Page 76 - CITN 2017 Journal

(Lynch & Cross, 1991; Kaplan & Norton, 1996, 2001; Otley2003) opined that, when
monitoring their firm performance, managers tend to place relatively less emphasis on
traditional financial measures of performance such as return on investment or net profit.
This is usually explained in terms of traditional performance measures (the accounting-
based measures or financial measures) which is unable to satisfactorily reflect firm
performance affected by today's changing business environments (Hoque, 2004).

Succinctly, Chakravarthy (1986) and McKiernan &Morris (1994) criticize the fact that the
measures of financial performance cannot accurately measure organizational
effectiveness without adequate control measures. Thus, researchers such as Otley, (1999)
Van Veen-Dirks & Wijn (2002) largely supports corroborated in the idea and further opined
that performance measures should focus on a firm's long-term success factors such as
customer satisfaction, internal business process efficiency and innovation, as they can
capture the overall performance of organization but not without adequate control and
improvement strategies..

Corporate Effectiveness and Control and Improvement Performance Measures
Evaluating programmes can help organization chart their success line towards attaining
their set goal/objectives. However, evaluation takes time and is costly. Performance
Measurement on the other hand is less time-consuming and can provide information in
time for day to day decisions. While both evaluation and performance measurements are
necessary they each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Examining the
importance of performance measurement Boris, Kopczynski and Winkler (2013) assert
that the validity of the results can be questioned and it is not clear as to whether or not
positive outcomes were due to a specific programme.

Economic development, social development and environmental protection are the three
dimensions that are concerned with the sustainable development (The Bruntl and Report
1987). In their report, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) opined that, “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and
contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce
and their families as well as the local community and society at large”.

In 1981 Freer Spreckley first articulated the triple bottom line in a publication called
'Social Audit - A Management Tool for Co-operative Working' as he described what social
enterprises should include in their performance measurement. The phrase was coined by
John Elkington in his 1998 book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st
Century Business (Neely 2002. This purpose of this concept is not to diminish the
prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our generations
(Mintzer, 1992). In our opinion sustainable development is for the people itself, for
everybody who uses the nature and wants to make nature long lasting for next generation.

Performance Measurement and the Accountant
The purpose of financial reports according to Okezie (2006) which are governed by
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) is to acquaint the stakeholders with
the happenings in the organization. To ensure its autonomy, it is desirable that an
accountant be independent of the management since the shareholders depend on his report
including other stakeholders (Gomez 2012). One way to achieve this is for the accountant
to present a credible report on all activities of the organization.

Accordingly, Lapsley and Mitchell (1996), opined t hat, measurement of performance is a
central focus of accounting but one which presents the accountant with a continuing

69