Companies celebrated for strong financial performance may actually be inefficient once their environmental impact is taken into account, according to new research from the University of Surrey. 

The study, published in the European Journal of Operational Research, shows that firms that appear highly efficient at generating revenue can perform far worse when their environmental footprint are included in the calculation.  

To tackle this problem, researchers developed a new way to measure “sustainable corporate efficiency”, combining traditional financial metrics with environmental data such as energy consumption, carbon emissions and revenues generated from environmentally friendly products and services.  

Dr Menelaos Tasiou, co-author of the study and Senior Lecturer in Finance at the University of Surrey, said: “Businesses have long been judged on how efficiently they turn resources into profit. But if those profits come with large environmental costs, the picture changes completely. What we show is that true efficiency means generating revenue while also reducing the environmental damage caused by production. In other words, profitability alone can mask how wasteful a business really is when environmental costs are considered. “ 

The research analysed more than 2,800 publicly listed companies across 61 countries between 2010 and 2022, creating one of the largest global datasets measuring how sustainable companies are, when both financial performance and environmental impact are assessed together.  

The team combined company financial records, in alignment with the green economy (defined as a low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive economy), with environmental disclosures such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. They then applied a machine learning technique known as Convexified Efficiency Analysis Trees (CEAT) to estimate how efficiently companies convert resources into revenue while minimising pollution.  

Unlike older approaches, the method models the reality that production creates both desirable outputs, such as revenue, and undesirable ones, such as emissions. This allows companies to be compared on how well they balance profit with environmental performance.  

The results found a moderate link between financial efficiency and environmental efficiency, meaning many firms that are strong financially are not necessarily good at managing their environmental impact.  

The study also found large differences across industries and countries. Firms operating in sectors with high emissions, such as manufacturing and energy, often lagged behind leaders that were better at reducing carbon intensity while maintaining revenue.  

Dr Tasiou continued: “Measuring efficiency in this broader way can help investors, regulators and policymakers identify companies that are genuinely prepared for a low carbon economy. Stronger management capability plays a key role. Firms with more capable management teams were more likely to balance profitability with environmental responsibility, suggesting that leadership decisions can strongly influence sustainable performance.  

“As governments push towards net zero and investors scrutinise environmental performance more closely, companies that fail to integrate sustainability into their operations risk falling behind.” 

If you’re among the 93% of people who struggle with perfectionism at work, new research suggests that your experience may depend less on your own high standards and more on whether those standards meet your supervisor’s expectations. 

Researchers from the University of Florida Warrington College of Business found that whether perfectionism helps or harms employees depends largely on whether employees’ personal standards align with their supervisors’ expectations. 

Specifically, they looked at the connection between employees’ self-oriented perfectionism, or the expectations of flawlessness they set for themselves, and supervisors’ other-oriented perfectionism, which reflects the extent to which they set excessively high standards for and critically evaluate their employees’ performance. 

Using data from more than 350 employees and about 100 supervisors, the researchers found that perfectionism’s impact depends on whether employees’ standards align with what their supervisors expect and how clearly those expectations are understood. 

When employees’ personal standards are aligned with their supervisors’ expectations, they tend to experience less role ambiguity, meaning they have less uncertainty about the expectations and standards for their role, why those standards matter and the consequences of not meeting them. This clarity in their work is linked to better performance, lower burnout and higher job satisfaction. 

“Problems between employees and their supervisors are more likely to arise when these expectations don’t match,” explained Brian Swider, Beth Ayers McCague Family Professor.

The most difficult situation occurs, Swider and his colleagues found, is when supervisors expect higher levels of perfectionism than employees expect from themselves. In these cases, employees reported greater uncertainty about their roles, along with worse work outcomes including higher burnout and lower job satisfaction.

“If you’re an employee who struggles with perfectionism at work, our findings suggest that understanding your supervisor’s expectations may be just as important as managing your own tendencies towards perfectionism,” Swider said. “Talking to your supervisor about priorities, standards and how your performance will be evaluated can help reduce uncertainty and ensure you both share a clear understanding of what success looks like.”

The researchers have similar recommendations for employers: help your employees by clarifying expectations through regular feedback and performance conversations to reduce role ambiguity, as doing so can provide employees with a better understanding of role expectations and enhance mutual understanding of those standards.

The researchers also recommend that organizations should consider how employees and supervisors are paired, as mismatched expectations can increase stress, reduce job satisfaction and ultimately impact performance. 

The research, “The influence of employee-supervisor perfectionism (in)congruence on employees: a configurational approach,” is published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 

In a study involving a real-world grocery store, in-aisle displays meant to boost product visibility were in fact associated with reduced sales and purchase-related behaviors, with results amplified for shopping cart users.

Mathias Streicher of Austria’s Department of Management and Marketing presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One.

Retailers often place extra product displays directly in aisles in an effort to boost visibility and enhance sales. However, in-aisle displays could increase spatial crowding, which occurs when people feel restricted in their freedom of movement and has been linked with purchase-avoidance tendencies. To help clarify if in-aisle displays result in more purchases, Streicher conducted several experiments with a partnering grocery store.

First, they tracked weekly sales for an aisle containing household, baby and pet staples over a six-week period during which five product-display stands were placed mid-aisle. The stands were then removed for six weeks. Comparison of sales data showed that in fact, sales increased after removal of the in-aisle displays, with the average weekly percentage of total store revenue from that aisle rising from 4.33 to 4.83 percent.

A second in-store experiment in the same aisle showed that people using shopping carts also stopped and physically handled products—behavior previously linked with sales—about 7.05 times more often when in-aisle displays were absent than when they were present. Non-cart shoppers also touched products more often when displays were removed, but the effect was smaller (3.81 times).

Finally, in an online experiment, 200 participants imagined using a shopping cart or basket while viewing photographs of the same aisle from the in-store experiments, with or without in-aisle displays. They tended to rate the aisle with displays as more crowded and reported lower levels of perceived control for aisles with displays than those without, with effects amplified for imagined cart versus basket use.

Together, these findings suggest retailers might seek strategies to boost product exposure without also increasing crowding – especially for cart shoppers who may experience greater crowding effects – and that excessive use of in-aisle fixtures will likely dampen sales at the aggregate level rather than increasing it. 

Further research could address some of this study’s limitations, such as by considering the effects of human crowding, promotional offers on products, and seasonal influences on shopping behaviors.

Streicher adds: “The research shows that adding merchandise into store aisles can actually reduce overall sales by making the environment feel crowded and harder to navigate. Importantly, this negative effect is even stronger for shoppers using carts, as they experience greater spatial constraints and reduced control while shopping.”