农业上市公司绩效指标构建及其评价研究
|
摘要
农业上市公司在带动农民增收、促进农业科技进步、加快推进农业产业化和产业结构调整、有效解决“三农”问题、推动新农村建设中发挥基础性作用。然而,近年来,尽管政府加大了对我国农业上市公司的政策扶持,但是农业上市公司的整体经济绩效仍然不高,与其他行业的上市公司相比还存在很大的差距,有待进一步提升其竞争力。随着农产品质量与安全事故的日益增多、生态文明建设的逐步推进,以及人们对健康农产品需求和社会和谐发展的持续关注,社会各界纷纷要求农业上市公司主动承担社会责任和保护生态环境,及时披露其履行社会责任信息和保护生态环境的信息。因此,全方位评价农业上市公司的经济绩效、社会绩效和生态绩效,深入探讨影响农业上市公司综合绩效的关键要素,有助于探索提升农业上市公司综合绩效的战略途径、推动农业上市公司的可持续发展、加快现代农业产业体系的构建。这正是本文探索的主题。
本文的研究思路主要是,首先在经济绩效评价的基础上结合社会绩效与生态绩效来构建农业上市公司绩效评价的综合模型；然后,从以上三个方面分别构建其指标评价体系,引入经济增加值(EVA)层次分析法以及相关的数理统计等方法对农业上市公司进行综合绩效评价；最后,基于上述分析,提出相应的提升策略和建议。本文的具体研究内容如下：
第一部分是导论,阐述农业上市公司综合绩效评价的研究背景、目的与意义,明确了本文的研究思路并提出了研究的主要内容,阐述了本文的研究方法,制定了研究的技术路线,并归纳了本文的主要创新点和不足。
第二部分是文献回顾,通过对国内外有关农业上市公司绩效评价的相关文献进行梳理和评价,以确定本文的研究方向
第三部分是农业上市公司绩效评价综合模型构建的理论基础,主要界定了农业上市公司和综合绩效等相关概念,阐述了农业上市公司绩效评价综合模型构建的理论依据及其诸多评价方法。
第四部分对农业上市公司经济绩效进行评价。首先对农业上市公司绩效测算的现有文献进行了回顾；然后,阐述了研究方法和获取的样本数据,最后,从总体、行业及公司三个层面基于经济增加值(EVA)进行了实证分析；最后,得出相应的结论与启示。
第五部分对农业上市公司社会绩效进行评价。首先阐述了企业社会绩效评价标准的理论与实践依据；并探讨了国内外企业社会绩效评价的困境,其次,引入层次分析评价法,从指标体系设计的原则和评价指标的选取构建了农业上市公司社会绩效指标体系,具体包括社会贡献率、农业基础地位保障、企业社会形象；再次,基于层次分析法确定各指标的权重,然后选取2011-2012年的农业上市公司为样本,对其社会绩效进行了评价,最后,对社会绩效评价结果进行了分析。
第六部分对农业上市公司生态绩效进行评价。首先阐述了国内外企业生态绩效的评价标准,并从评价目标的确定、评价框架的设计、评价指标的选取等方面探讨了企业绩效评价的困境；其次,引入层次分析评价法对生态绩效进行评价。在确定生态绩效指标评价的设置原则之后,构建并界定了农业上市公司生态绩效指标,具体包括：生态化产品研发与设计、生态化资源利用、生态化清洁生产、生态化产品销售与消费；再次,确定各指标的权重,然后选取2010-2011年的农业上市公司为样本,对其生态绩效进行了评价,最后,对生态绩效评价结果进行了分析。
第七部分主要探讨了本文的主要研究结论及相关的政策建议。通过实证分析,不难发现：近年来,尽管农业上市公司的整体经济绩效业绩逐年稳步提升,但是整体水平仍然较差,而且不同行业间、同行业内不同的农业上市公司之间经营业绩差异比较显著。农业上市公司的社会绩效稍有提升,但仍低于社会的期望水平,而且各项指标的得分高低变化不大,还在低水平徘徊。农业上市公司的生态绩效整体水平较好,但是不同行业及同一行业公司之间在生态化产品研发与设计、生态化资源利用、生态化清洁生产、生态化产品销售与消费方面绩效差异明显,而且各方面绩效都有很大的提升空间。基于此,本文提出相应的政策和建议。
Listed agricultural companies play the fundamental roles in increasing the farmers' income, promoting the agricultural science and technology progress, speeding up the adjustment of the agricultural industrial structure, effectively solving the problems about countryside, agriculture and farmers, promoting the construction of the new rural. However, although the government has stepped up to various political support to listed agricultural companies in our country in recent years, the overall operating performance of listed agricultural companies is still declining, which still has very big disparity comparing with the listed companies in other industries, and further improving their competitiveness. With the increasing of agricultural products quality and safety accidents, the gradually establishment of ecological civilization and the continuous attention to the agricultural products demand for health and the harmonious development of society, people from all walks of life require the listed agricultural companies to take the initiative to assume social responsibility and protect the ecological environment, disclosing their social responsibility information and the ecological environment information in time. Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation of listed agricultural companies on operation performance, social performance and ecological performance, in-depth discussion on key elements of the comprehensive performance of listed agricultural companies, help to explore the strategical ways to enhance their comprehensive performance, promoting their sustainable development, cultivating a large number of high-quality new farmers, speeding up the construction of modern agricultural management system. It is the theme that the study explores.
Mainly research thinking of this study is to firstly build a comprehensive model of performance evaluation on listed agricultural companies on the basis of operation performance evaluation combining social performance and environmental performance; Then, it respectively builds the index evaluation system from the above three aspects, and use the methods of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and relevant mathematical statistics to evaluate the performance of listed agricultural companies; Finally, according to the above analysis, it put forward the corresponding polices and suggestions. The specific contents of the research are as follows:
Section one is introduction. It expounds the research background, purpose and significance of the comprehensive performance evaluation on listed agricultural companies, clarifying the research thoughts and proposing the main content, elaborating the research methods, making the technical route, and summarizing the main innovation points and the deficiencies.
Section two is literature review. It reviews and evaluates the domestic and foreign literature about the performance evaluation of listed agricultural companies to determine the research direction of this research.
Section three is the theoretical foundation to construct the comprehensive model of performance evaluation of listed agricultural companies, mainly including defining the related concepts of listed agricultural companies and comprehensive performance, elaborating theoretical basis of the comprehensive model of listed agricultural companies for evaluating performance and the various evaluation methods.
Section four evaluates the operationperformance of listed agricultural companies. First, the existing literature on performance measurement of listed agricultural companies are reviewed; then, it describes the research methods and sample data; thirdly, it carries on empirical analysis from three aspects of overall, industry and company using EVA; finally, it proposes the corresponding conclusion and enlightenment.
Section five evaluates the social performance of listed agricultural companies. Firstlyit expounds the theoretical and practical basis of listed agricultural companies' evaluation standard; secondly, it discusses the plight of the social performance evaluation of enterprises from the domestic and foreign; thirdly, it constructs the social performance index system of listed agricultural companies based on the principle of design and selectionof the evaluation indexes, including the social contribution rate, the position guaranteeof agriculture as the foundation of the national economy, the social image of the enterprise; fourthly, it determines the weight of each index using AHP, and selects the listed agricultural companies in2011-2012as a sample to evaluatethe social performance; finally, the results of the social performance evaluation are analyzed.
Section six evaluates the ecological performance of listed agricultural companies. Firstly, it elaboratesthe ecological performance evaluation criteria of the domestic and foreign enterprises; secondly, analyses the difficulties of enterprise ecological performance evaluation from the setting of the evaluation objectives, the design of evaluation framework, the selection of evaluation index; thirdly, after determining the setting principles of ecological performance evaluation indexes, it constructs and defines the ecological performance indicators of listed agricultural companies, including:ecological product development anddesign, ecological utilization of resources, ecological clean production, ecological product sales and consumption; fourthly, it determines the weight of each index though using AHP, and chooses the listed agricultural companies in2010-2011as a sample to evaluate the social performance; finally, the results of the ecological performance evaluation are analyzed.
Section seven mainly concludesthe paperwith policyimplication. Through the empirical analysis, it is not difficult to find:in recent years, although listed agricultural companies' overall operating performance increases steadily year by year, the overall level is still low, and the operating performance difference is significant from different industries, different listed agricultural companies in the sameindustry. The social performance of listed agricultural companies improves slightly, but is still lower than the expectations of society, and the score of each index has changed little. The overall level of ecological performance in the listed agricultural companies is better, but is the different significantly from different industries and in the same industry in ecological product development and design, ecological utilization of resources, ecological clean production, ecological product sales and consumption, which indicates the performance has the large choice to improve. Based on this, the paper puts forward the corresponding policies and suggestions.
本文的研究思路主要是,首先在经济绩效评价的基础上结合社会绩效与生态绩效来构建农业上市公司绩效评价的综合模型；然后,从以上三个方面分别构建其指标评价体系,引入经济增加值(EVA)层次分析法以及相关的数理统计等方法对农业上市公司进行综合绩效评价；最后,基于上述分析,提出相应的提升策略和建议。本文的具体研究内容如下：
第一部分是导论,阐述农业上市公司综合绩效评价的研究背景、目的与意义,明确了本文的研究思路并提出了研究的主要内容,阐述了本文的研究方法,制定了研究的技术路线,并归纳了本文的主要创新点和不足。
第二部分是文献回顾,通过对国内外有关农业上市公司绩效评价的相关文献进行梳理和评价,以确定本文的研究方向
第三部分是农业上市公司绩效评价综合模型构建的理论基础,主要界定了农业上市公司和综合绩效等相关概念,阐述了农业上市公司绩效评价综合模型构建的理论依据及其诸多评价方法。
第四部分对农业上市公司经济绩效进行评价。首先对农业上市公司绩效测算的现有文献进行了回顾；然后,阐述了研究方法和获取的样本数据,最后,从总体、行业及公司三个层面基于经济增加值(EVA)进行了实证分析；最后,得出相应的结论与启示。
第五部分对农业上市公司社会绩效进行评价。首先阐述了企业社会绩效评价标准的理论与实践依据；并探讨了国内外企业社会绩效评价的困境,其次,引入层次分析评价法,从指标体系设计的原则和评价指标的选取构建了农业上市公司社会绩效指标体系,具体包括社会贡献率、农业基础地位保障、企业社会形象；再次,基于层次分析法确定各指标的权重,然后选取2011-2012年的农业上市公司为样本,对其社会绩效进行了评价,最后,对社会绩效评价结果进行了分析。
第六部分对农业上市公司生态绩效进行评价。首先阐述了国内外企业生态绩效的评价标准,并从评价目标的确定、评价框架的设计、评价指标的选取等方面探讨了企业绩效评价的困境；其次,引入层次分析评价法对生态绩效进行评价。在确定生态绩效指标评价的设置原则之后,构建并界定了农业上市公司生态绩效指标,具体包括：生态化产品研发与设计、生态化资源利用、生态化清洁生产、生态化产品销售与消费；再次,确定各指标的权重,然后选取2010-2011年的农业上市公司为样本,对其生态绩效进行了评价,最后,对生态绩效评价结果进行了分析。
第七部分主要探讨了本文的主要研究结论及相关的政策建议。通过实证分析,不难发现：近年来,尽管农业上市公司的整体经济绩效业绩逐年稳步提升,但是整体水平仍然较差,而且不同行业间、同行业内不同的农业上市公司之间经营业绩差异比较显著。农业上市公司的社会绩效稍有提升,但仍低于社会的期望水平,而且各项指标的得分高低变化不大,还在低水平徘徊。农业上市公司的生态绩效整体水平较好,但是不同行业及同一行业公司之间在生态化产品研发与设计、生态化资源利用、生态化清洁生产、生态化产品销售与消费方面绩效差异明显,而且各方面绩效都有很大的提升空间。基于此,本文提出相应的政策和建议。
Listed agricultural companies play the fundamental roles in increasing the farmers' income, promoting the agricultural science and technology progress, speeding up the adjustment of the agricultural industrial structure, effectively solving the problems about countryside, agriculture and farmers, promoting the construction of the new rural. However, although the government has stepped up to various political support to listed agricultural companies in our country in recent years, the overall operating performance of listed agricultural companies is still declining, which still has very big disparity comparing with the listed companies in other industries, and further improving their competitiveness. With the increasing of agricultural products quality and safety accidents, the gradually establishment of ecological civilization and the continuous attention to the agricultural products demand for health and the harmonious development of society, people from all walks of life require the listed agricultural companies to take the initiative to assume social responsibility and protect the ecological environment, disclosing their social responsibility information and the ecological environment information in time. Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation of listed agricultural companies on operation performance, social performance and ecological performance, in-depth discussion on key elements of the comprehensive performance of listed agricultural companies, help to explore the strategical ways to enhance their comprehensive performance, promoting their sustainable development, cultivating a large number of high-quality new farmers, speeding up the construction of modern agricultural management system. It is the theme that the study explores.
Mainly research thinking of this study is to firstly build a comprehensive model of performance evaluation on listed agricultural companies on the basis of operation performance evaluation combining social performance and environmental performance; Then, it respectively builds the index evaluation system from the above three aspects, and use the methods of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and relevant mathematical statistics to evaluate the performance of listed agricultural companies; Finally, according to the above analysis, it put forward the corresponding polices and suggestions. The specific contents of the research are as follows:
Section one is introduction. It expounds the research background, purpose and significance of the comprehensive performance evaluation on listed agricultural companies, clarifying the research thoughts and proposing the main content, elaborating the research methods, making the technical route, and summarizing the main innovation points and the deficiencies.
Section two is literature review. It reviews and evaluates the domestic and foreign literature about the performance evaluation of listed agricultural companies to determine the research direction of this research.
Section three is the theoretical foundation to construct the comprehensive model of performance evaluation of listed agricultural companies, mainly including defining the related concepts of listed agricultural companies and comprehensive performance, elaborating theoretical basis of the comprehensive model of listed agricultural companies for evaluating performance and the various evaluation methods.
Section four evaluates the operationperformance of listed agricultural companies. First, the existing literature on performance measurement of listed agricultural companies are reviewed; then, it describes the research methods and sample data; thirdly, it carries on empirical analysis from three aspects of overall, industry and company using EVA; finally, it proposes the corresponding conclusion and enlightenment.
Section five evaluates the social performance of listed agricultural companies. Firstlyit expounds the theoretical and practical basis of listed agricultural companies' evaluation standard; secondly, it discusses the plight of the social performance evaluation of enterprises from the domestic and foreign; thirdly, it constructs the social performance index system of listed agricultural companies based on the principle of design and selectionof the evaluation indexes, including the social contribution rate, the position guaranteeof agriculture as the foundation of the national economy, the social image of the enterprise; fourthly, it determines the weight of each index using AHP, and selects the listed agricultural companies in2011-2012as a sample to evaluatethe social performance; finally, the results of the social performance evaluation are analyzed.
Section six evaluates the ecological performance of listed agricultural companies. Firstly, it elaboratesthe ecological performance evaluation criteria of the domestic and foreign enterprises; secondly, analyses the difficulties of enterprise ecological performance evaluation from the setting of the evaluation objectives, the design of evaluation framework, the selection of evaluation index; thirdly, after determining the setting principles of ecological performance evaluation indexes, it constructs and defines the ecological performance indicators of listed agricultural companies, including:ecological product development anddesign, ecological utilization of resources, ecological clean production, ecological product sales and consumption; fourthly, it determines the weight of each index though using AHP, and chooses the listed agricultural companies in2010-2011as a sample to evaluate the social performance; finally, the results of the ecological performance evaluation are analyzed.
Section seven mainly concludesthe paperwith policyimplication. Through the empirical analysis, it is not difficult to find:in recent years, although listed agricultural companies' overall operating performance increases steadily year by year, the overall level is still low, and the operating performance difference is significant from different industries, different listed agricultural companies in the sameindustry. The social performance of listed agricultural companies improves slightly, but is still lower than the expectations of society, and the score of each index has changed little. The overall level of ecological performance in the listed agricultural companies is better, but is the different significantly from different industries and in the same industry in ecological product development and design, ecological utilization of resources, ecological clean production, ecological product sales and consumption, which indicates the performance has the large choice to improve. Based on this, the paper puts forward the corresponding policies and suggestions.
引文
[1]Alfred Rappaport. Creating Shareholder Value [M]. Free Press,1986:48-52.
[2]Benson Wier, James Hunton, Hassan R. Hassab Elnaby. Enterprise resource planning systems and non-financial performance incentives:the joint impact on corporate performance [J]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2007(9): 165-190.
[3]Carlos Serrano-Cinca, Yolanda Fuertes-Calle'n, Cecilio Mar-Molinero.Measuring DEA efficiency in Internet companies [J]. Decision Support Systems,2005(38): 557-573.
[4]Carroll A B.A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance [J]. The Academy of management Review,1979(4):497-505.
[5]Clarkson, M.B.E. A risk based model of stakeholder theory [J]. Proceedings of the second Toronto conference on Stakeholder Theory, Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto,1995,20(1):691-718.
[6]Daniel B. Waggoner, Andy D. Neely, Mike P. Kennerley. The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems:an interdisciplinary review [J]. International Journal of Production Economics,1999(4):60-61.
[7]Friedman M, Mackey J, Rodgers J. Rethinking the social resoponsibility of business [EB/OL]. [2005-10-02].http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html.
[8]Fuh-Hwa Franklin Liu, Hao Hsuan Peng. Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights [J].Computers & Operations Research,2008(5):1624-1637.
[9]Gholam R. Amin, M. Toloo. Finding the most efficient DMUs in DEA:an improved integrated model [J].Computers& Industrial Engineering,2007(52):71-77.
[10]Griffin,Jennifer J., John F. Mahon. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate [J].Business and society,1997,36 (1):5-31.
[11]Grossmang, Krueger A. Economic growth and the environment [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,110(2):353-337.
[12]Hyeonju Seol, Jeewon Choi, Gwangman Park, Yongtae Park. A framework for benchmarking service process using data envelopment analysis and decision tree [J]. Expert Systems with Applications,2007,32(2):432-440.
[13]Igalens J, Gond J. Measuring corporate social performance in france:A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data[J] Journal of Business Ethics,2005,56 (2).
[14]Jackson Martindell. The Scientific Appraisal of Management:A Study of the Business Practices of Well-managed Companies [M]. Publisher:New York, Harper,1950: 208-217.
[15]John Hanlon and Ken Pesanell. Wall Street's Contribution to Management Accounting: the Stern Stwe Art EVA Financial Management System [J]. Management Accounting Research,1998 (6):76-84.
[16]Juha-Pekka Kallunki, Erkki K. Laitinen, Hanna Silvola. Impact of enterprise resource planning systems on management control systems and firm performance [J]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2011(12):20-39.
[17]Junming Liu, Kaoru Tone. A multistage method to measure efficiency and its application to Japanese banking industry [Jj.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,2008 (2):75-91.
[18]Kaplan, R. S.,Norton, D. P.. Balanced Scorecard[M].北京：机械工业出版社,1996.
[19]Majid Zerafat Angiz L., Adli Mustafa, Ali Emrouznejad. Ranking efficient decision-making units in data envelopment analysis using fuzzy concept [J].Computers & Industrial Engineering,2010,59 (4):712-719.
[20]Nuria Ramon, Jose L.Ruiz, Inmaculada Sirvent. A multiplier bound approach to assess relative efficiency in DEA without slacks [J].European Journal of Operational Research,2010,203:261-269.
[21]Sergey Samoilenko, Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson. Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the sample heterogeneity with cluster analysis and decision trees [J].Expert Systems with Applications,2008,34 (2):1568-1581.
[22]Toshiyuki Sueyoshi, Mika Goto. Methodological comparison between DEA (data envelopment analysis) and DEA-DA (discriminate analysis) from theperspective of bankruptcy assessment [J].European Journal of Operational Research,2009(199): 561-575.
[23]Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model [J]. Academy of Management Review,1985,10 (4):758-769.
[24]Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited [J]. Academy of Management Review,1991,16(4):691-718.
[25]安迪·尼利.企业绩效评估[M].北京：中信出版社,2004.
[26]彼得·德鲁克.管理的实践[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2005：119-120.
[27]彼得·F·德鲁克.公司绩效测评[M].北京：中国人民人学出版社,1999.
[28]彼得·德鲁克.管理使命、责任、实务(使命篇)[J].王永贵,译.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[29]曹永军.上市公司绩效评价——以双汇公司为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2004.
[30]陈宏辉.企业利益相关者的利益要求：理论与实证研究[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004.
[31]陈静,林逢春,曾智超.企业环境绩效模糊综合评价[J].环境污染与防治,2006(28)1：37-40.
[32]陈静,林逢春.国际企业环境绩效评估指标体系与我国相关法规相容性分析[J].环境保护,2004(11)：58-61.
[33]陈林.农业上市公司绩效评价及影响因素分析[D].华中农业大学硕士学位论文,2012.
[34]陈玲,李永泉.中国农业上市公司绩效评价[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(4)：416-422.
[35]邓咏梅.汽车行业上市公司经营绩效评价[J].科技进步与对策,2004(11)：104-106.
[36]丁琦,王要武和徐鹏举.基于DEA-FCE的房地产上市公司绩效综合评价[J].系统管理学报,2011(3)：196-205.
[37]弗雷德里克.泰勒.科学管理原理[M].马风才译.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[38]弗里曼.战略管理：利益相关者方法[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006：102-103.
[39]伏润民,常斌,缪小林.我国省对县(市)一般性转移支付的绩效评价——基于DEA二次相对效益模型的研究[J].经济研究,2008(11)：62-73.
[40]顾文炯.用因子分析方法对农业上市公司进行财务评价[J].安徽大学学报,2005(29)：136-139.
[41]韩锁昌,王兵,侯军岐.农业上市公司财务绩效分析[J].安徽农业科学,2007(35)：7685-7686.
[42]何枫.基于DEA和SFA评价的企业效率与企业价值之联结性研究——以中曰电器行业上市公司为样本[J].管理学报,2009(7)：873-878.
[43]何慧婷,柳建民.中国上市公司财务指标的主因素分析[J].科技管理研究,2005(5)：138-141.
[44]何平林,石亚东,李涛.环境绩效的数据包络分析方法——一项基于我国火力发电厂的案例研究[J].会计研究,2012(2)：11-17.
[45]何艳桃,王礼力.中国农业经营组织的生态绩效评估方法研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2008(14)4：45-49.
[46]何宜强.农业上市公司绩效综合评价的实证分析[J].江西财经大学学报,2005(5)：51-53.
[47]胡健,李向阳,孙金花.中小企业环境绩效评价理论与方法研究[J].科研管理,2009,30(2)：150-156.
[48]胡曲应.环境绩效评价国内外研究动态述评[J].科技进步与对策,2011(28)10：156-159.
[49]胡星辉.我国农业上市公司综合绩效研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2011.
[50]乐菲菲,朱孔来,杨莉.利益相关者视角下的高技术上市公司绩效评价研究[J].财经理论与实践,2011(7)：57-62.
[51]李洪,张德明,曹秀英,张学岷.EVA绩效评价指标有效性的实证研究——基于454家沪市上市公司2004年度的数据[J].中国软科学,2006(10)：150-157.
[52]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].人民出版社,2005.
[53]林逢春,陈静.企业环境绩效评估指标体系及模糊综合指数评估模型[J].华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006(06)：59-66.
[54]林杰,郑循刚.基于熵权TOPSIS法的房地产上市公司绩效评价[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008(3)：14-15.
[55]林乐芬.中国农业上市公司绩效的实证分析[J].中国农业观察,2004,6：66-70.
[56]林子尧,李新春.公司创业投资与上市公司绩效：基于中国数据的实证研究[J].南方经济,2012(6)：3-14.
[57]刘蓓蓓,俞钦钦,毕军等.基于利益相关者理论的企业环境绩效影响因素研究[J].中国人口资源与环境,2009(19)6：80-84
[58]刘伟.中国农业上市公司绩效评价及成长机理研究[D].吉林大学博士论文,2007.
[59]卢代富.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M].北京：法律出版社,2002：132-140.
[60]马爱平.科技进步对农业增长贡献率提高[J].科技日报,2013-02-06(三版).
[61]孟令杰,丁竹.基于DEA的农业上市公司效率分析[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(6)：39-43.
[62]孟媛,杨扬,陈敬良.企业社会责任和企业社会绩效评价的研究[J].科技与管理,2009,11(3)：77-80.
[63]彭熠,邵桂荣.国有股权比重、股权制衡与中国农业上市公司经营绩效——兼论农业上市公司国有股减持方案[J].中国农村经济,2009(6)：73-83.
[64]润灵公益事业咨询升级社会责任报告评价体系[EB/OL].和讯网,http://stock. hexun. com.
[65]宋子义,邹玉娜.平衡计分卡在企业环境绩效评价中的应用[J].经济纵横,2010(11)：102-105.
[66]孙承飞.嵌入社会责任的农业企业绩效评价研究[J]重庆科技学院学报,2010,23(3)：83-85.
[67]陶春海,基于因子分析法的企业经营绩效评价——以我国医药上市公司为例[J].江西社会科学,2012(7)：217-222.
[68]田利辉.国有股对上市公司绩效影响的U型曲线和政府股东两手论[J].经济研究,2005(10)48-58.
[69]王西星.水电上市公司经营绩效时序多指标综合评价[J].统计与决策,2008(14)：68-70.
[70]王喜平.中国农业上市公司的绩效评价[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(1)：531-534.
[71]熊正德,刘永辉,钟宝贵.基于CCA-DEA的商业银行绩效评价理论及其实证研究[J].当代财经,2008(2)：60-64.
[72]徐本华.企业社会绩效[J].中外管理,2010(5)：38-41.
[73]徐雪高,马九杰.农业上市公司的经营绩效评价研究[J].贵州社会科学,2008(7)：86-88.
[74]徐雪高.农业上市公司经营业绩的综合评价[J].贵州财经学院学报,2006(5)：38-42.
[75]许彪,梁宇鹏.农业上市公司经营绩效成因诊断[J].农业技术经济,2002(1)：27-29.
[76]许承明,濮卫东.内部人持股与上市公司绩效研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2003(11)：123-126.
[77]杨皓,张讯讯.基于权重约束DEA模型的钢铁公司绩效评价[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2009(3)：107-111.
[78]杨红娟,郭彬彬.基于DEA方法的低碳供应链绩效评价探讨[J].经济问题探索,2010(9)：31-35.
[79]杨军芳,郑少锋.2006-2008年农业上市公司经营绩效评价及比较[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2010(5)：74-81
[80]杨文选,李杰.企业生态化及其实现机制的探讨[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009,11(3)：28-31.
[81]杨印生,张充.基于DEA-Benchmarking模型的农业上市公司投资绩效分析[J].农业技术经济,2009(6)：91-95.
[82]殷明德.EVA：新概念新思路[J].前沿,2010(2)：85-86.
[83]尹开国,李庚秦,陈华东.公司社会绩效理论与经验研究评述[J].科学决策,2011(1)：85-94.
[84]于健南,石本仁.基于因子分析的上市家族企业公司治理绩效研究[J].产业经济研究,2008(5)：53-60.
[85]袁康来,万家元.我国农业上市公司业绩综合评价分析[J].科学决策,2009(4)：58-65
[86]袁雪.基于因子分析法的山西上市公司绩效评估[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(4)：53-54.
[87]岳树岭.创业板上市公司绩效评价实证研究[J].求索,2012(7)：76-78.
[88]张仁寿,黄小军,王朋.基于DEA的文化产业绩效评价实证研究——以广东等13个省市2007年投入产出数据为例[J].中国软科学,2011(2)：183-192.
[89]张胜荣,吴声怡.农业企业社会责任的特殊性及实现路径[J].江苏农业科学,2013,41(1)：418-420.
[90]张涛.云南上市公司绩效和竞争力分析[J].云南财经大学学报,2010(6)：76-77.
[91]赵海燕,陈加奎.基于超效率DEA的高新技术企业知识管理绩效评价研究[J].科技进步与对策,2010(4)：153-156.
[92]赵俊芳,孟斯琴.农业上市公司绩效评价体系研究[J].内蒙古统计,2010(2)：35-36.
[93]郑瑞强.基于EVA视角的我国农业上市公司绩效评价分析[J].农业技术经济,2011(6)：95-102.
[94]周佰成,秦江波,张倩.基于EVA方法的创业板上市公司绩效评价探讨[J].管理理论与实践,2011(12)：67-74.
[95]朱建军.层次分析法的若干问题研究及应用[D].东北大学博士论文.2005.
[96]朱丽莉,王怀明.农业上市公司经营绩效的因子分析[J].南京农业大学学报,2004(4)：39-43.
[97]庄晋财,黄凡,程李梅.企业集群生态绩效评价方法及其运用——以广西宾阳再生纸集群为例[J].云南财经大学学报,2009,136(2)：124-131.
[2]Benson Wier, James Hunton, Hassan R. Hassab Elnaby. Enterprise resource planning systems and non-financial performance incentives:the joint impact on corporate performance [J]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2007(9): 165-190.
[3]Carlos Serrano-Cinca, Yolanda Fuertes-Calle'n, Cecilio Mar-Molinero.Measuring DEA efficiency in Internet companies [J]. Decision Support Systems,2005(38): 557-573.
[4]Carroll A B.A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance [J]. The Academy of management Review,1979(4):497-505.
[5]Clarkson, M.B.E. A risk based model of stakeholder theory [J]. Proceedings of the second Toronto conference on Stakeholder Theory, Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto,1995,20(1):691-718.
[6]Daniel B. Waggoner, Andy D. Neely, Mike P. Kennerley. The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems:an interdisciplinary review [J]. International Journal of Production Economics,1999(4):60-61.
[7]Friedman M, Mackey J, Rodgers J. Rethinking the social resoponsibility of business [EB/OL]. [2005-10-02].http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html.
[8]Fuh-Hwa Franklin Liu, Hao Hsuan Peng. Ranking of units on the DEA frontier with common weights [J].Computers & Operations Research,2008(5):1624-1637.
[9]Gholam R. Amin, M. Toloo. Finding the most efficient DMUs in DEA:an improved integrated model [J].Computers& Industrial Engineering,2007(52):71-77.
[10]Griffin,Jennifer J., John F. Mahon. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate [J].Business and society,1997,36 (1):5-31.
[11]Grossmang, Krueger A. Economic growth and the environment [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1995,110(2):353-337.
[12]Hyeonju Seol, Jeewon Choi, Gwangman Park, Yongtae Park. A framework for benchmarking service process using data envelopment analysis and decision tree [J]. Expert Systems with Applications,2007,32(2):432-440.
[13]Igalens J, Gond J. Measuring corporate social performance in france:A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data[J] Journal of Business Ethics,2005,56 (2).
[14]Jackson Martindell. The Scientific Appraisal of Management:A Study of the Business Practices of Well-managed Companies [M]. Publisher:New York, Harper,1950: 208-217.
[15]John Hanlon and Ken Pesanell. Wall Street's Contribution to Management Accounting: the Stern Stwe Art EVA Financial Management System [J]. Management Accounting Research,1998 (6):76-84.
[16]Juha-Pekka Kallunki, Erkki K. Laitinen, Hanna Silvola. Impact of enterprise resource planning systems on management control systems and firm performance [J]. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,2011(12):20-39.
[17]Junming Liu, Kaoru Tone. A multistage method to measure efficiency and its application to Japanese banking industry [Jj.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,2008 (2):75-91.
[18]Kaplan, R. S.,Norton, D. P.. Balanced Scorecard[M].北京：机械工业出版社,1996.
[19]Majid Zerafat Angiz L., Adli Mustafa, Ali Emrouznejad. Ranking efficient decision-making units in data envelopment analysis using fuzzy concept [J].Computers & Industrial Engineering,2010,59 (4):712-719.
[20]Nuria Ramon, Jose L.Ruiz, Inmaculada Sirvent. A multiplier bound approach to assess relative efficiency in DEA without slacks [J].European Journal of Operational Research,2010,203:261-269.
[21]Sergey Samoilenko, Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson. Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the sample heterogeneity with cluster analysis and decision trees [J].Expert Systems with Applications,2008,34 (2):1568-1581.
[22]Toshiyuki Sueyoshi, Mika Goto. Methodological comparison between DEA (data envelopment analysis) and DEA-DA (discriminate analysis) from theperspective of bankruptcy assessment [J].European Journal of Operational Research,2009(199): 561-575.
[23]Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model [J]. Academy of Management Review,1985,10 (4):758-769.
[24]Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited [J]. Academy of Management Review,1991,16(4):691-718.
[25]安迪·尼利.企业绩效评估[M].北京：中信出版社,2004.
[26]彼得·德鲁克.管理的实践[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2005：119-120.
[27]彼得·F·德鲁克.公司绩效测评[M].北京：中国人民人学出版社,1999.
[28]彼得·德鲁克.管理使命、责任、实务(使命篇)[J].王永贵,译.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[29]曹永军.上市公司绩效评价——以双汇公司为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2004.
[30]陈宏辉.企业利益相关者的利益要求：理论与实证研究[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004.
[31]陈静,林逢春,曾智超.企业环境绩效模糊综合评价[J].环境污染与防治,2006(28)1：37-40.
[32]陈静,林逢春.国际企业环境绩效评估指标体系与我国相关法规相容性分析[J].环境保护,2004(11)：58-61.
[33]陈林.农业上市公司绩效评价及影响因素分析[D].华中农业大学硕士学位论文,2012.
[34]陈玲,李永泉.中国农业上市公司绩效评价[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(4)：416-422.
[35]邓咏梅.汽车行业上市公司经营绩效评价[J].科技进步与对策,2004(11)：104-106.
[36]丁琦,王要武和徐鹏举.基于DEA-FCE的房地产上市公司绩效综合评价[J].系统管理学报,2011(3)：196-205.
[37]弗雷德里克.泰勒.科学管理原理[M].马风才译.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[38]弗里曼.战略管理：利益相关者方法[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006：102-103.
[39]伏润民,常斌,缪小林.我国省对县(市)一般性转移支付的绩效评价——基于DEA二次相对效益模型的研究[J].经济研究,2008(11)：62-73.
[40]顾文炯.用因子分析方法对农业上市公司进行财务评价[J].安徽大学学报,2005(29)：136-139.
[41]韩锁昌,王兵,侯军岐.农业上市公司财务绩效分析[J].安徽农业科学,2007(35)：7685-7686.
[42]何枫.基于DEA和SFA评价的企业效率与企业价值之联结性研究——以中曰电器行业上市公司为样本[J].管理学报,2009(7)：873-878.
[43]何慧婷,柳建民.中国上市公司财务指标的主因素分析[J].科技管理研究,2005(5)：138-141.
[44]何平林,石亚东,李涛.环境绩效的数据包络分析方法——一项基于我国火力发电厂的案例研究[J].会计研究,2012(2)：11-17.
[45]何艳桃,王礼力.中国农业经营组织的生态绩效评估方法研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2008(14)4：45-49.
[46]何宜强.农业上市公司绩效综合评价的实证分析[J].江西财经大学学报,2005(5)：51-53.
[47]胡健,李向阳,孙金花.中小企业环境绩效评价理论与方法研究[J].科研管理,2009,30(2)：150-156.
[48]胡曲应.环境绩效评价国内外研究动态述评[J].科技进步与对策,2011(28)10：156-159.
[49]胡星辉.我国农业上市公司综合绩效研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2011.
[50]乐菲菲,朱孔来,杨莉.利益相关者视角下的高技术上市公司绩效评价研究[J].财经理论与实践,2011(7)：57-62.
[51]李洪,张德明,曹秀英,张学岷.EVA绩效评价指标有效性的实证研究——基于454家沪市上市公司2004年度的数据[J].中国软科学,2006(10)：150-157.
[52]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].人民出版社,2005.
[53]林逢春,陈静.企业环境绩效评估指标体系及模糊综合指数评估模型[J].华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006(06)：59-66.
[54]林杰,郑循刚.基于熵权TOPSIS法的房地产上市公司绩效评价[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008(3)：14-15.
[55]林乐芬.中国农业上市公司绩效的实证分析[J].中国农业观察,2004,6：66-70.
[56]林子尧,李新春.公司创业投资与上市公司绩效：基于中国数据的实证研究[J].南方经济,2012(6)：3-14.
[57]刘蓓蓓,俞钦钦,毕军等.基于利益相关者理论的企业环境绩效影响因素研究[J].中国人口资源与环境,2009(19)6：80-84
[58]刘伟.中国农业上市公司绩效评价及成长机理研究[D].吉林大学博士论文,2007.
[59]卢代富.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M].北京：法律出版社,2002：132-140.
[60]马爱平.科技进步对农业增长贡献率提高[J].科技日报,2013-02-06(三版).
[61]孟令杰,丁竹.基于DEA的农业上市公司效率分析[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2005(6)：39-43.
[62]孟媛,杨扬,陈敬良.企业社会责任和企业社会绩效评价的研究[J].科技与管理,2009,11(3)：77-80.
[63]彭熠,邵桂荣.国有股权比重、股权制衡与中国农业上市公司经营绩效——兼论农业上市公司国有股减持方案[J].中国农村经济,2009(6)：73-83.
[64]润灵公益事业咨询升级社会责任报告评价体系[EB/OL].和讯网,http://stock. hexun. com.
[65]宋子义,邹玉娜.平衡计分卡在企业环境绩效评价中的应用[J].经济纵横,2010(11)：102-105.
[66]孙承飞.嵌入社会责任的农业企业绩效评价研究[J]重庆科技学院学报,2010,23(3)：83-85.
[67]陶春海,基于因子分析法的企业经营绩效评价——以我国医药上市公司为例[J].江西社会科学,2012(7)：217-222.
[68]田利辉.国有股对上市公司绩效影响的U型曲线和政府股东两手论[J].经济研究,2005(10)48-58.
[69]王西星.水电上市公司经营绩效时序多指标综合评价[J].统计与决策,2008(14)：68-70.
[70]王喜平.中国农业上市公司的绩效评价[J].中国农学通报,2008,24(1)：531-534.
[71]熊正德,刘永辉,钟宝贵.基于CCA-DEA的商业银行绩效评价理论及其实证研究[J].当代财经,2008(2)：60-64.
[72]徐本华.企业社会绩效[J].中外管理,2010(5)：38-41.
[73]徐雪高,马九杰.农业上市公司的经营绩效评价研究[J].贵州社会科学,2008(7)：86-88.
[74]徐雪高.农业上市公司经营业绩的综合评价[J].贵州财经学院学报,2006(5)：38-42.
[75]许彪,梁宇鹏.农业上市公司经营绩效成因诊断[J].农业技术经济,2002(1)：27-29.
[76]许承明,濮卫东.内部人持股与上市公司绩效研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2003(11)：123-126.
[77]杨皓,张讯讯.基于权重约束DEA模型的钢铁公司绩效评价[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2009(3)：107-111.
[78]杨红娟,郭彬彬.基于DEA方法的低碳供应链绩效评价探讨[J].经济问题探索,2010(9)：31-35.
[79]杨军芳,郑少锋.2006-2008年农业上市公司经营绩效评价及比较[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2010(5)：74-81
[80]杨文选,李杰.企业生态化及其实现机制的探讨[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009,11(3)：28-31.
[81]杨印生,张充.基于DEA-Benchmarking模型的农业上市公司投资绩效分析[J].农业技术经济,2009(6)：91-95.
[82]殷明德.EVA：新概念新思路[J].前沿,2010(2)：85-86.
[83]尹开国,李庚秦,陈华东.公司社会绩效理论与经验研究评述[J].科学决策,2011(1)：85-94.
[84]于健南,石本仁.基于因子分析的上市家族企业公司治理绩效研究[J].产业经济研究,2008(5)：53-60.
[85]袁康来,万家元.我国农业上市公司业绩综合评价分析[J].科学决策,2009(4)：58-65
[86]袁雪.基于因子分析法的山西上市公司绩效评估[J].山西财经大学学报,2009(4)：53-54.
[87]岳树岭.创业板上市公司绩效评价实证研究[J].求索,2012(7)：76-78.
[88]张仁寿,黄小军,王朋.基于DEA的文化产业绩效评价实证研究——以广东等13个省市2007年投入产出数据为例[J].中国软科学,2011(2)：183-192.
[89]张胜荣,吴声怡.农业企业社会责任的特殊性及实现路径[J].江苏农业科学,2013,41(1)：418-420.
[90]张涛.云南上市公司绩效和竞争力分析[J].云南财经大学学报,2010(6)：76-77.
[91]赵海燕,陈加奎.基于超效率DEA的高新技术企业知识管理绩效评价研究[J].科技进步与对策,2010(4)：153-156.
[92]赵俊芳,孟斯琴.农业上市公司绩效评价体系研究[J].内蒙古统计,2010(2)：35-36.
[93]郑瑞强.基于EVA视角的我国农业上市公司绩效评价分析[J].农业技术经济,2011(6)：95-102.
[94]周佰成,秦江波,张倩.基于EVA方法的创业板上市公司绩效评价探讨[J].管理理论与实践,2011(12)：67-74.
[95]朱建军.层次分析法的若干问题研究及应用[D].东北大学博士论文.2005.
[96]朱丽莉,王怀明.农业上市公司经营绩效的因子分析[J].南京农业大学学报,2004(4)：39-43.
[97]庄晋财,黄凡,程李梅.企业集群生态绩效评价方法及其运用——以广西宾阳再生纸集群为例[J].云南财经大学学报,2009,136(2)：124-131.