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, Open Access Journal, 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. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1957-:d:116623 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:bla:stratm:v:26:y:2005:i:2:p:159-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Chenhall, Robert H. & Langfield-Smith, Kim, 2007. "Multiple Perspectives of Performance Measures," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 266-282, August.
    9. Marc A. Rosen & Hossam A. Kishawy, 2012. "Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices and Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 4(2), pages 1-21, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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, vol. 56(7), pages 583-602, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Aldónio Ferreira & Carly Moulang & Bayu Hendro, 2010. "Environmental management accounting and innovation: an exploratory analysis," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(7), pages 920-948, September.
    14. 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.
    15. 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)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sustainable performance measurements; organizational learning culture; advancement of technology; globalization; pressure from stakeholder Electronics and electrical companies;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.