IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p1058-d206839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent Factors and Sustainable Performance Measurement (SPM) Practices of Malaysian Electronics and Electrical Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Tze San Ong

    (Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Management, University Putra Malaysia, 43300 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Boon Heng Teh

    (Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Ah Suat Lee

    (Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, 31900 Kampar, Ipoh, Malaysia)

Abstract

In the present world, there is a rapidly growing level of awareness of social and environmental activities. Consequently, a company’s profile is not substantiated purely in relation to financial issues, rather, a need for the inclusion of environmental and social perspectives arises. This is known as sustainable performance. Hence, there is a persistent need for the practice of sustainable performance measurements (SPMs). However, despite the implementation of sustainable performance in developed climes like Europe, the US and the UK, the relevance of sustainable performance is still at a low in developing societies such as Malaysia. The main purpose of this paper is to determine the critical success factors that are attributable to sustainable performance measurement practices for Malaysian electronics and electrical (E and E) companies, as their success is subject to intense scrutiny from their developed competitors, with respect to compliance with social and environmental regulations. A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted on 217 E and E companies. The path analysis and test of the hypotheses were carried out through structural equation modelling. This study has successfully unveiled a comprehensive SPM model with unprecedented scope, stretching from factors to indicators of a SPM model for Malaysian E and E companies. The findings indicate that pressure from stakeholders and globalization are the driving forces for E and E companies to be more proactive in sustainable practices. In this context, stakeholders, especially policy makers, should play the leading political and social roles in encouraging the adoption of SPMs in developing nations. It must be noted that E and E companies are likely to transform their learning culture and technology in terms of working towards sustainable practices once they have realized the financial benefits of adopting SPMs. With these benefits, a compounding effect due to SPMs will be created among E and E companies, where excellent performance can be achieved continuously. A major limitation of this study is the adoption of the contingency theory, which is yet to have a wide application in this area of study. Meanwhile, future research can be longitudinal in nature in addition to focusing on non-profit organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Tze San Ong & Boon Heng Teh & Ah Suat Lee, 2019. "Contingent Factors and Sustainable Performance Measurement (SPM) Practices of Malaysian Electronics and Electrical Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1058-:d:206839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1058/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1058/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scholtens, Bert, 2008. "A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 46-55, December.
    2. Sanjay Sharma & Irene Henriques, 2005. "Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 159-180, February.
    3. Székely, Francisco & Knirsch, Marianna, 2005. "Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility:: Metrics for Sustainable Performance," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 628-647, December.
    4. Chenhall, Robert H. & Langfield-Smith, Kim, 2007. "Multiple Perspectives of Performance Measures," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 266-282, August.
    5. Marc A. Rosen & Hossam A. Kishawy, 2012. "Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices and Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Francesco Perrini & Antonio Tencati, 2006. "Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 296-308, September.
    7. T.F. Burgess & T.S. Ong & N.E. Shaw, 2007. "Traditional or contemporary? The prevalence of performance measurement system types," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 56(7), pages 583-602, September.
    8. Aldónio Ferreira & Carly Moulang & Bayu Hendro, 2010. "Environmental management accounting and innovation: an exploratory analysis," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(7), pages 920-948, September.
    9. Gareth Owen, 2013. "A Rejoinder to Commentaries on 'Integrated Reporting: A Review of Developments and their Implications for the Accounting Curriculum'," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 363-365, August.
    10. Sergio Manrique & Carmen-Pilar Martí-Ballester, 2017. "Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance in Developed and Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-30, October.
    11. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
    12. Andrew A. King & Michael J. Lenox, 2001. "Does It Really Pay to Be Green? An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance: An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 5(1), pages 105-116, January.
    13. Figueiredo, Paulo N., 2002. "Does technological learning pay off? Inter-firm differences in technological capability-accumulation paths and operational performance improvement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 73-94, January.
    14. Erol, Ismail & Sencer, Safiye & Sari, Ramazan, 2011. "A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1088-1100, April.
    15. Ilinitch, Anne Y. & Soderstrom, Naomi S. & E. Thomas, Tom, 1998. "Measuring corporate environmental performance," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4-5), pages 383-408.
    16. Billy Wadongo & Magdy Abdel-Kader, 2014. "Contingency theory, performance management and organisational effectiveness in the third sector," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 63(6), pages 680-703, July.
    17. Markus Kitzmueller & Jay Shimshack, 2012. "Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 51-84, March.
    18. Gareth Owen, 2013. "Integrated Reporting: A Review of Developments and their Implications for the Accounting Curriculum," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 340-356, August.
    19. Thomas Dyllick & Kai Hockerts, 2002. "Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 130-141, March.
    20. Horbach, Jens, 2008. "Determinants of environmental innovation--New evidence from German panel data sources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 163-173, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nursyazwani Mohd Fuzi & Sabrinah Adam & Mohamad Rohieszan Ramdan & Sharon Yong Yee Ong & Juliana Osman & Subramaniam Kolandan & Siti Zubaidah Mohd Ariffin & Nor Sa’adah Jamaluddin & Karmilah Abdullah, 2022. "Sustainability Management Accounting and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Environmental Management System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Bilal Asghar & Ahmad Wasim & Usama Qazi & Azfar Rasool, 2020. "Financial and Non-Financial Practices Driving Sustainable Firm Performance: Evidence from Banking Sector of Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Jun-Der Leu & Larry Jung-Hsing Lee & Yi-Wei Huang & Chia-Chi Huang, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chains: Evidence from Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gabriel Eweje, 2011. "A Shift in corporate practice? Facilitating sustainability strategy in companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 125-136, May.
    2. Hsiao-Yen Mao & Wen-Min Lu & Hsin-Yen Shieh, 2023. "Exploring the Influence of Environmental Investment on Multinational Enterprises’ Performance from the Sustainability and Marketability Efficiency Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Stefan Schaltegger & Jacob Hörisch, 2017. "In Search of the Dominant Rationale in Sustainability Management: Legitimacy- or Profit-Seeking?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 259-276, October.
    4. Rainer Lueg & Maria Medelby Pedersen & Søren Nørregaard Clemmensen, 2015. "The Role of Corporate Sustainability in a Low‐Cost Business Model – A Case Study in the Scandinavian Fashion Industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 344-359, July.
    5. Li, N. & Toppinen, A., 2011. "Corporate responsibility and sustainable competitive advantage in forest-based industry: Complementary or conflicting goals?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 113-123.
    6. Juan Manuel Ramon-Jeronimo & Raquel Florez-Lopez & Maria Angeles Ramon-Jeronimo, 2017. "Understanding the Generation of Value along Supply Chains: Balancing Control Information and Relational Governance Mechanisms in Downstream and Upstream Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-31, August.
    7. Camelia Oprean-Stan & Ionica Oncioiu & Iulia Cristina Iuga & Sebastian Stan, 2020. "Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-31, October.
    8. Truong, Yann & Berrone, Pascual, 2022. "Can environmental innovation be a conventional source of higher market valuation?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-121.
    9. Alvaro Rojas & Daniel Lorenzo, 2021. "Environmental and Social Goals in Spanish SMEs: The Moderating Effect of Family Influence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Lioui, Abraham & Sharma, Zenu, 2012. "Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 100-111.
    11. Günther, Finn & Möller, Klaus & Wenig, Philipp, 2015. "Erfolgswirkung einer proaktiven Unternehmensstrategie zur Integration natürlicher Ressourcen," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 69(1), pages 25-53.
    12. Jonathan Pryshlakivsky & Cory Searcy, 2017. "A Heuristic Model for Establishing Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 323-342, August.
    13. Elisabeth Albertini, 2017. "What We Know About Environmental Policy: An Inductive Typology of the Research," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 277-287, March.
    14. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Giovanni Marin & Elena Paglialunga, 2016. "Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries," LEM Papers Series 2016/19, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Satyajit Majumdar & Gordhan K. Saini, 2016. "CSR in India: Critical Review and Exploring Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 2(1), pages 56-79, January.
    16. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    17. Bert Scholtens & Feng‐Ching Kang, 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Earnings Management: Evidence from Asian Economies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 95-112, March.
    18. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    19. Nurisyal Muhamad & Sofiah Md Auzair & Amizawati Mohd Amir & Md Daud Ismail, 2016. "Measuring Sustainability Performance Measurement System," EuroEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 3(12), pages 182-199, JUNE.
    20. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1058-:d:206839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.