MANAGEMENT SCIENCES NAUKI O ZARZĄDZANIU

Year 2018, Vol. 23, No. 1

ISSN 2080-6000
e-ISSN 2449-9803

DETERMINANTS OF THE OPERATION OF POLAND’S

WATER UTILITIES
Paweł Chudziński
Aquanet SA, Poznań, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]
© 2018 Paweł Chudziński
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
DOI: 10.15611/ms.2018.1.02
JEL Classification: M40

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present the situation of Polish water utilities from the perspective of cost benchmarking against the
background of international experience, and to discuss the merits of using benchmarking with a view to improving water utilities efficiency.
The text examines the income side of the issue by focusing on the water tariff levels used by Polish water utilities. The author’s experience
is that the first effects of using benchmarking in cost management are achieved after about three years of participating in benchmarking
project. Another important threat is the difficulty in finding benchmarking partners or a proper benchmarking project. The third one, in the
author’s view the most significant, is an inadequate preparation of benchmarking indicators. The implementation of benchmarking of cost
management at Aquanet SA produced measurable results, presented in this paper. It could be concluded, therefore, that using this method
of cost management contributes to cost efficiency and, as a result, increases the efficiency of water utilities.
Keywords: benchmarking, water utility, efficiency, water tariffs.

1. Introduction The legal acts that are of crucial importance

for water utilities in Poland include the Act of 7
June 2001 on the collective supply of water and the
The aim of the article is to present the determinants of
collective discharge of wastewater; the Act of 18 July
the effectiveness of water utilities in Poland and the
2001 – water law; and the Act on Local Government
presentation of the applied solutions in one of them.
[Announcement of the Speaker of the Sejm 2015]. It
Polish water utilities are subject to numerous
should be noted that in the 1990s water companies
determinants, many of which are regarded in the
were municipalised, which is why the vast majority
literature as significant for these companies’ operation.
of them, namely 95.4% [IGWP 2016], are at present
Those that are relevant from a business perspective
owned by municipalities or inter-municipal unions.
are economic, social and political considerations
An analysis of the above legal acts and of data
[Sudoł 2008]. Many of the authors who study them
from studies carried out by IGWP1 suggests that the
focus on legal and economic determinants [Rogala
overwhelming majority of water utilities in Poland
2011; Bieniok 2006; Safin, Wójcik 2012] and theory
are owned by municipalities and subject to these
of benchmarking [Zairi, Leonard 1994; Kozak,
municipalities’ tariff regulations.
Nield 2001; Zairi 2011]. Since water supply services
Setting tariffs is one of the municipalities’ most
are provided as part of a local monopoly, it is legal
significant prerogatives. It is also the most important
determinants that are the most important. However,
element of regulation from the viewpoint of the
owing to the local character of water utilities in Poland,
water utilities. Consequently, this paper discusses
economic, local and ownership-related determinants
Poland’s tariffs for collective water supply by
are significant, too [Chudziński 2014].
comparing their levels in Poland and in the countries

1
IGWP – “Polish Waterworks” Chamber of Commerce.

Management Sciences Vol. 23, No. 1

14 Paweł Chudziński

represented by companies participating in the EBC2 level of customers’ disposable income. This feature is
benchmarking project3. reflected by the chart in Figure 2.
The above chart shows the affordability of water
2. Tariff benchmarking supply services understood as the share of the average
water bill in relation to a family’s average disposable
income. A comparison of the data in Figures 1 and 2
Comparability of the conditions in which companies shows that, even though Polish water utilities’ tariffs
operate is crucial to increasing efficiency by means are on average about 25% lower than those of their
of benchmarking. Benchmarking as a method enables Western European counterparts, the affordability of
us to reduce the impact of local determinants on the these services is nearly half as high due to Poles’ lower
assessment of a company’s efficiency. The area whe- level of income. In turn, tariff levels in Poland to a large
re economic and social determinants of water utilities extent reflect the capital expenditures that Polish water
accumulate are tariffs. Discussing Polish water uti- utilities are obliged to make in order to adapt their
lities’ tariffs will help to show the constraints which infrastructure to the requirements of the Accession
these companies have to face. Polish water utilities’ Treaty and, consequently, European Union law.
tariffs are on average lower than the median tariff of
water companies in Europe, as shown in Figure 1.
3. The impact of costs on tariffs for water
and sewage
€ /m3 of water
1,6
1,4 1.34
1.28 1.25 1.26 1.29
1,2
1
The effect of “asset-related”5 costs on tariff levels is
0.96 0.98
1 0.9 0.88
0.81 0.84

presented in the graphs below.

0,8
0,6
0,4 The above charts illustrate how significantly water
0,2
0
utilities’ investment projects affect tariffs for water
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 and sewage. As can be seen, the average contribution
EBC Aquanet MPWiK Kraków MPWiK Wrocław
of asset-related costs to the water and sewage bill per
person is PLN 9.35. The percentage share of these
Fig. 1. The levels of water tariffs as part of the EBC project
and at the selected Polish companies in 2014 costs in the tariff is over 29%. It should be noted that
the Katowice company is unique in that it is located
Source: author’s own study on the basis of [EBC 2013]4.
in a mining region, so given its high costs generated
by mining damage, it should not be subject to this
average water bill/average disposable income comparison. Therefore, without taking into account
the Katowice utility’s data, the relevant amount will
1,2
0.99 1.02 1.03 1 1.04

be a PLN10.06 contribution of asset-related costs to

1 0.93
0.9
0,8
0.61 0.59 0.62
the water and sewage bill per person, which means
a nearly 32% contribution of these costs to the tariff
0.56 0.57
0,6

0,4
for water and sewage. The impact of costs on water
0,2
companies’ activities was analyzed by means of
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
benchmarking in order to achieve comparability of
EBC Aquanet MPWiK Kraków MPWiK Wrocław results. Selected results of the analyses carried out
Fig. 2. Affordability of water supply services
with the use of benchmarking indicators are presented
below.
Source: author’s own study on the basis of [EBC 2013].

A characteristic feature of Polish water utilities

is that they operate in a market with a relatively low

2
EBC – European Benchmarking Cooperation. The EBC project is the only specifically international benchmarking project orga-
nized by water utility companies.
3
A benchmarking project is understood as a joint effort of two or more companies aimed at carrying out benchmarking between them
[Chudziński 2014].
4
Aquanet SA, a water utility that operates in the area of Poznań and surrounding districts, and MWiK Kraków and MWiK Wrocław
are water utilities operating in the areas of Kraków and Wrocław.
5
“Asset-related” costs are the costs of depreciation, property tax and fees for placing the infrastructure in a traffic lane, which result
from possessing or having control over fixed assets.
Determinants of the operation of Poland’s water utilities 15

PLN/average bill per person Table 1. A comparison of selected benchmarking indicators

50,0 of the water utilities participating in the EBC and IGWP projects
45,0
40,0 11.3 3.7 Indicators Description 2008 2009 2010 2011
35,0 7.6
30,0 15.8
EBC employment
employment indicator 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.83
11.2
25,0 10.5 10.1
7.0
20,0 37.6 indicator (jobs/1,000
33.1
15,0 30.3
22.1
7.0
IGWP homes)
10,0 21.2 21.0 20.5 19.0
5,0 10.6 employment X X X 3.54
0,0 indicatora
Warszawa Kraków Wrocław Poznań Szczecin Bydgoszcz Lublin Katowice Białystok
Asset – related costs transferred on the tariff The value of average bill excluding asset – related costs Total efficiency length of water 23.2 23.8 23.9 25.3
of network supply network
Fig. 3. The impact of asset-related costs on tariffs for water service per employee
(km of network/ Xb 2.7 3.1 3.1
and sewage in 2014
one job)
Source: author’s own study on the basis of [E&Y 2014].
EBC energy electric energy
consumption consumed to
0.48 Xc Xd 0.59
100%
9%
of water supply supply water in
90%
25%
20%
27% process relation to
33%
quantity of
34% 33%
IGWP energy
80% 43% 40%
70%
consumption water sold
60% (kWh/m3) Xe 0.82 0.77 0.73
of water supply
50%
91% process
40% 80%
75% 73%
30%
66%
57%
67% 67%
60% EBC failure rate number of
20% of water supply failures of water 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12
10% network supply network/
0%
IGWP failure total length of
water supply
Warszawa Kraków Wrocław Poznań Szczecin Bydgoszcz Lublin Katowice Białystok
The share of other costs in the tariff The share of asset – related costs in the tariff rate of water Xf 0.66 0.52 0.31
supply network network (no./km)
Fig. 4. The share of asset-related costs in tariffs for water a
This indicator was calculated on the basis of the performance
and sewage in 2014 of the seven companies investigated in the second stage of the
Source: author’s own study on the basis of [E&Y 2014]. study;b The indicator was not examined as part of the IGWP
project that year; c The indicator was not examined as part of the
EBC project that year; d See above; e The indicator was not
4. Costs and benchmarking indicators examined as part of the IGWP project that year; f See above.

at Polish water utility companies Source: [Chudziński 2014].

A study to examine water utilities’ costs was benchmarking in the cost management of water utili-
conducted in 20136 on a sample of eight companies ties in order to make these companies more efficient.
from the cities of Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk,
Jastrzębie, Poznań, Sosnowiec, Wrocław and Zielona 5. Benchmarking cost management
Góra. An in-depth survey was made using the CATI7 at Aquanet S.A.
and PAPI8 techniques. On the basis of benchmarking
indicators, the study made it possible to compare Aquanet S.A., a water utility that operates in the area
the efficiency of Polish water utilities with that of of Poznań and surrounding districts and serves nearly
companies participating in the EBC project. Selected 800,000 people, is the second largest water company
data collected during the study, together with in Poland in terms of revenue.
a comparison of some benchmarking indicators in the In 2012 ,the company decided to implement
IGWP project, are presented below. a benchmarking cost management system. “It consists
On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that in analysing data obtained from benchmarking
Polish water utilities achieve a lower level of efficiency projects (including internal benchmarking), in
in the above areas than companies participating in confronting them with the company’s situation while
the EBC project. Hence the justification for using taking into account its determinants at a given time

6
The study was conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation [Chudziński 2014].
7
CATI – computer assisted telephone interview.
8
PAPI – pen and paper interview.

Managements Sciences Vol. 23, No. 1

16 Paweł Chudziński

and strategic goals, and, on the basis of these data, employment indicator specifying the number of jobs
in taking action to reduce costs” [Chudziński 2014]. in relation to the number of properties served. The
Since water utilities operate under conditions of indicator’s trend and values over time are shown in
a natural monopoly, it is difficult to determine the the graph below.
optimum level of their costs. This is because it is While the graphs above refer to the level
impossible to directly compare the efficiency of their of employment and the related payroll costs,
operation. Different geographical and hydrological Figure 7 shows the efficiency of water supply network
determinants, different dynamics of the investment management, expressed as the number of failures in
process, and different levels of the services provided relation to the length of a water supply network.
make direct comparisons between these companies
impossible. There are good reasons, therefore, to use
Number of failures of water supply networks
(no./100 km of network)

benchmarking as a basis for determining an optimum 90

80.18

level of costs. Presented below are examples of the

80
70
benchmarking indicators used by Aquanet S.A. as 60 56.06 53.63
part of the EBC benchmarking project in which the 50
41.33
company participates. The number of indicators 40
28.81 30.16
26.96
concerning employment makes it possible to avoid
30 23.78
20.21 19.94
20
errors of interpretation. 10
The first example of using benchmarking indicators 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
in cost management, presented in the chart below, EBC Aquanet
is the employment indicator in the water production
process. Fig. 7. The failure indicator of a water supply network
Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce-
jobs/water produced, in millions of m3
edings.
3,5

3 2.9

2.4 Electric energy consumption during the sewage treatment process (kWh/PE)
2,5
2.17 2.18 45
2 1.72 38.9 39.2
40 37.0
1,5 35.2
1.24 1.16 1.16 35 33.0
1.02 1.08
1 28.2 29.1
30 27.4 26.5
0,5 25 22.5

0 20
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
15
EBC Aquanet
10
Fig. 5. The employment indicator in the water production process
5

Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce- 0

edings.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
EBC Aquanet SA

jobs/1,000 properties
0,6
Fig. 8. The indicator of electric energy consumption during
0.51 0.52 the sewage treatment process
0,5

0,4
0.42 0.41 Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce-
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.31 0.3
0.35
edings.
0,3

0,2
The above indicator is reflected in the cost of water
0,1 lost during failures and in the cost of remedying them.
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
There is a clear trend of this indicator improving in
EBC Aquanet the years 2010-2014. The 2014 level of the indicator,
compared to the median of the companies participating
Fig. 6. The indicator of employment in relation to the number in the EBC project was more favourable, whereas in
of properties served 2010 the indicator was less than half as favourable.
Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce- Parallel to the improvement in the failure indicator
edings. of a water supply network was the improvement in
the indicator of electric energy consumption during
Another indicator used by the companies the sewage treatment process, as shown in the chart
investigated to determine their cost effectiveness is an below.
Determinants of the operation of Poland’s water utilities 17

From the viewpoint of cost management, the € /m3 of water

difference between this indicator’s trend and the 0,045

0.04
0,04
previous one is that – for the first time since such 0,035
comparisons had been conducted – its value was more 0,03
0.03 0.03 0.03

favourable than the average value of this indicator 0,025

0.02 0.02
among the companies involved in the EBC project. 0,02

However, while the comparisons were being made it

0,015
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0,01
turned out that the best European practices suggest 0,005

that it is possible for this indicator to achieve a value 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
of less than 15 kWh/PE9. The results of the company’s EBC Aquanet

long-term participation in the EBC benchmarking

project have been transposed into cost management. Fig. 10. Variable unit costs of water-quality testing
Cost management by means of benchmarking Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce-
requires taking into account the conditions under edings.
which a company operates, including internal
conditions. A significant internal determinant is the
The graphs in Figures 5 and 6 point to the necessity
organizational changes taking place in the company
of making a broader overview of a company’s situation
itself. Highlighting the significance of the impact
before interpreting data from benchmarking research.
of such changes on the assessment of company
A company’s local situation and regional determinants
efficiency is the following example of changes to
make a simple comparison of companies impossible.
which benchmarking indicators are subjected, and
The data contained in the charts above suggest that
whose size depends on organizational changes rather
outsourcing laboratory work has a significant impact
than on changes in efficiency. In 2013, laboratory
on the value of the benchmarking indicator. The result
work was separated from Aquanet S.A. The influence
of this is the simultaneous increase in the cost of
of outsourcing on the employment indicator in the
external services – in this case, of laboratory services.
process of water quality control is shown in the chart
The implementation of benchmarking cost
below.
management at Aquanet S.A. reduced manageable
(jobs/water produced, in millions of m3)
costs, as shown in Table 3. For management purposes,
0,35 management costs are the costs of remuneration,
0,3
0.3
0.29 social insurance and other employee benefits,
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.25 energy, materials and external services. The levels of
particular management costs presented are adjusted
0,25
0.22
0.2
0,2
for inflation10, in accordance with the principles of the
0,15 company’s cost optimisation programme in the years
0,1 2012-201511.
0,05 0.04 The following graph presents the levels of the
most important types of costs (adjusted for inflation)
from the viewpoint of cost management.
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
EBC Aquanet
On the basis of the above graph and Table 2, we
can note that, after adjusting for inflation, in the years
Fig. 9. The employment indicator in the process of water quality
control 2012-2015 management costs decreased by over 3%.
This means that cumulative costs in the period, taking
Source: own study, on the basis of EBC 2015 conference proce-
2012 as the base year, decreased by nearly PLN
edings.
15 million. It should also be noted that, during this
period, the increase in Poland’s average wage was
This separation was simultaneously reflected higher than the inflation rate. It can be concluded,
in the increased costs of external services. The unit therefore, that there are good reasons for using
cost of water-quality testing did not change, which is benchmarking and benchmarking cost management
shown in the figure below. in Polish water utility companies.

9
PE (Population Equivalent) is the number expressing the ratio of the sum of the pollution load in sewage produced during 24 hours
by industrial facilities and services to the individual pollution load in household sewage produced by one person in the same period.
10
The levels of costs were adjusted by the amount of inflation in a given year.
11
The programme was to meet the targets of reducing costs in relation to their 2012 level.

Managements Sciences Vol. 23, No. 1

18 Paweł Chudziński

Table 2. Aquanet S.A.’s management costs in the years Table 3. Aquanet S.A.’s financial performance in the years
2012-2015 (in PLN 000s) 2012-2015 (in PLN 000s)

Lp. Type of costs 2012 2013 2014 2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Consumption Total
of materials 16 503 12 880 12 877 12 934 revenue 338 758 366 203 390 568 418 137 440 757 454 726

2 Consumption Net
financial
of energy 27 265 24 773 20 664 22 116
result 9 996 12 941 12 184 49 478 59 104 73 938
3 External
transport Source: [Aquanet 2016].
services 689 654 684 884
4 External The data in Table 3 indicate that there has been
repair
services 9 039 8 014 8 097 8 984
a noticeable increase in the company’s financial
performance since 2013, which to a large extent
5 Other
external
is attributable to the implementation of the cost
services 34 075 34 544 39 233 37 668 optimisation launched in 2012 and to benchmarking
6 Remuneration 50 025 51 003 51 260 51 088 cost management.
7 Social
insurance 6. Conclusion
and other
employee Consequently, as demonstrated by comparisons
benefits 10 566 10 866 10 896 10 802 of benchmarking indicators in the areas of costs of
8 Allocations to remuneration and energy consumption, Polish water
bonus funds 2 400 2 263 2 411 2 470 utilities perform worse than the average results of
9 Costs of companies participating in the EBC project.
business trips 366 296 281 270 Even though Polish water utilities’ tariffs are,
10 Other costs 3 280 3 595 3 324 2 050 in absolute terms, lower than the average tariffs
TOTAL 154 207 148 889 149 727 149 266 used by companies involved in the EBC project, the
Source: [Aquanet 2016]. availability of services provided by Polish companies
is noticeably lower. This is due to Polish customers’
lower disposable income than in comparable Western
European countries. At the same time, it is worth
noting that Polish water utilities’ costs are strongly
increased by investment projects, which largely result
from the need to adapt the quality of their services,
broadly understood, to the requirements of EU law.
The implementation of benchmarking cost
management at Aquanet S.A. produced measurable
results presented in this paper. It could be concluded,
therefore, that using this method of cost management
contributes to cost efficiency and, as a result,
increases the efficiency of water utilities. However,
the use of benchmarking cost management involves
significant threats. The most important of them is
Fig. 11. Aquanet S.A.’s management costs in the years the lack or discontinuity of financial resources and
(in PLN 000’s) time for its implementation in the company. The
Source: own study, on the basis of [Aquanet 2016]. author’s experience is that the first effects of using
benchmarking in cost management are achieved after
about three years of participating in a benchmarking
The result of such an approach to manageable project. Another important threat is the difficulty
costs and to those which are not regarded here as in finding benchmarking partners or a proper
manageable costs – such as financial costs and as benchmarking project. A third threat, in this author’s
a results of increased tariffs – is Aquanet S.A.’s view the most significant one, is the inadequate
financial performance in 2012-2015, presented in the preparation of data and the wrong interpretation of
Table 3. benchmarking indicators.
Determinants of the operation of Poland’s water utilities 19

Benchmarking is one of the most dynamically E&Y, 2014, E&Y materials prepared to conduct strategic analy-
developing management methods in water utilities in ses at Aquanet S.A., Warsaw.
EBC 2013-EBC 2014 conference proceedings, Antwerp 2014.
Poland. However, too few studies on benchmarking
IGWP, 2016, Municipal infrastructure in 2014. The water supply
have been conducted in Poland to be able to carry out industry, Polish Waterworks, Chamber of Commerce, Byd-
a holistic evaluation of the water supply industry from goszcz.
the viewpoint of its efficiency. Kozak M., Nield K., 2001, An Overview of Benchmarking Litera-
ture: Its Strengths and Waeknesses, [in:] P. Sungsoo (ed.),
Benchmarks in Hospitality and Tourism Routledge New
Bibliography York, London, pp. 7-24.
OFWAT, https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/industryoverview/today/wa-
tercompanies, date of access: 19 October 2015.
Act of 7 June 2001 on the collective supply of water and the col-
Rogala K., 2011, Uwarunkowania przedsiębiorczości w obszarze
lective discharge of wastewater, Journal of Laws
mikroprzedsiębiorstw na przykładzie miasta Leszna [Deter-
2006.123.858.
minants of entrepreneurship in the area of micro-enterprises.
Act of 18 July 2001, Water law, Journal of Laws 2012.145.
The case of the city of Leszno], doctoral dissertation, Poznań
Announcement of the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic
University of Economics and Business, Poznań.
of Poland of 17 September 2015 on the publication of the
Safin K., Wójcik M., 2012, Uwarunkowania rozwoju przedsię-
uniform text of the Act on Local Government, Journal of
biorczości akademickiej [Determinants of the development
Laws 2015, item 1515.
of academic entrepreneurship], [in:] K. Jaremczuk (ed),
Aquabench, http://www.aquabench.de/index_2_0_12_gb.html,
Przedsiębiorczość – natura i atrybuty [Entrepreneurship – its
date of access: 19 October 2015.
nature and attributes], Prof. Stanisław Tarnowski State Higher
Aquanet 2016 – Aquanet SA Annual Reports 2010–2015.
Vocational School, Tarnobrzeg.
Bieniok H., 2006, Uwarunkowania i problemy rozwoju przedsię-
Sudoł S., 2008, Przedsiębiorczość – jej pojmowanie, typy i czyn-
biorczości osobistej w dobie gospodarki rynkowej [Determi-
niki ją kształtujące [Entrepreneurship – its understanding,
nants and problems of the development of personal entrepre-
types and determining factors], [in:] K. Jaremczuk (ed.),
neurship in the era of the market economy], [in:] K. Jaremczuk
Uwarunkowania przedsiębiorczości – różnorodność i zmien-
(ed), Uwarunkowania przedsiębiorczości – aspekty ekono-
ność [Determinants of entrepreneurship – diversity and variabi-
miczne i antropologiczno-społeczne [Determinants of entre-
lity], Prof. Stanisław Tarnowski State Higher Vocational
preneurship – economic and socio-anthropological aspects],
School, Tarnobrzeg.
Prof. Stanisław Tarnowski State Higher Vocational School,
Zairi M., 2011, Benchmarking for Best Practice, Routledge, New
Tarnobrzeg.
York.
Chudziński P., 2014, Wykorzystanie benchmarkingu w zarządza-
Zairi M., Leonard P., 1994, Practical Benchmarking: the Comple-
niu kosztami w przedsiębiorstwie wodociągowym [Using
te Guide, Chapman & Hall, London.
benchmarking in the cost management of a water utility], do-
ctoral dissertation, Poznań University of Economics and Bu-
siness, Poznań.

WYZNACZNIKI DZIAŁANIA PRZEDSIĘBIORSTW WODOCIĄGOWYCH W POLSCE

Streszczenie: Celem artykułu jest zaprezentowanie sytuacji polskich przedsiębiorstw wodociągowych z perspektywy benchmarkingu na tle
doświadczeń międzynarodowych oraz omówienie zalet stosowania benchmarkingu w celu poprawy efektywności tych przedsiębiorstw. Z do-
świadczeń autora wynika, że pierwszych efektów w zarządzaniu kosztami przez benchmarking można oczekiwać po około trzech latach
uczestnictwa w projekcie benchmarkingowym. Kolejnym wyzwaniem jest znalezienie właściwych partnerów benchmarkingowych lub pro-
jektu benchmarkingowego, a przede wszystkim zapewnienie właściwej jakości i interpretacja danych płynących ze wskaźników benchmar-
kingowych. Zastosowanie zarządzania kosztami za pomocą benchmarkingu w Aquanet SA przyniosło wymierne efekty, można zatem stwier-
dzić, iż metoda ta przyczynia się do obniżenia kosztów, a w rezultacie zwiększa efektywność przedsiębiorstw wodociągowych.
Słowa kluczowe: benchmarking, przedsiębiorstwo wodociągowe, efektywność, taryfy za dostarczanie wody.

Managements Sciences Vol. 23, No. 1