Die SBSC als strategisches Instrument zur nachhaltigen Unternehmensführung am Beispiel der Österreichischen Post AG

Die zunehmende Bedeutung der Verantwortung von Unternehmen gegenüber der Gesellschaft führt zu einer Integration von Nachhaltigkeit in die Unternehmensführung. Die drei Dimensionen Ökologie, Ökonomie und Soziales sollen dabei gleichermaßen berücksichtigt werden und als Basis für eine geeignete Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie dienen. Aus dieser Strategie werden Ziele für die jeweilige Geschäftseinheit definiert, welche mit Hilfe von operativen Maßnahmen erreicht werden sollen. Um die Zielerreichung, und somit die Strategieumsetzung, zu unterstützen, werden geeignete Instrumente des Nachhaltigkeitsmanagements benötigt. Diese müssen den Anforderungen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung gerecht werden und die drei zuvor genannten Dimensionen ausgewogen und integrativ berücksichtigen.Die Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) als strategisches Instrument zur nachhaltigen Unternehmensführung erfüllt diese Anforderungen. Sie ergänzt die in den 1990er Jahren von Kaplan und Norton entwickelte Balanced Scorecard (BSC) um die Nachhaltigkeitsthematik und erweitert deren Perspektiven somit um Umwelt- und Sozialaspekte. Sie fungiert als internes Steuerungs- und Kontrollinstrument, welches eine bestehende Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie voraussetzt und Organisationen frühzeitig auf fehlerhafte Entwicklung hinweisen kann. Die Österreichische Post AG hat als größtes Logistikunternehmen Österreichs ihre Strategie an die gesamtwirtschaftliche Entwicklung angepasst und eine unternehmensweit anerkannte Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie formuliert. Basierend auf dieser Strategie, und den darin definierten Schwerpunktthemen Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Mitarbeiter und Umwelt, beschäftigt sich die vorliegende Arbeit mit dem Formulierungsprozess einer SBSC für die Österreichische Post AG und gibt Handlungsempfehlungen für eine mögliche Integration.The increasing importance of corporate responsibility towards society is leading to the integration of sustainability into corporate management. The three dimensions of ecology, economy and social responsibility should be equally taken into account and serve as the basis for a suitable sustainability strategy. Based on this strategy, goals are defined for the respective business unit, which are to be achieved with the help of operational measures. In order to support the achievement of the objectives and thus the implementation of the strategy, suitable instruments of sustainability management are required. These must meet the requirements of sustainable development and take into account the three dimensions mentioned above in a balanced and integrative way.The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) as a strategic instrument for sustainable corporate management meets these requirements. It supplements the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) developed by Kaplan and Norton in the 1990s with sustainability issues and thus expands their perspectives to include environmental and social aspects. It functions as an internal management and control instrument, which presupposes an existing sustainability strategy and can point out erroneous developments to organizations at an early stage. As Austria's largest logistics company, Österreichische Post AG has adapted its strategy to macroeconomic developments and formulated a sustainability strategy that is recognized throughout the company. Based on this strategy and the main topics defined therein: economy, society, employees and environment, this paper deals with the formulation process of an SBSC for Österreichische Post AG and provides recommendations for possible integration.Gernot Ortner, BSc.Zusammenfassungen in Deutsch und EnglischAbweichender Titel laut Übersetzung des Verfassers/der VerfasserinKarl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Masterarbeit, 2019(VLID)468054

The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison

Background: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has shown to be beneficial in detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) and avoiding diagnosis of Non-csPCa (ncsPCa); however, its role in the treatment of biopsy-naïve patients is still under discussion. Methods: After identifying predictors for the diagnosis of csPCa via Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis (MLRA), a propensity-score (1:1 nearest neighbor) matched comparison was performed between a Systematic-Only Biopsy (SOB) cohort and a mpMRI-based Combined (systematic + targeted) Biopsy (CB) cohort from two tertiary urologic centers (SOB: Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Crete, Greece; CB: LKH Hall in Tirol, Austria). Only biopsy-naïve patients were included in the study. The study period for the included patients was from February 2018 to July 2023 for the SOB group and from July 2017 to June 2023 for the CB group. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of csPCa (≥ISUP 2); secondary outcomes were overall cancer detection, the added value of targeted biopsy in csPCa detection, and the reduction in ncsPCa diagnosis with CB compared to SOB. To estimate the Average Treatment effect of the Treated groups (ATT), cluster-robust standard errors were used to perform g-computation in the matched sample. p-values n = 140 for CB and SOB). In the CB group, 65/140 (46.4%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa compared to 44/140 (31.4%) in the SOB group (RR 1.48, 95%-CI: 1.09–2.0, p = 0.01). In the CB group, 4.3% (6/140) and 1.4% (2/140) of csPCa cases were detected with targeted-only and systematic-only biopsy cores, respectively. In the CB group, 22/140 (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with ncsPCa compared to 33/140 (23.6%) in the SOB group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41–1.08, p = 0.1). When comparing SOB to CB (ATT), the marginal OR was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38–0.82, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of csPCa and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.47–1.05, p = 0.085) for the diagnosis of overall cancer (≥ISUP 1). Conclusion: The CB approach was superior to the SOB approach in detecting csPCa, while no additional detection of ncsPCa was seen. Our results support the application of mpMRI for biopsy-naïve patients with suspicions of prostate cancer

Active surveillance inclusion criteria under scrutiny in magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy: a multicenter cohort study

Background!#!Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is recommended for primary risk stratification and follow-up in Active Surveillance (AS), it is not part of common AS inclusion criteria. The objective was to compare AS eligibility by systematic biopsy (SB) and combined MRI-targeted (MRI-TB) and SB within real-world data using current AS guidelines.!##!Methods!#!A retrospective multicenter study was conducted by a German prostate cancer (PCa) working group representing six tertiary referral centers and one outpatient practice. Men with PCa and at least one MRI-visible lesion according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 were included. Twenty different AS inclusion criteria of international guidelines were applied to calculate AS eligibility using either a SB or a combined MRI-TB and SB. Reasons for AS exclusion were assessed.!##!Results!#!Of 1941 patients with PCa, per guideline, 583-1112 patients with PCa in both MRI-TB and SB were available for analysis. Using SB, a median of 22.1% (range 6.4-72.4%) were eligible for AS. Using the combined approach, a median of 15% (range 1.7-68.3%) were eligible for AS. Addition of MRI-TB led to a 32.1% reduction of suitable patients. Besides Gleason Score upgrading, the maximum number of positive cores were the most frequent exclusion criterion. Variability in MRI and biopsy protocols potentially limit the results.!##!Conclusions!#!Only a moderate number of patients with PCa can be monitored by AS to defer active treatment using current guidelines for inclusion in a real-world setting. By an additional MRI-TB, this number is markedly reduced. These results underline the need for a contemporary adjustment of AS inclusion criteria

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group

PURPOSE To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely. CONCLUSIONS Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications