This paper examines Enager Industries, a conglomerate divided into three autonomous divisions operating in fundamentally different sectors. It evaluates management's use of return on assets (ROA) as a uniform performance benchmark across all divisions and argues that this approach is analytically unsound. Because ROA varies significantly by industry type—particularly between capital-intensive manufacturing operations and asset-light services firms—applying a single standard to disparate divisions produces misleading comparisons. The paper calls for differentiated performance criteria that reflect each division's economic realities, including distinct expectations for both ROA and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT).
As companies absorb one another in an increasingly interconnected global economy, Enager Industries demonstrates some of the accounting and management complexities that arise when a firm moves far beyond its original scope. As currently structured, the company is divided into three essentially autonomous divisions. This paper examines the complexities involved in analyzing such a company from both an internal and an external perspective.
The three divisions are so different in their focus that they might reasonably be regarded as separate entities, connected only by a shared business philosophy. Because each division operates under distinct rules and standard procedures, there should logically be different criteria for success across each one. However, management has generally proven insufficiently flexible in establishing differentiated criteria. Senior managers assess divisional performance primarily through a single metric: return on assets, or ROA.
While a uniform comparative approach might have initial, superficial appeal, any closer analysis reveals its shortcomings. Treating each division by the same standard is much like comparing apples to oranges—or expecting every child in a family to be interchangeable in skills, talent, and drive.
Return on assets (ROA) is a measure of how much earnings a company generates from a given amount of invested capital. It answers the question: how many dollars of profit can the company produce for each dollar of assets it controls? This makes ROA a useful tool for comparing companies that compete within the same industry. However, it is important to recognize that ROA can—and indeed should—vary widely depending on the type of industry and other contextual factors, such as the general economic climate at any given time.
Before drawing any performance conclusions from ROA figures, management must account for these inherent variations. Failing to do so risks penalizing well-run divisions simply because their industry structure requires large asset bases.
The following explains why using ROA to make comparisons across fundamentally different types of industries is both unrealistic and inadvisable—regardless of whether those industries happen to be housed within the same parent company, a fact that the management of Enager Industries appears to have overlooked.
Capital-intensive industries—such as railroads and nuclear power plants—will naturally yield a low ROA because they must own expensive assets simply to conduct business. When high maintenance costs are added, earnings are reduced further, depressing ROA even more. By contrast, asset-light operations such as software companies or job-placement firms will post high ROA figures because their required asset base is minimal. As one financial reference summarizes: ROA tells you "what the company can do with what it's got"—and that capacity differs profoundly across sectors.
Given this well-established dynamic, it is difficult to understand why Enager's management team would assume that comparable ROA figures are a reasonable expectation across all three of its divisions. The conglomerate structure of the firm makes such a uniform standard particularly problematic.
Enager's Professional Services Division—like comparable firms throughout the services sector—carries essentially no fixed assets and requires only a very low level of working capital. Although this division recorded the lowest earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), it yielded the highest ROA. This outcome contrasts sharply with the results from the Consumer Products Division, the company's original unit, which mirrors the trajectory of traditional American heavy manufacturing.
Like any heavy-industry operation, the Consumer Products Division must maintain both high levels of fixed assets and substantial working capital. Its ROA will therefore differ significantly from that of the services division—not because it is managed less effectively, but because the economics of its industry require a fundamentally different asset structure. Judging both divisions by the same ROA standard misrepresents the performance of each. For a deeper understanding of how EBIT and related metrics function within divisional performance evaluation, standard managerial accounting frameworks provide useful context.
"Case for differentiated divisional performance benchmarks"
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.