In the last decade, complex statistical studies related to top managerial tools proven to impact the most the performances of business companies show the following (changing) hierarchy (excerpts):
- Strategic Planning;
- Customer Relationship Management;
- Employee Engagement Survey;
- Corporate Social Responsibility;
- Balanced Scorecard.
These tools are, practically, unknown to the majority of companies with Romanian capital. This cannot go on like that. The main argument comes from the conditions in which these companies act, from increasing challenges from similar EU companies, from globalization and from increased awareness for sustainable development. The paper tries to identify a common mainframe for implementing such tools. Specific aspects are also given as examples.
Main conclusions are:
1. Even in a general mainframe, there is no unique approach applicable to all companies;
2. Involvement of top managers is essential;
3. The appointed implementation team is multidisciplinary in every case (technical experts, economists, environmentalists, mathematicians, IT professionals, etc.). Their legitimacy gives consistence and coherence to the implementing process;
4. An external, neutral facilitator is a must. He is the guide, the referee, the one that deals with possible disputes and divergences in the team;
5. All new managerial tools must be based on what companies already have; This paper is the first in a series dedicated to the subject and comes as a side result of the PAZEWAIA Project, financed by Innovation Norway, project currently active in the North-East Development Region of Romania.
Petrişor AI (2011a), Spatial principles of conserving biodiversity through natural protected areas [in Romanian], Analele Arhitecturii 6(1):37-39.
Petrişor A.-I. (2011b), Systemic theory applied to ecology, geography and spatial planning. Theoretical and methodological developments, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Petrişor A.-I. (2012a), Land cover and land use analysis of urban growth in Romania, Human Geographies 6(1):47-51.
Petrişor A.-I. (2012b), Redefining urban regeneration, Argument 4
životního prostředí UJEP.
Schröter, M., Van der Zanden, E., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S. & Opdam P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters , 7(6), 514−523. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12091.
Stern P.C. (2000). Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions. American Psychologist , 55, 523−530. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.523.
Vlachopoulou, M., Coughlin, D., Forrow, D., Kirk, S., Logan, P. & Voulvoulis N. (2014). The potential