This paper examines the value of non-financial performance measures as indicators of long-term organizational health. While traditional financial accounting metrics such as earnings and accounting returns capture current firm performance, they often fail to reflect future prospects. The paper argues that non-financial drivers — including customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, innovation, and quality — provide more meaningful signals about where a firm is headed. Drawing on Ittner and Larcker's (2000) research, the paper also addresses the challenges of quantifying intangible assets and emphasizes that effective performance measurement must be dynamic, strategically aligned, and continuously reassessed as competitive environments evolve.
Traditional financial accounting measures such as earnings and accounting returns may encapsulate the current performance of a firm, but they do not always paint a realistic picture of its future health. Non-financial drivers of value such as customer and employee satisfaction, innovation, and quality are better indications of the long-term prosperity of the firm. Financial measures such as earnings show where the firm "is" or "has been," while non-financial performance measures such as innovation show "where it is going."
By addressing issues pertaining to employee and customer satisfaction, the firm also gains a sense of what it is doing right and what areas it should improve upon in a specific fashion. A firm might have high earnings according to traditional accounting measures, but if its employee satisfaction is low, this could indicate trouble on the horizon. Low customer satisfaction is another red flag: the firm might be doing well because of external economic factors that are temporary, but once a competitor emerges that can provide a better product or service, those earnings will decline.
It is admittedly "difficult to quantify intangible assets in financial terms" such as "intellectual capital and customer loyalty," but in many industries these are better indicators of future success (Ittner & Larcker 2000). Investments in research and development or customer satisfaction programs may show promise, but traditional accounting measures — partly because of legal restrictions — place an emphasis on quarterly or annual returns (Ittner & Larcker 2000).
Under U.S. accounting rules, research and development expenditures and marketing costs must be charged in the period they are incurred, thereby reducing profits. However, successful research improves future profits if it can be brought to market (Ittner & Larcker 2000). This mismatch between the timing of expenditure and the realization of benefit is one of the core reasons why financial statements alone are insufficient for evaluating a firm's true long-term potential.
"Subjectivity and reliability issues in non-financial metrics"
"The choice of measures must be linked to factors such as corporate strategy, value drivers, organizational objectives, and the competitive environment. In addition, companies should remember that performance measurement choice is a dynamic process — measures may be appropriate today, but the system needs to be continually reassessed as strategies and competitive environments evolve" (Ittner & Larcker 2000). This perspective underscores the importance of treating performance measurement as an ongoing managerial responsibility rather than a fixed administrative exercise.
Non-financial performance measures, though more difficult to quantify than traditional accounting figures, offer superior insight into where a firm is headed. Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, innovation capacity, and quality are not peripheral concerns — they are core value drivers that shape long-term competitiveness. Organizations that rely exclusively on financial metrics risk missing early warning signs of decline and opportunities for strategic improvement. Effective performance management requires a balanced, dynamic approach that integrates both financial and non-financial indicators and evolves alongside the firm's strategy and competitive environment.
You’re 84% 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.