of DAX companies is presented. The theoretical foundations form the basis for the classification of the corporate strate­gies, the KPI selection and their analysis as well as for the further investigation of the BSC. In the methodological part the sample selection is substantiated and the method of evaluation of the annual reports is explained. Through the development of an adjusted BSC, the cause-effect chain is analysed. In the third part of the thesis the results are presented. The critical appraisal gives the interpretation of the results and links them to the initial questions by answering the main research question. It also assesses the thesis through demonstrating its limitations, criticising the theoret­ical foundations and the methodology and lastly points out implications for future research are shown. At the end a conclusion is drawn in which the theory and results are briefly summarised.

2 Theoretical background

The theoretical background provides the basis for a fundamental understanding of the relevant theory of this thesis and is divided into four subchapters. This chapter includes the presentation of the most relevant terms KPIs, strategy, controlling tools and DAX companies. Amongst the definition of the term key figure, a distinction to KPIs is implemented in order to create the necessary understanding for this term. Subsequently the term strategy is explained and the classification of strategies shows the different possible strategies by means of which the DAX companies are classified later through the annual reports. Furthermore, the author limits the exten­sive explanation of controlling tools to the presentation of the BSC. A description of all possible existing controlling tools and their evaluation would go beyond the scope of this thesis and therefore some are only mentioned marginally. Finally, the defini­tion of the Deutscher Aktienindex and the annual reports conclude with the presentation of the six DAX companies VW, Daimler, Allianz, Munich RE, BASF and Bayer in order to make the general business orientation of the companies compre­hensible.

2.1 Key performance indicators

The definition of key figures and its differentiation to KPIs creates the basis for the further KPI selection out of the annual reports.

2.1.1 Key figures

Key figures are measurands in the form of quantitative parameters that provide con­centrated and essential information about facts and circumstances.6 This implies the properties that key figures should give information about interrelations, their meas­urement is on a metric scale level and their specific form should enable a simple and transparent representation of complex processes and structures.7 Since a key figure is always made up of several components, it shows several developments and re­flects the status of an issue in only one value.8

In this thesis the focus is put on economic, financial company key figures as these dominate in practice.9 Enterprises put different key figures in the focus of the busi­ness activity and their definitions or calculations may vary.10 An important prerequisite for a key figure is that its components have a logical relationship to each other and a logical link must exist (e.g. the addition of all sales as revenue). In addi­tion, it must be possible to identify changes in the key figure by breaking them down into components and the calculation must be carried out on a regular basis.11 Key figures are the basis for the management and the expedient control of a company and can be calculated on an operational as well as a divisional basis.12 They serve to stimulate to take initiatives to solve problems and to make goals measurable.13 As they also measure the entrepreneurial success, they can be used to analyse and compare companies.14

Depending on the amount of information required for a key figure, a simpler or more complex determination takes place.15 A distinction is made between absolute key figures as single key figures, sums and differences (e.g. profit in euros, balance sheet total or number of employees) and relative key figures that show the ratio of figures and thus have a higher informative value.16 Relative key figures are either relation numbers (diverse parameters as return on equity (=ROE) = profit/equity), that estab­lish cause-effect relationships between different parameters, classification numbers (partial parameter divided by total parameter as e.g. equity ratio=equity/total capital) or index numbers (ratio of two absolute, identical key figures at different times e.g. 2009 revenue to 2010 revenue and their percentage change).17

In literature different categories of key figures for organizations can be distin­guished:18 Success/result, profitability, cash flow, financing and liquidity, and value­based ratios are one possible way of categorizing. As the KPIs are also divided in the following chapter, the presentation is limited to the short explanation of the key figure categories which mostly overlap with the categories of KPIs.

Result figures are intended to determine proper or regularly achievable success.19 Profitability ratios relate a result or success figure to an influencing or reference pa­rameter and are expressed as a percentage. This information enables a comparison of the success with other companies.20 They measure the absolute profit in a return on the invested capital.21 The cash flow shows the inflow of funds from the current financial year and indicates the result of the previous economic activity so that cash flow figures (different variations) show the liquidity situation of a company.22 Financ­ing figures provide information about the financial position of a company and help to analyse the capital structure, which shows the solidity of the financing and thus the financial risks through e.g. indebtedness.23 Liquidity figures in turn serve to assess the solvency of a company.24 Value-added or “value-oriented” figures assess the value contribution of a company, which is represented by its orientation towards the corporate value.25 “Value-orientation” means the continuous, sustainable and thus future-oriented increase of the corporate value.26

Overall, the meaningfulness of individual key figures is limited ifthe reference to the key figure does not exist or is incorrect. Thus, individual key figures can often be misinterpreted if they are only viewed in isolation and are not related to other key figures.27

2.1.2 Differentiation of key performance indicators

KPIs are on the one hand key figures that most influence the current and future situ­ation of an organization and are therefore responsible for its success and performance.28 They often show the performance of an organization in their critical success factors (as e.g. benefits, costs, time and safety) and represent the perfor­mance of processes in a tangible way.29 That’s why they are also defined as performance measures for the measurement of operational performance by the ex­tent to which defined goals have been achieved and thus are often related to an exact process. Ideally, they improve traditional performance measurement or indica­tor systems by focusing more on key drivers, i.e. the selection of suitable indicators for the steering and the target achievement of a company should come to the fore. One of the requirements of KPIs is that their definition has to be unambiguous and clear to be understandable for all employees.30 Moreover the degree of target achievement should be measurable in numbers and the data should be persistently determined in the same way. Furthermore, the contemporary and thus reliable avail­ability of the KPIs makes their use for control purposes meaningful in the first place by which this should be another important property of KPIs. Lastly, the number of KPIs should be kept low and their selection should balance between leading and lagging indicators or performance driver and outcome measures which are either driving factors of future performance or downstream key figures that show the mon­etary effects of the performance.31 In order to ensure a contribution to the achievement of the corporate strategy and to a balanced management, the indicators must be must be constantly checked for relevance and individually adapted to the strategy and the respective industry.32

On the other hand, one approach differentiates more precisely between the perfor­mance measures key result indicators, result indicators, performance indicators and KPIs. In this approach KPIs are the measures making the greatest difference, signif­icantly impacting the organization and being reported to the chief executive officer and senior management team. They are tied to a team and should also be under­stood by all employees what implies the knowledge of concrete, corrective actions required to be taken to maintain or improve the performance. They should be meas­ured frequently (e.g. 24/7, daily or weekly) and are non-financial measures. The report of about 10 KPIs is recommended.33

Furthermore, KPIs are control parameters or variables that should support the imple­mentation of strategic objectives, focus on the main developments and serve as decision tool for the recipients of the key figures.34 So, they effectively measure the development, performance or position of the business of a company but also assess progress against objectives or strategy or monitor principal risks.35 To a degree they depend on the industry of the company, but especially have to be relevant to the particular company so that the number of measures that are key is also unique and dependent on each company and its strategy.36 Especially in the context of the BSC, they are called central strategy-relevant control variables.37 Lastly, in literature KPIs are partly also equated with economic key figures38 what clearly shows that the in­terpretations diverge.

An analysis of management reports of 2015 of 145 companies of the most important German stock exchange indices DAX, MDAX, SDAX and TecDAX examined used control parameters and classified KPIs in 10 different categories.39 Some example KPIs for each category are listed:40

- The first category of result or earnings KPIs includes among others especially Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (=EBIT), Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (= EBITDA), Earnings Before Taxes (=EBT) or Earnings After Taxes (=EAT).
- Profitability KPIs, in turn, relate result KPIs to another parameter so that indi­cators as Return on Capital Employed (=ROCE), EBIT margin, EBITDA margin, return on total assets or the already mentioned ROE as well as Return on Net Assets (=RONA) or Return on Operating Assets (=R00A) belong to this category.
- Thirdly, the growth (driver) category comprises rather company-specific se­lected parameters but also (growth in) sales/revenue, investments, research and development expenses or even lead indicators as e.g. incoming orders or volume of orders.
- Liquidity KPIs involve absolute liquidity parameters as minimum liquidity avail­able at all times or net liquidity but also liquidity management parameters as the (net) working capital.
- As fifth category, credit standing includes net debt to EBITDA ratio, equity ratio, net debt, gearing ratio, dynamic gearing ratio or rating.
- Furthermore, the category of cashflow KPIs focusses on the free or the oper­ative cash flow.
- Value-added KPIs as Value Added - often company-specific defined - and Cash Value Added (=CVA) or Economic Value Added (=EVA) show the increase of value of a company and play an important role to shareholders and other interest groups.
- Direct shareholder KPIs are earnings per share (=EPS) or the payout ratio.
- Other stakeholder KPIs include rather customer or employee related but also sustainability indicators. This implies rather non-financial indicators as e.g. employee satisfaction, motivation, security, engagement and number, cus­tomer satisfaction, product quality or CO2 emissions.
- Lastly, the category of industry KPIs refers in particular to real estate, tele­communications and media companies, comprising e.g. funds from operations, profit from ordinary activities, loan-to-value ratio, net asset value, vacancy rates, rent per sqm or rent increases orfixed and broadband lines.

The most relevant KPIs and their exemplary calculation methods can be seen in appendix 1 (without basis indicators as e.g. revenue or research and development expenses).

Since the analysed annual reports do not always contain key figures for exact pro­cesses or teams, for short time intervals (weekly, monthly, quarterly) or hardly non­financial ratios, none of the previous definitions can be applied one hundred percent. Therefore, a mixture of performance measures, performance indicators, key indica­tors and important key figures is used in the application (see 3.2.2). These should be used to control and achieve a company's objectives and strategy, partly measure output and tend to be more downstream indicators. The selection should be kept small, constantly checked for relevance, be adaptable and make early indicators comprehensible.

Since especially financial key figures in particular make it possible to evaluate a com­pany as a whole41, the term financial KPI excludes non-financial KPIs as e.g. customers satisfaction and includes all indicators that describe the assets, financial position and income of a company.

2.1.3 Key figure comparison

Comparisons of key figures provide important information on developments and changes.42 Internal time comparisons of company key figures can, for example, com­pare them between different points in time or time periods (e.g. comparisons with previous years).43 Especially target-actual comparisons are necessary to see the dif­ference in performance and act primarily as a provision of internal information. Examples are monthly reports as form of standardized reports at fixed times to the same recipients or deviation reports if certain threshold values are exceeded or fallen below. Both reports compare actual values (absolute key figures) with target values and ascertain the deviation difference. Deviations can be represented as deviations from the target values or from the previous year's values. Graphic representations through e.g. traffic light colours can show the achievement of the planned or target values and the deviations. With the exception of the derivable computational factors, the causes have to be analysed through the support of the departments and divisions in order to derive further initiatives that can make the planned values possible again in future.44 Furthermore, Benchmarking of especially company key figures of com­petitors identifies market-oriented targets, i.e. achievable performance standards that can be used for changes in the own company.45

2.2 Strategy

In the following section the concept of a strategy should be narrowed down through a delineation of contents of the term strategy and the classification of different types of strategies shows different strategic alignments. As the types of strategies are ex­tensive the presentation is limited to a few overall valid examples. The classified strategies refer to procedures on the market and do not include internal company strategies. The development, positioning and planning of strategies is just shortly summarized as it only plays a secondary role for the further work with already existing strategies in the practical part of this thesis. An example of a possible instrument of strategic implementation is given with the BSC in chapter 2.3.2.

2.2.1 Delineation

In the context of a company, a strategy represents a future-oriented concept of the development and implementation of long-term objectives to secure the lasting exist­ence of an organization.46 Since there are many different definitions47 of the term, the following section only shows one possible interpretation. The complexity of the term shows through its reflection of corporate ideals, values, guidelines and espe­cially the vision and mission.48 In other words, a strategy can also be described as a way of achieving a vision.49 A vision is an image of the strived future situation of an organization after a certain time - mostly a long-term period.50 The mission statement, in turn, states the core purpose of a corporation - the core beliefs and the identifica­tion of target markets and core products - and can be seen as a way of formalizing the vision.51 As it can remain the same for a long time, the mission statement defines the company's framework for action.52 These two are underpinned by enduring, em­bedded values that show what a corporation stands for.53 Values help to identify with the company and strengthen the external perception of the company.54

Moreover, strategy also means the identification, creation and development of enter­prise potentials so that strategic targets can be met in the daily business.55 The continuously adjusted strategic targets are defined fora medium-term period of three to five years and break down the corporate strategy.56 Potentials include the em­ployee potential, the potential of the investor and customer relations, the potential of strategic partnerships, the potential of the corporate marketing and the already ex­isting potential of the corporate organisation.57 A strategy can also be understood as a link between environmental requirements and the capabilities of a company to meet these requirements in a targeted manner. This means adapting the company's ca­pabilities to the resulting development goals by deriving initiatives.58

In addition to the basic elements of the strategic development different steps for the development, positioning and planning of a strategy have to be taken. To determine the focus of the above-mentioned potentials and in general improvement possibilities to develop or expand a strategy, an internal - analysing the existing company poten­tials and resources - and external company analysis - analysing the social and market environment and their development - should be carried out as a first step. Secondly, building upon these analyses, the strengths and weakness, opportunities and risks/threats (=SWOT) of an organization should be worked out and then being compared to the competition through the already mentioned benchmarking - mostly through key figures of comparable enterprise in order to demonstrate competitive­ness. The third step includes the strategic positioning what means the strategic orientation of the company through the corporate mission statement. This comprises the definition of the objective of the strategy and the strategy itself and the future approach to long-term success. Lastly, the step of the strategic target planning im­plies the transition of the actual situation to the target situation by deriving a choice of strategic objectives and initiatives and their implementation.59

To maintain a strategic orientation, a corporation has to continually adapt its strategy through checking and further developing it if required. This process integrates different corporate departments to make the strategy more comprehensive and in­novative.60

Basically, a strategy is aligned to the entire business of a company, but existing busi­ness segments can have nuanced strategic targets. For departments, in turn, the fine-tuning of the strategy is the responsibility of the tactical and operational plan­ning.61

2.2.2 Strategy classification

To stand out from competitors, a corporate strategy has to differ itself from the market environment.62 Different alignments and types of strategies have been worked out from economists so that the most relevant market strategies to the author are pointed out in the following.

Firstly, the growth model of a strategy can be divided into three alignments:63

- Expansion, as the first alignment, puts growth at the forefront, so profitability targets are of secondary importance for the time being. It means the develop­ment and sales of new products, creating of greater market shares or expanding the markets geographically or to generate fast growth through e.g. the acquisition of another company.
- The second alignment, consolidation is putting returns more in the foreground again, e.g. by securing new markets or integrating acquired companies.
- Lastly, contraction means the possible exit from a product line at the end of its lifecycle or the end of the investment in it. This can be adjusted by down­sizing and restructuring the business or by selling a division.

Secondly, partnerships with complementary companies as a cooperation model can also represent a strategic thrust of a company.64 Synergy effects arising can be used to especially enhance the value of each company but also the joint value, what implies that in particular costs can be saved through decisions about the activities across the value chains so that e.g. product development costs no longer have to be borne alone.65 Different alternatives exist:66

- A cooperation means the partnership with one or several companies and is mostly based on a corporate agreement or contract. Cooperations include for example strategic alliances or joint ventures. In strategic alliances, the coop­eration of competitors improves their respective competitive positions by pursuing a common strategy. Joint ventures are alliances of business units of the cooperation partners to form a new, independent (joint) company.
- As a counterpart, companies can consolidate through a merger or the acqui­sition of a company. The acquisition of a company means that either one company or only company units are completely or partially acquired by an­other company. In a merger, two companies join together to form a legal entity - either one buys the other and incorporates it into a new entity or both create a joint venture.
- Another variation is the participation, implying the unilateral or bilateral finan­cial participation of companies to secure a partnership.

Thirdly, Michael Eugene Porter crystallised three types of competitive, market-ori­ented strategies to surpass other companies through unique market activities:67

- Cost leadership means comparatively low costs of products or services in or­der to achieve the goal of becoming the most cost-effective provider. This implies the cost advantage through initiatives such as setting up efficient pro­duction facilities, controlling variable costs and overheads, avoiding marginal customers and cost minimisation in areas such as procurement, research and development, service, sales force or advertising. To be able to achieve this cost advantage, often e.g. high market shares or high capital investments are necessary. Comparatively low costs in production do not imply a neglection of e.g. quality and service but can help to establish the considered cost ad­vantage and consequently economies of scale as entry barrier for competitors.
- The second type differentiation means the creation of unique products or ser­vices in an industry which in the ideal case have several differentiated properties from the standard of the industry. These comparable better prop­erties enable companies to demand a higher price through better satisfaction of customer needs in comparison to the competition. The “uniqueness” ties customers to a product/service or a brand, creates customer loyalty and re­duces the sensibility to increasing prices in what way entry barriers for competitors are created.
- Thirdly, the concentration on focal points signifies the focus on market niches, meaning specific customers or a defined geographic market. So, the focus makes a more efficient achievement of goals in the defined area possible than competitors in a whole industry. At the end, the concentration also leads to a differentiation or a cost advantage in the defined area.

Hybrid strategies of differentiation and cost leadership are not foreseen from Porter but discussed so that a strategy change after a certain competition phase could be possible ifthe previous cost level or differentiation properties can be maintained.68

Other types of strategies have been classified from Harry Igor Ansoff - the product­market model or market segment strategies. Four possible growth strategies:69

- Market penetration means the increase in market share through more inten­sive and improved marketing activities on current markets with already existing products or existing potentials. The market growth is intended to be reached through e.g. more sales of existing customers or acquiring customers of the competition.
- The second strategy is the market expansion or development, signifying the opening up/development of new markets or the geographical expansion of existing markets with already existing products. As the risks are higher, this strategy is recommendable for companies with already existing core compe­tences of a specific product or several products.
- Thirdly, product development, as a fundamental approach to persistently re­main on the market, comprises new products or the further development of products in already existing markets to satisfy new customer needs. Even though especially product innovations entail risks as high costs and no guar­anteed success, they can be the decisive advancement for the future.
- As a last strategy, the diversification includes new markets as wells as new products. Diversification distinguishes three types. Firstly, the horizontal di­versification means the expansion of an existing product portfolio with new products that still have a reference to the old products. The second vertical diversification, in turn, stands for the expansion of activities of the value chain inside and outside of a company. The last, lateral diversification implies the advance into a new business field without connection to the previous industry.

The combination of e.g. market penetration and at the same time product develop­ment is possible.70

2.3 Strategic controlling tools

This chapter begins with the definition of strategic controlling tools in general, demon­strating some examples and describes the BSC amongst the short description of other important controlling tools. The BSC’s explanations are limited to its explana­tion, the demonstration of its perspectives and possible extensions and its development.

2.3.1 Definition

This section provides an overview of the instruments most relevant to the author. Since the term "controlling instruments" has many different interpretations, the term cannot be defined in an overarching way. Also, the number of controlling instruments depends on the respective controlling concept and additionally new controlling in­struments are constantly being developed. In the literature, methods, procedures, techniques and models are also used as synonyms for the term tool so that these can also be subsumed to the notion.71 The classification72 into strategic controlling instruments is widespread: In the following the delineation of concepts comprises the use of various instruments for the development, positioning, planning and implemen­tation of a strategy.73 As the number of the mentioned strategic controlling tools in literature proceeds 100, a company should focus on those that are familiar and ade­quately researched, usefully applicable in the company and are approved by the top management.74 For the strategic development, the analysis of the market and envi­ronment can be done through e.g. the already mentioned SWOT analysis for the company itself and benchmarking, the PEST analysis of political, economic, social and technological aspects, an analysis of market shares or an competitive analysis.75 These belong to the instruments of the internal enterprise analysis (e.g. also the product life cycle analysis, value chain analysis, cost structure analysis, contribution costing or ABC analysis) as well as the instruments of the external environmental analysis (e.g. also industry structure analysis, target group analysis or stakeholder analysis, BCG-matrix or McKinsey matrix).76 Proven valuation tools to assess (planned) strategic measures or the value-added effect of strategies on a company include dynamic investment calculation techniques, EVA methodology, DCF meth­odology and utility analysis.77 In order to strategically position a company, the strategy types from chapter 2.2.2 can be applied. In order to carry out strategic plan­ning, GAP and scenario analysis are proven tools.78 Implementation instruments include e.g. action planning and project management. In addition to the above-men­tioned deviation reports, standard (control) reports or early warning/excitation systems can also be used to monitor strategy implementation.79 In the following, the BSC is presented as an overarching strategy instrument.

2.3.2 Balanced Scorecard

The BSC as a well-known strategic controlling tool has a number of different inter­pretations or variations80, of which the original Kaplan/Norton concept is used as a basis, rounded off and extended with additions by other authors. According to stud­ies, the tool is nowadays used in approximately 24 % of large companies and established itselffor the use of strategy implementation.81

Robert Kaplan, a well-known business man in England and a professor at Harvard university, and the company consultant David Norton firstly presented the concept of the BSC in the year 1992.82 During this time, the awareness arose that the perfor­mance of a company is not only dependent on financial indicators but also on other, success-determining, non-financial aspects. In this way a system of detachment of the old, past-orientated performance measurement of financial success to a future- oriented, varied perspective measurement of performance was shown. Through its setting of targets by means of vetting clear control parameters, the BSC can be de­scribed as a strategic tool that measures the implementation of a strategy through appropriate KPIs.83 But since it can also be used to develop a new strategy, it can also be seen as a link between strategy development and implementation.84 Seen as a comprehensive management approach, BSCs have been developed as an instrument of strategic corporate management - often used to manage the strategy on a long-term basis.85

The concept of Kaplan/Nortons’ contains the message of turning strategic orienta­tions of corporations into concrete actions and measures and to communicate the strategy to the concerned stakeholders implementing it.86 This implies the breakdown of the company goals to the individual company levels as an orientation framework for the further approach of the employees.87 The deeper understanding of the result­ing objectives and initiatives should help to provide or strengthen the commitment to the corporate strategy.88

To involve all relevant stakeholders into the strategy, the understanding of the so- called four balanced “perspectives” (see figure 1) is included.89 These perspectives should represent a company from four points of view and in their centre the focus should be on the corporate vision and mission as well as on its strategy as the basis for the objectives, measures and initiatives to be set later on.90

The first perspective of the customers shows their view, their wishes and demands.91 The key questions to show those aspects are how should a corporation appear to their customers to realize their vision and how do the customers see the corpora­tion?92 How well are the customer’s needs satisfied by the organization?93 Which objectives should be set to reach the financial objectives of the company?94 The im­portance of the adjustment to customers’ needs is shown and a consequent

orientation to the customer influences the market shares through switching or re­maining customers.95

Figure 1: Balanced Scorecard perspectives

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: Modelled on Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 9

The second internal business process perspective, in turn, indicates a company’s offer for costumers through the processes, decisions and actions occurring within a company - the intern processes.96 This concerns the question of which (key) busi­ness (sub)processes must be excellent to realize a company’s vision and satisfy the shareholders and customers?97 Which objectives should be set to reach the financial objectives and the objectives of the customer perspective as customer benefit and customer satisfaction?98 The processes can be divided into innovation, operating and customer service processes that are based on each other and can modified to suit specific company requirements.99 However, the processes can also be entirely new processes which can be critical to succeed in the long-term.100 The focus on a cor­poration’s processes can facilitate future comparisons with benchmark companies or in general the core processes of companies in the same industry.101

The third learning and growth perspective illustrates the possibility of a continued improving and creating value process of innovative products and services through the corporate infrastructure of people (e.g. suppliers, partners, employees), systems and organizational procedures.102 This is answered by the questions of how the flex­ibility and growth potential can be fostered to realize the organisation’s vision and if and how the ability to change, adjust, improve and create value can be main­tained?103 This perspective evinces the learning ability of the business areas and the growth opportunities in the form of personnel, system and/or process investments. So, the main drivers are employees’ qualification, motivation, empowerment as wells an efficient intern information system.104

Lastly, the financial perspective points out the involvement of shareholders, the pro­prietors and investors expecting an attractive offer for their investment.105 How should a company appear to the investors and shareholders/partners to have finan­cial success and how does it look to them?106 Which objectives are derived from their expectations? The financial objectives represent the overall objectives or final objec­tives of the other perspectives on the basis of which their objectives must be aligned or adjusted.107 Often the financial objectives already help to provide the connection of all perspectives.108 This orientation is intended to ensure that the financial or, in the case of listed companies, capital market-related targets - which are geared to the return interests of investors through key figures such as EVA or ROCE - contribute to a value-oriented management and thus to an increase in corporate value.109 Even just within the financial perspective, it can be possible to specify the most important variables that “create and drive the long-term outcome objectives”.110

As the four perspectives are seen as a template, additional or even fewer perspec­tives can be used and incorporated in a BSC if they are essential for the success of the strategy of a company.111 Examples are the more explicit demonstrating of stake­holder interests such as interests of employees, suppliers, creditors, shareholders or partners (cooperations or other groups), the society or a public perspective and an environmental perspective.112 But also concrete areas such as energy, raw materi­als, research and development, technique, communication and funding are proposed.113 Since some possibilities are partly contained in the classically listed perspectives, they should be highlighted in more detail by the additional considera­tion. At the same time, aspects such as risks or sustainability can also be integrated in every perspective in order to supplement the perspectives with additional points of view.114 In summary, all used perspectives should be included equivalently - bal­anced - in order to guarantee a holistic company coverage.115

In order to develop a BSC, the foundation is a jointly developed corporate strategy and vision that is supported by all employees and with which they can identify. The vision and strategy must be realizable to the extent that they can be linked to the objectives of the departments and thus to the individual employee. This is made pos­sible by appropriate communication, which means the clear communication of the strategy and later the concrete objectives as well as the combination of the achieve­ment of KPIs with (financial) incentives.116 In addition, it must be possible for employees to provide feedback on the strategy and overall there must be the possi­bility to adapt and further develop the strategy.117

The second step is to derive the concrete objectives from the strategy by selecting the most suitable objectives, meaning those that are the most likely to contribute to the implementation of the strategy, and then assigning them to the BSC perspec­tives.118 This implies that the objectives break down the basic strategic statement such as "international expansion" into sub-objectives to be achieved for the respec­tive perspectives in order to implement the strategy.119 The selection criteria of the objectives are thus above all a special strategic importance, such as enabling a com­petitive advantage, a high improvement potential through e.g. possible pursuit of greater goals, a good measurability of changes, e.g. with the help of goal achieve­ment degrees and a realistic feasibility, e.g. through the use of existing resources.120 Only about four to five objectives per perspective help to maintain an overview.121 A sample target formulation for the financial perspective could be the achievement of a return on equity (=ROE) of 15 % within two years. For the learning and growth perspective the increase of the employee satisfaction or a reduction of fluctuation could be possible objectives.122 In terms of processes, shortening development times is one possible objective and for the customer perspective the increase of customer satisfaction or customer loyalty. Overall, the quality and elaboration of the objectives is central to the subsequent quality of the Balanced Scorecard and thus to the imple­mentation of the strategy.123

After the concrete strategy and objectives are set, the application of the so-called strategy maps starts. In a strategy map (see figure 2) the concrete targets which lead to the overarching objectives are linked with arrows according to their logical order or causality and they illustrate a possibility of how a strategy can be reached or if the targets are even strategically suitable.124 The diagrammatic representation reveals causal relationships such as between e.g. ROCE and expanded sales from existing customers and a high degree of customer loyalty.125 Those so-called cause-and-ef- fect relationships make the effects of the lower objectives on the overall objectives or vice versa and their interdependencies and interactions more transparent and they promote the understanding of the strategy. The objectives of the perspectives are based on each other in the concept of the BSC so that after the goals of the learning perspective comes the process perspective and then the customer perspective and ultimately at the end of the Strategy Map, the financial perspective stands with the achievement of the financial objectives.126 Thus, a chain of cause-and effect-relation­ships through all perspectives is built.127 Apart from cross-perspective cause-and- effect relationships, internal-perspective relationships can also exist.128

Figure 2: Exemplary strategy map

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: Modelled on Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 29

The fourth step is the choice of suitable key figures. They should steer the further action of the employees in the strategic direction, as mentioned above, make the degree of target achievement transparent and the benefit of collecting the measured variables should be greater than the effort.129 The individually different strategy of a company should be represented by the key figures.130 In order to further concretize the anchored strategy, clarity about the actual objectives must prevail to be able to choose the most critical understandable, manageable and significant key ratios.131 In appendix 2 a table shows possible, exemplary key figures of the four perspectives. It is possible that some measures sometimes affect several perspectives.132 Instead of the strategic objectives, the chosen key figures (outcome measures and their per­formance drivers) can also be inserted into the strategy map and linked with cause­effect relationships.133 The already mentioned ‘balance’ of a BSC also shows in an equable selection of extern and internal measures and past (outcome) and the future affecting measures (leading and lagging indicators) as well as monetary and non­monetary indicators.134

The fifth step is to define target values that on the one hand appear achievable or realizable for employees and on the other hand especially attractive for sharehold­ers.135 These can be taken from benchmarks, results from customer and employee surveys, historical data or business assessments and should cover a period of 1 to 5 years depending on the industry and type of target.

The last step involves the identification of feasible initiatives or projects for the achievement of the objectives.136 The illustration of the interdependencies of objec­tives in the Strategy Map already simplifies the elaboration of underlying (strategic) initiatives to be taken.137 Moreover, a coordinated action plan should be created that divides the strategy into action packages, which are assigned responsibilities and are included in a schedule.138 The initiatives are aimed at closing the gaps between the targets and the current performance.139 This phase makes clear whether the re­sources are available to implement the chosen initiatives or if the target values or even the strategy have to be touched up.140 Initiative examples could be employee surveys, recruiting or qualification programmes (Learning and growth perspective), new software and trainings, generation of synergies (internal business process per­spective), increased use of employees in customer care and service (customer perspective) and deviation analysis, capital investments or installing new information systems (financial perspective).141

Lastly, to expand the depiction of a strategy map, tables (already outlined in Figure 1) can show the objectives, their key figures, target values and implementation

measures of the different perspectives as well as the later results (see table 1).142 They allow the employees to have a work schedule by means of the concrete objec­tives and resulting initiatives which are transferred to their hierarchy level.143 Thus, every employee can now recognize his or her contribution to the implementation of the strategy and see the degree to which the objectives have been achieved through observing the development of the key figures (target-actual comparison).144

Table 1: Exemplary table ofthe financial perspective

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In general, BSCs can be applied in an easier way to smaller company units/depart- ments or strategic business units that ideally carry out activities across the entire value chain and have their own strategy than the application on the corporate level. A corporate-level scorecard may have the risk to be an average, mixed representa­tion of subdivided strategies but conversely can generate a framework of themes to be implemented on deeper hierarchy levels and can show how a corporation creates value beyond the value creation of the strategic units.145

Overall, it becomes clear that the basic approach of Kaplan/Norton does not define one appropriate, ideal and thus flawless system but a method that has to be aligned to the respective company and its unique strategic needs and whose overarching objectives need to be adjusted frequently.146

2.4 DAX companies

In the following chapter the terminology “Deutscher Aktienindex” will be defined briefly and the term annual report is explained, as it is the basic object of investigation for answering the research question. Afterwards, six examples of DAX companies are introduced briefly to inform the reader about the main characteristics and current presentation of the companies.

2.4.1 DeutscherAktienindex

The „Deutsche Aktienindex“, commonly known as DAX, or German share index is the most important share index in Germany and the also named DAX 30 represents the performance of the 30 largest German companies as measured by the market capitalisation and the stock exchange turnover.147 Around 80% of the stock market capital admitted to trading in Germany is represented in the DAX 30 share index what increases its attractiveness for global investors.148 As the DAX was already intro­duced in 1988 on the Frankfurt stock exchange, today other indexes as e.g. the MDAX, SDAX or TecDAX are based on its concept.149 In order to be admitted to the DAX, a company must be listed in the Prime Standard segment of the German stock exchange, in which defined transparency requirements such as the submission of quarterly reports, the holding of an annual analysts' conference or the publication of English ad hoc announcements must be met.150 In addition, it must have a free float of shares of at least ten percent and have its legal domicile in Germany.151 The weighting of an individual company in the DAX share price depends on its market capitalization and decisions are made annually as to whether a company should re­main in, leave or move up to the DAX 30.152

2.4.2 Annual reports

The annual report as a means of company presentation for all stakeholders such as shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the press and the social environ­ment of a company can be regarded as a form of corporate communication that provides company-related news with a focus on the last fiscal year. In the absence of a legal definition of the term, it is a voluntary publication in its form, but most public limited companies (=PLC) use it to comply with their legal information obligations.153 This means that annual reports basically include annual financial statements under commercial law - mandatory to be published - which in turn consist of a balance sheet, an income statement with notes and a management report. The latter is meant to present the economic situation and the future possible development of a company. The notes provide additional information on individual items of the income statement and, above all, clarify accounting and valuation methods.154 Annual financial state­ments should give a picture of the assets, financial position and results of operations of a company.155 In particular, they should make it possible to check liquidity and profitability, which includes the documentation of financial stability, debt coverage, sustainable earning power and corporate policy decisions such as investment and financing measures or research and development activities.156 In addition, an annual report generally includes, for example, a letter from the Management Board to share­holders, a report from the Supervisory Board, segment reports, a report on the company's shares and their performance and an outlook for the following fiscal year.157 On the whole, an annual report should present fact-based, transparent infor­mation about a company that enables a comprehensible corporate image for all stakeholders. The financial performance of a company can also be supplemented by intangibles or "non-monetary values" such as the company's environmental, social or cultural attitudes and, above all, information on customer and supplier relation­ships or the corporate climate. In addition to the statutory requirements, companies thus have scope to disclose additional, relevant and thus voluntary information in order to enhance the quality and informative value of the annual report and to support the interpretation of the figures.158 PLCs in particular, as already mentioned, are sub­ject to publication requirements, i.e. the submission of annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and management reports to the commercial regis­ter and their publication in the Federal Gazette is mandatory. This means that this information can be viewed by third parties at any time.159

[...]


1 Cf. Franceschini, F. etal., Measurement, 2007, p. 8-9; cf. Dresp, M., Göck, M., Key figure control, 2017, p. 8.

2 Cf. Scharff,C., eta!., PwC KPI survey, 2017, p. 6, 12.

3 Scharff,C., etal., PwC KPI survey, 2017, p. 3.

4 Cf. Scharff,C., etal., PwC KPI survey, 2017, p. 6, 20.

5 Cf. Scharff,C., etal., PwC KPI survey, 2017, p. 20.

6 Cf.Reichmann, T., Controlling concept, 2001, p. 19-20; cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 89; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 302.

7 Cf. Reichmann, T., Controlling concept, 2001, p. 20; cf.Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 89.

8 Cf. Bleiber, R„ Controlling, 2018, p. 153-154.

9 Cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U., Controlling overview, 2016, p. 179.

10 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 302-303.

11 Cf. Bleiber, R., Controlling, 2018, p. 153-155.

12 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 74.; cf.Steinhardt, T., KPIs production, 2018, p. 52.

13 Cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U., Controlling overview, 2016, p. 178-179; cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 90-91.

14 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 302.

15 Cf. Bleiber, R., Controlling, 2018, p. 153.

16 Cf.Reichmann, T., Controlling concept, 2001, p. 21-22; cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 89; cf. Lange, B., Strategic Controlling, 2018, p. 303; cf. Drews, Hanno, Key figures, 2019, p. 47.

17 Cf. Reichmann, T., Controlling concept, 2001, p. 21-22; cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 89-90; cf. Lange, B., Strategic Controlling, 2018, p. 303; cf. Drews, Hanno, Key figures, 2019, p. 47.

18 Cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 91-109; Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 75.

19 Cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U., Controlling overview, 2016, p. 182.

20 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 47-48.

21 Cf. Bleiber, R., Controlling, 2018, p. 197.

22 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 69-70; cf. Bleiber, R., Controlling, 2018, p. 193-194.

23 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 57; cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 98; cf. Bleiber, R., Controlling, 2018, p. 195.

24 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 61.

25 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 153-154.

26 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 154; cf. Wöltje, J., Formulae, 2012, p. 249.

27 Cf. Reichmann, T., Controlling concept, 2001, p. 22.

28 Cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 4, 7.

29 cf. Franceschini, F. etal., Measurement, 2007, p. 7-8, 56; cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 27-28; cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 4; cf. Troßmann, E., Controlling introduction, 2018, p. 162.

30 Cf. Steinhardt, T., KPIs production, 2018, p. 52.

31 Cf. Steinhardt, T., KPIs production, 2018, p. 53.

32 Cf. Steinhardt, T., KPIs production, 2018, p. 56.

33 Cf. Parmenter,D.,KP\s,20^5, p. 4, 11-12, 15, 19,31,206.

34 Cf. Dresp, M., Göck, M., Key figure control, 2017, p. 8.

35 Cf. PwC, KPI guide, 2007, p. 2; cf. PwC, Strategic link, 2017.

36 Cf. PwC, KPI guide, 2007, p. 4-5.

37 Cf. Chalupar, J., Eisl, C., BSC performance, 2015, p. 409.

38 Cf. Losbichler, H., Key figure basics, 2015, p. 1.

39 Cf. Dresp, M., Göck, M., Key figure control, 2017, p. 8-9.

40 Cf. Dresp, M., Göck, M., Key figure control, 2017, p. 8-11.

41 Cf. Bleiber, R„ Controlling, 2018, p. 192.

42 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures,2017,p.4.

43 Cf. Steger, J., Key figures, 2017, p. 4; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 302.

44 Cf. Behringer, S., Corporate controlling, 2018, p. 162-165.

45 Cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U., Controlling overview, 2016, p. 382-383.

46 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 82.

47 Cf. Dillerup, R., Stoi, R., Corporate management, 2016, p. 172-173.

48 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 82.

49 Cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 87.

50 Cf. Burns, P., Corporate strategy, 2013, p. 273; cf.Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 89.

51 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 24.; cf. Burns, P., Corporate strategy, 2013, p. 274; cf.Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 89.

52 Cf.Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 51,62; cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 89.

53 Cf. Burns, P., Corporate strategy, 2013, p. 303-304; cf.Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 90.

54 Cf. Sens, B. eta!., Strategy, 2015, p. 18.

55 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 82.

56 Cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p. 171.

57 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 82.

58 Cf. Sens, B. etal., Strategy, 2015, p. 17-18.

59 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 82-83, 126-127, 232.

60 Cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p. 170.

61 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 84.

62 Cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 87.

63 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 56.

64 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 57.

65 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 57; cf. Puranam, P. Vanneste, B., Corporate tools, 2016, p. 30; cf. Wöhe, G. etal., Economy, 2016, p. 183.

66 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 57; cf. David, F.., David, F., Strategic man­agement, 2015, p. 155; cf. Dillerup, R., Stoi, R., Corporate management, 2016, p. 505, 510, 528-529; cf. Puranam, P. Vanneste, B., Corporate tools, 2016, p. 31; cf. Wöhe, G. etal., Economy, 2016, p. 183; cf. Thommen, J.-P. etal., Economics, 2018, p. 36, 547.

67 Cf. Burr, W. etal., Corporate governance, 2012, p. 94, 96; cf. Porter, M., Competitive strategy, 2013, p. 73-78; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 257-258.

68 Cf. Dillerup, R., Stoi, R., Corporate management, 2016, p. 300; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 259.

69 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 58; cf. David, F.., David, F, Strategic man­agement, 2015, p. 141-142; cf. Lange, B., Strategiccontrolling, 2018, p. 251-255.

70 Cf. Wagner, R., Corporate governance tools, 2007, p. 58.

71 Cf. Becker, W., Baltzer, B., Controlling instruments, 2009, p. 28, 32-33.

72 Cf. Becker, W., Baltzer, B., Controlling instruments, 2009, p. 49.

73 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 126.

74 Cf. Schlemminger, R., Strategic controlling tools, 2018, p. 36-37.

75 Cf. Sens, B. etal., Strategy, 2015, p. 17; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 128.

76 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 128; cf. Schlemminger, R., Strategic controlling tools, 2018, p. 36-37.

77 Cf. Schlemminger, R., Strategic controlling tools, 2018, p. 36-37.

78 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 129.

79 Cf. Schlemminger, R., Strategic controlling tools, 2018, p. 36-37.

80 Cf. Franceschini, F. etal., Measurement, 2007, p. 123.

81 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 14; cf. Weber, J., Schäffer, U., Con­trolling overview, 2016, p. 204.

82 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12.

83 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 101-103.

84 Cf. Greiner, O., BSC practice, 2012, p. 70; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 114.

85 Cf.Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 10; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 67.

86 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12.

87 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 67.

88 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 13.

89 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12-13.

90 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 8-10; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 67-68.

91 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12-13.

92 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Measures, 1992, p. 72; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategic System, 2007, p.4; cf. Lange, B., Strategiccontrolling, 2018, p. 106.

93 Cf. Franceschini, F. etal., Measurement, 2007, p. 124.

94 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 68.

95 Cf.Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 26; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 70-71.

96 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Measures, 1992, p. 74; cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implemen­tation, 2014, p. 12-13.

97 Cf.Franceschini, F. etal., Measurement, 2007, p. 124; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategic Sys­tem, 2007, p.4; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 106.

98 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 27; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 68, 71.

99 Cf. Wesenauer, A., BSC success, 2008, p. 27; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet anal­ysis, 2013, p. 71.

100 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 27.

101 Cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p. 173-174.

102 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 28; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategic System, 2007, p.4; cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12-13.

103 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Measures, 1992, p. 72; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategic System, 2007, p.4; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 72; cf. Lange, B., Strate­gic controlling, 2018, p. 106.

104 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 72.

105 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 12-13.

106 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Measures, 1992, p. 72; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategic System, 2007, p.4; cf. Lange, B., Strategiccontrolling, 2018, p. 106.

107 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 69-70.

108 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 62.

109 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 25-26; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 69, 70, 73.

110 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 61.

111 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 34-35; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 33.

112 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 34-35; cf. Ehrmann, H., BSC compact, 2007, p. 37; cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p.173; cf. Jossé, G., BSC perspectives, 2018, p. 49; cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 33.

113 Cf. Ehrmann, H., BSC compact, 2007, p. 37; cf. Probst, H.-J., Simplify BSC, 2007, p. 155-159; cf. Jossé, G., BSC perspectives, 2018, p. 49.

114 Cf. Jossé, G., BSC perspectives, 2018, p. 129.

115 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 70.

116 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 112-11.

117 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 17; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 114.

118 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 115-116.

119 Cf. Horvath & Partners, BSC realization, 2007, p. 157.

120 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 116.

121 Cf. Horvath & Partners, BSC realization, 2007, p. 161; cf. Probst, H.-J., Simplify BSC, 2007, p. 44.

122 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 120-121.

123 Cf. Horvath & Partners, BSC realization, 2007, p. 51, 157.

124 Cf.Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H, Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 69; cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 40.; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 116.

125 Cf.Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 30-31; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 117-118.

126 Cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p. 174-175; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 116-118.

127 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 29.

128 Cf. Krause, H, Controlling KPIs, 2016, p. 378.

129 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 120.

130 Cf. Horvâth & Partners, BSC realization, 2007, p. 62.

131 Cf. Horvâth & Partners, BSC realization, 2007, p. 59; cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC imple­mentation, 2014, p. 13-14.

132 Cf. Parmenter, D., KPIs, 2015, p. 34.

133 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 31; cf. Krause, H., Controlling KPIs, 2016, p. 377.

134 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 10, 25; cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 67.

135 Cf. Probst, H.-J., Simplify BSC, 2007, p. 161; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 121.

136 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 121.

137 Cf. Jansen, S. etal., Integrated corporate management, 2016, p. 174.

138 Cf. Graumann, M., Controlling delineation, 2018, p. 228.

139 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 216.

140 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 121-122.

141 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., BSC, 2018, p. 216; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 122­124.

142 Cf. Friedag, H. R., Schmidt, W., BSC implementation, 2014, p. 40.

143 Cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 111.

144 Cf. Graumann, M., Controlling delineation, 2018, p.226; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p.111, 120.

145 Cf. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 36-37.

146 Cf.Kaplan, R., Norton, D., Strategy, 2004, p. 306; cf. Lange, B., Strategic controlling, 2018, p. 104.

147 Cf. https://www.finanzen.net/index/DAX , accessed on 01/08/2019; cf. https://www.finanzen.net/m- dex/dax/30-werte , accessed on 01/08/2019.

148 Cf. Laier, R., Value reporting, 2011, p. 173.

149 Cf. https://www.finanzen.net/mdex/DAX , accessed on 01/08/2019.

150 Cf. https://www.finanzen.net/mdex/DAX , accessed on 01/08/2019.

151 Cf. https://www.finanzen.net/mdex/dax/30-werte , accessed on 01/08/2019.

152 Cf. https://www.finanzen.net/index/dax/30-werte , accessed on 01/08/2019.

153 Cf. Keller, R., Corporate communication, 2006, p. 9-10, 15-16.

154 Cf. Heisters, V., Leu, O., Annual report, 2010, p. 11-12, 26.

155 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 1.

156 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 1-2.

157 Cf. Keller, R., Corporate communication, 2006, p. 15.

158 Cf. Heisters, V., Leu, O., Annual report, 2010, p. 13,14,17,19, 23, 26- 27.

159 Cf. Bossert, R. Lutschewitz, H., Balance sheet analysis, 2013, p. 1

Excerpt out of 146 pages

Details

Title
Financial Key Performance Indicators and the strategy of six DAX companies. An analysis
Subtitle
The evaluation of annual reports and application of a balanced scorecard
College
University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart
Grade
1,7
Year
2019
Pages
146
Catalog Number
V1129932
ISBN (eBook)
9783346490650
ISBN (Book)
9783346490667
Language
English
Keywords
financial, performance, indicators
Quote paper
Anonymous, 2019, Financial Key Performance Indicators and the strategy of six DAX companies. An analysis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1129932

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: Financial Key Performance Indicators and the strategy of six DAX companies. An analysis



Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free