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

sustainability
Article
Contingent Factors and Sustainable Performance
Measurement (SPM) Practices of Malaysian
Electronics and Electrical Companies
Tze San Ong 1, * , Boon Heng Teh 2 and Ah Suat Lee 3
1 Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Management, University Putra Malaysia,
43300 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia; bhteh@mmu.edu.my
3 Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, 31900 Kampar, Ipoh, Malaysia;
cristallee08@gmail.com
* Correspondence: tzesan@upm.edu.my; Tel.: +6-012-6330885

Received: 6 December 2018; Accepted: 18 January 2019; Published: 18 February 2019
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.
Keywords: sustainable performance measurements; organizational learning culture; advancement of

technology; globalization; pressure from stakeholder Electronics and electrical companies
1. Introduction
Sustainable performance has been gaining attention throughout recent years. In a local context, a
controversial project by Lynas—the rare-earth processing plant in Pahang, Malaysia, was allowed to
commence after the company complied with all of the harsh environmental and social suggestions
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058; doi:10.3390/su11041058 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 2 of 33
put forward by the review panel independently constituted by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) [1]. In fact, the construction of the Pahang rare-earth plant lead to the biggest ever
environmental demonstration against the Australian-based Lynas Plc Ltd. Internationally, according
to [2], the Australian government will impose an environmental tax amounting to 23 AUD (69 RM)
per metric ton on 500 companies in Australia which have most contributed to pollution from mid-2012.
Eventually, on 19 March 2012, Australia’s Senate created a 30% tax on iron ore and coal mine profits
after a harrowing two-year encounter with mining companies. This alteration of the tax laws dealt a
blow to about 30 companies, including global miners BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, and was in
effect from 1 July 2012 [3].
With this development comes a surge in awareness for social and environmental responsibilities
on the part of regulators in both the local and international scenes. Companies are bound to uphold
their environmental and social responsibilities, or else they may suffer from massive financial loss
if they fail to comply with the environmental and social requirements. For instance, companies
may be fined or taxed heavily, or they might be encouraged to terminate business operations. No
doubt, the requirements for reporting key indicators of social and environmental effects in published
annual reports are likely to increase in the future. A companies’ financial achievements are no
longer the most important in terms of evaluation, rather, there is now the inclusion of social and
environmental perspectives, presently tagged as sustainable performance. Therefore, the question
of how to determine the peculiar contingency factors that influence the sustainable performance
measurements of companies in Malaysia arises, especially for E and E companies, as compared to what
was obtained in the literature. On the other hand, the extent of influence of SPMs may also have to be
ascertained in order to provide guidance for policy makers and contribute to the existing literature in
this important area of study.
The business objectives of companies with sustainability perspectives now extend further than
the conventional sphere. Hence, their latter objectives are no longer limited to traditional aims such as
operational and financial superiority, instead they are also entrenched with social and environmental
initiatives [4]. According to the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, corporate sustainability is “a business
approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and nagging risks
deriving from economic, environmental and social developments” [5].
1.1. Development of Performance Measurement Practices

Figure 1 illustrates the summary of the development of performance measurement models.
The development of performance measurement models that began in the early 1980s were limited
to purely financial areas. Due to the insufficiency of purely financial measures, in the early 1990s,
wider performance measurements came into being by incorporating both financial and non-financial
measures. However, these wider performance measurement models were still limited to economic
perspectives. With increasing pressure from various stakeholders and a demanding competitive
environment due to globalization, more and more information was required to govern a company. In
the early 2000s, the design of sustainable performance measurements was made to accommodate the
triple bottom line, i.e., economic, environmental and social considerations.
Figure 1. The development of performance measurement models. Sources: Johnson and Kaplan, 1987;
Kaplan, 1990; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005; Burgess, Ong and Shaw 2007; Hess and Warren, 2008; Ong
and Teh, 2009; Stede, 2010.
Over the past decade, the number of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reports has
increased approximately 100-fold, reaching 5000 reports in 2014, compared to merely 50 reports in
2000 (Figure 2). Consequently, the frequency and in-depth presentation of sustainable reporting may
likely be more demanding and comprehensive in the future, due to intense pressure and expectations
from wide range of stakeholders, especially regulators.
Figure 2. Numbers of corporate sustainability reports from 1999–2014. Source: GRI (2015).
Even though there has been a remarkable boost in sustainable reporting in developed nations,
reporting in developing countries, especially developing countries from Asia, is still a source of
concern [6]. The Asian continent, with two thirds of the worlds’ population and the base of the second
and third largest economies in the world (China and Japan), only stands as the second largest in terms
of the amount of GRI sustainability reports per region (Figure 3). Again, the Asian continent, including
Malaysia, is significantly lagging behind Europe, which has double the amount of GRI sustainability
reports, to the Europeans credit.
1
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30
including Malaysia,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058is
significantly lagging behind Europe, which has double the amount of4 GRI
of 33
sustainability reports, to the Europeans credit.
Oceanic, 4% Africa, 3%
Latin America, 14%
Europe, 45%
Northern America,
14%
Asia, 20%
Figure 3. Sustainable reporting by region in 2010.

2010. Source: GRI (2010).
According
According to tothe
theAsian
AsianSustainability
Sustainability Rating
Rating(ASR)
(ASR)[7],[7],
in all
inMalaysian sectors,
all Malaysian only 25%
sectors, only of firms
25% of
provide sustainability
firms provide reports,
sustainability whichwhich
reports, portrays the severity
portrays of lagging
the severity behindbehind
of lagging in terms of the of
in terms ASRs.
the
However,
ASRs. However,Malaysian firms have
Malaysian firmsachieved a betterarating
have achieved betterwithin
rating the social
within thecategory, with thewith
social category, leading
the
firms diligently reporting on their stakeholder engagement with the customers,
leading firms diligently reporting on their stakeholder engagement with the customers, employees, employees, suppliers
and communities
suppliers they interact
and communities with.
they To note,
interact the To
with. latter firms
note, theare prominently
latter firms arerelated to foreign-owned
prominently related to
firms, such as Digi
foreign-owned firms,Berhad
such and British
as Digi America
Berhad Tobacco
and British Berhad.Tobacco
America Based on [7], it isBased
Berhad. indeed on relevant
[7], it is
to study Malaysia’s sustainable reporting practices, especially for electronics
indeed relevant to study Malaysia’s sustainable reporting practices, especially for electronics and electrical (E and
E) companies,
electrical (E andsince they constitute
E) companies, sincethetheysecond largest
constitute theexporter
second sector,
largestgenerating a large
exporter sector, amount ofa
generating
revenue for the country [1], according to the MITI “Fact Sheet” (2012). According
large amount of revenue for the country [1], according to the MITI “Fact Sheet” (2012). According to [8], the E and toE
industry
[8], the EinandMalaysia is categorised
E industry in Malaysia into four sub-sectors:
is categorised Electronic
into components,
four sub-sectors: consumer
Electronic electronics,
components,
industrial
consumer electronics
electronics,and electrical
industrial products.and electrical products.
electronics
Over the past few decades, Malaysia has experienced remarkable economic and export export growth,
growth,
particularly due to the massive shift from an an agriculture-based
agriculture-based nation to an an industry-based
industry-based nation
(Table
(Table 1).
1). Instead of being a large exporter of agricultural and mineral commodities, like in the 1970s, 1970s,
Malaysia now focuses mainly on manufactured goods, and particularly
Malaysia now focuses mainly on manufactured goods, and particularly in the manufacturing in the manufacturing industry,
E and E products.
industry, E and E In 1970, commodity
products. exports (mainly
In 1970, commodity exportstin(mainly
and rubber)
tin andmade up 92%
rubber) madeof Malaysia’s
up 92% of
exports,
Malaysia’s while manufactured
exports, exports made up
while manufactured the rest.
exports madeBy 2014,
up thethe scenario
rest. By has completely
2014, reversed,
the scenario has
where commodities
completely reversed, accounted for 21% of total
where commodities exports and
accounted manufactured
for 21% exports,and
of total exports especially E and E
manufactured
products, made up Ethe
exports, especially andbulk of exportsmade
E products, at 79%up[9].
the bulk of exports at 79% [9].
Table Percentages of merchandise exports in Malaysia.

1. Percentages
Table1.
Year Year Commodities

Commodities and Others
and Others Manufacturers
Manufacturers
1970 1970 92%
92% 8% 8%
1979 1979 82%
82% 18% 18%
1991 1991 39%
39% 61% 61%
2000 20% 80%
2000 2009 20%
22% 78%
80%
2009 2014 22%
21% 79% 78%
2014 2015 21%
20% 80% 79%
Jan–Sept 2016
2015 17%
20% 83% 80%
Source: Department
Jan–Sept 2016 of Statistics, Bank Negara
17% Malaysia and Economic Planning Unit83%
(2016).
Source: Department of Statistics, Bank Negara Malaysia and Economic Planning Unit (2016).
As the largest export product type in Malaysia, the E and E industry will always be subject to a
global presence and closely scrutinised by a wide range of stakeholders, particularly the international
community [10,11] from Western nations such as the United States, the Netherlands and Germany,
who require high sustainable achievement. According to [4], the electronics and electrical industry
is one of the largest contributors to environmental and social externality and problems, especially
for electronics and electrical components related to computer equipment. This has led to interest in
conducting a performance measurement study on E and E companies. In addition, the long history
of this industry (since Malaysia’s independence in 1957) enables it to experience significant changes
that have taken place in the industry’s development, where plenty of scope has existed for the design
and redesign of corporate sustainability. Furthermore, the legal aspect was emphasised way back in
2006, when Bursa Malaysia introduced a framework that was made to aid the monitoring of publicly
listed companies in complying with reporting standards on sustainability issues. Again, there was an
adjustment to the listing requirements, to the extent of including an explanation of the actions taken
by the listed issuer and its subsidiaries in terms of corporate social responsibility undertakings or
practices. Therefore, this initiative put forward by Bursa Malaysia implies an urgent need to study
and implement sustainable reporting among Malaysian companies, particularly in the electronic and
electrical industry [12].
1.2. Research Objectives

Sustainability is a model that liaises with the fair allocation of resources [13]. A sustainable
business is deemed as one of the models that “meets the interests of its stakeholders” at a corporate level.
In business, sustainability is meeting the interests of the companies’ direct and indirect stakeholders,
such as stockholders, employees, clients, communities, pressure groups and others, without reneging
on the companies’ role of meeting the interests of prospective stakeholders [14–17]. SPMs are an
assessment of a companies’ achievements not only in terms of economic excellence, but also in terms
of social and environmental excellence [18–20].
For the last two decades, performance measurement models have evolved from traditional
financial performance measurement models to wider performance measurement models, and
eventually sustainable performance measurement models [21]. A study released by Deloitte [22],
the world’s largest consulting provider, pinpoints four vital factors for motivating companies and
countries to construct key performance measurements in terms of sustainability. The four vital
factors are stakeholder demands, shareholder expectation, evolving regulations and the performance
evaluation of sustainability.
For a country like Malaysia, sustainable performance practice reporting is still in its infancy,
with exposure to several uncertain issues, especially those concerning sustainable performance
measurements models (SPMs) that need to be managed, evaluated and reported on [23–25].
Furthermore, management and shareholders are still not financially convinced to implement
sustainable practices in their companies because they are not aware that social and environmental
initiatives have become an economic reality and they are not aware of what they stand to gain [26–31].
Additionally, [32] suggests that in the Indian business environment there are similar apprehensions
that are held in tandem with what is happening in Western climes, in relation to issues like rising water
shortages, energy costs, consumer demand and cost savings through waste recycling. Therefore,
the need to arrest negative effects due to growing technological advancement, climate change,
environmental pollution, social vices, organizational knowledge acquisition and global demands
also make this study of high relevance, with the need to create awareness amongst academics and
practitioners in emerging nations [33].
However, sustainable performance reporting is quickly becoming a “must” for firms in the future,
despite the fact that the implementation of sustainable performance reporting is still not effectively
implemented in business organizations and nations, particularly Asian countries like Malaysia, and
especially in electronics and electrical companies [7,34]. These companies are not just the prominent
drivers of economic growth but are also the largest exporters of Malaysian products [35]. They are
exposed to global presence and face intense scrutiny from a wide range of stakeholders, especially
major customers from Western countries, in terms of compliance with social and environmental
regulations [36]. The success of E and E companies no longer relies on only the financial perspective
but also on environmental and social achievements.
This paper, therefore, aims to address the above problems by determining the critical success
factors that are attributable to sustainable performance measurement practices in Malaysian electronics
and electrical companies.
Meanwhile, the structure of this paper is in the following order: Outside of the introduction,
the next section delves into the research model based on theoretical foundations. Section 3 looks at
a description of sustainable performance measurement practices and related contingent factors, and
Section 4 covers the associated hypotheses. Section 5 contains the methodology and Section 6 shows
the results. Finally, Section 7 contains the discussions, implications, limitations and areas for further
studies, as well as our conclusions.
2. Research Model Based on Theoretical Foundations

Contingency theory of performance measurement relies on the assertion that there is no common
sustainable performance measurement, which is applicable in the same manner to all companies
under the same circumstances. Rather, the specific characteristics of the organization and its efficiency
are influenceable by particular organizational and contextual factors. Hence, variables relating to
the external environment, ownership structure, size, culture, strategy, organizational structure and
technology affect the control system. According to [37], organizational value is traceable to the
organizational and environmental context. Therefore, in this study, we rely on the work of [38]
and [39] in relation to contingency research to determine and discuss the relationships between major
contingency variables and sustainable performance measurement indicators, which form the premise
for the theoretical framework. However, in the context of the sustainable practices, the stakeholder
theory suggests that stakeholders play an important role in pressuring companies to adopt SPM
practices, which in turn can lead to a competitive advantage [40,41].
This study has unveiled a comprehensive research model for Malaysian E and E companies.
This model is made up of two major components: Factors influencing SPMs and indicators of SPMs,
aiming to achieve the research objectives shown in Figure 4, and the operationalization of the research
variables shown in Table 2.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 30
Figure 4. The
Figure4. The research
researchmodel.
model.
Table 2. Operationalization of the research variables.
Construct/Variables Operationalization
Contingent Factors
(1) Ensure employees understand SPMs
(2) Employees’ understanding of SPMs is high
(3) Employee opportunity to learn SPMs
(4) Employee opportunity to practice the SPMs
(5) Company does not fully utilize its expertise
(1) Organizational Learning Culture (LC) (6) Company has enough expertise to cope with the changes
(7) Learning as a key to improvement
(8) Key personnel involved in performance reporting process
(9) Plenty of employees involved in the performance
reporting process
(10) Performance reporting process is formal
(11) Transparent performance reporting
(1) Product complexity
(2) Expansion of product range
(3) Standardized products
(2) Advancement of Technology (AT) (4) Utilization of parts or components
(5) Mass/line production
(6) Unique and customized products
(7) Capital intensity
(1) Frequency of changes in marketing practices
(2) Obsolescence of product
(3) Unpredictability of competitors’ actions
(4) High entrants of competitors
(3) Globalization (GB) (5) Unpredictable change in customer demand
(6) Unpredictable change in consumer taste
(7) Engagement in international trade
(8) Collaboration with foreign companies
(9) The major customers’ group target in Western countries
(1) Business-friendly rules and regulations
(2) Environmentally and socially friendly rules and regulations
(3) Increased mandatory rules for environmental and
social needs
(4) Freedom in doing business
(4) Pressure from Stakeholders (PS) (5) Consideration of shareholder interest
(6) Consideration of a wide range of stakeholders’ interests
(7) Growing pressure from stakeholders’ demands
(8) Influence of employees
(9) Influence of government
(10) Influence of pressure groups
(11) Influence of media
Indicators of SPMs (SpamI)
(1) The revenue earned by the company
(2) The interest of the shareholders
Economic Indicators (EcI)
(3) The interest of the employees
(4) The interest of the government
(1) The productivity of resources
(2) The intensity of renewable resources
(3) Reuse or recycling of resources
Environment Indicators (EnI)
(4) Intensity of waste management
(5) Intensity of pollution or omission
(6) Investment in awareness and protection on environmental
sustainability
Table 2. Cont.
Construct/Variables Operationalization
Contingent Factors
(1) The issue of labour or employment
(2) The productivity of employees
Social Indicators (SoI) (3) The equality of employees
(4) Satisfaction of customer
(5) Initiative on community and corporate philanthropy
Control Variable
Size No. of full-time employees
3. Sustainable Performance Measurement (SPM) Practices

Three indicators of SPM practice have been adopted in this research: Economic, environmental
and social. The discussion is as follows.
3.1. Economic Indicators

Economic incomes have a strong connection with the degree of environmental protection in
the long run of their business. A reliable manner to improve environmental protection is to become
wealthy. With sound economic foundations, companies are able to expend their investments into other
aspects, such as environmental and social aspects.
A company with better economic gain will provide extra funds to make investments in social
performance [42]. Reference [43] also agreed that economic growth will lead to better social
performance. In general, shareholder value maximization and profit maximization, in particular,
can stimulate corporate social responsibility (CSR) [43]. On the other hand, if the company does not
reward such behaviour, it will exhibit a reduction in social performance.
According to [42], a shift in activities may raise economic growth but harm social performance.
Economic growth in electronics and electrical companies may impact employee effectiveness in terms
of using resources that cause less environmental damage [44]. The company’s image can be improved
compared to other competitors and better relationships with stakeholders may be formed. Lastly,
better economic indicators will lead to better environmental and social outcomes in E and E companies.
3.2. Environmental Indicators

Environmental practices are relevant to evaluating economic outcomes and are used as an
indicator for determining potential future economic impacts on a company [45]. According to [46]
and [47], there is clear evidence that environmental performance will provide stakeholders with
reliable, accurate and consistent information for the comparison of companies and can be used to
inform key strategic decisions. Some companies, with a new set of environmentally-related capabilities
such as waste minimization, green product design and technology co-operation are likely to benefit
from sustainable competitive advantage in the future. For instance, pollution avoidance activities,
which seek to mitigate wastes and emissions, could produce a sustainable competitive advantage of
lower overall costs that will help reduce the environmental burden and increase economic benefits,
delivering a competitive advantage [48,49].
In terms of E and E companies, which are also categorized as part of an environmentally sensitive
industry, environmental performance can minimize the costs on the environment, minimize the capital
cost and create a positive brand image that may result in a competitive advantage. All these benefits
will lead to an increasing market share and better economic performance [45]. In addition, improving
a companies’ environmental performance will improve employee performance through the reduction
of environmental hazards [17]. Reference [50] reported that environmental performance will also
improve social responsibility performance.
Furthermore, [51] stated that companies which implemented ISO 14001 standard will provide
guidance on how better environmental management leads to better product quality. Companies that
produce high-quality products will observe an increase in customer satisfaction. Companies with the
best environmental performance will encourage all their employees to join environmental programs
that the company organizes, which will directly lead to better performance results by the employees in
the companies [52]. Furthermore, the quality of the companies’ environment will improve, which will
provide a healthy and suitable working condition for employees. It can be concluded that a company
without sustainable environmental practices to provide a resource foundation will have difficulty in
achieving a better sustainable economic and social outcome. It is anticipated that E and E companies
with environmental practices, which can be represented by environmental indicators, are more likely
to have better economic and social outcomes.
3.3. Social Indicators

Reference [53] stated that social practices will lead to better economic outcomes. Activities related
to social measurements are likely to promote customer confidence towards a company’s products.
They will create a competitive advantage among the industry, resulting in a gain in profit and economic
growth. Furthermore, managers in electronics and electrical companies should often examine the
product’s practicality and the customer’s needs, leading to a radical new product strategy such that it
can increase the level of customer satisfaction [48]. Customer satisfaction will increase when customers
receive high levels of service without concern about post-consumer waste, and the company will
benefit from higher levels of customer retention and efficient use of recycled materials, which will lead
to economic growth and good environmental quality for the company.
There are many types of programs that can be devised to improve sustainability performance.
Reference [19] stated that companies should always be concerned about their employees, and
companies should improve social practices by providing education and training camps for employees
to improve their environmental awareness. Furthermore, a standard under ISO 26000 provides
direction on how companies can function in a socially responsible manner. This means acting in an
ethical and transparent way which can enhance the health and welfare of society. Sustainable business
for companies amounts to not only engaging in products and services that meet the customers’ needs
and do not harm the environment, but also operating in a socially responsible manner.
3.4. Control Variable

Size is included in this study, functioning as a robust control variable used for explaining corporate
management and business performance [24,25]. Large firms tend to invest more extensively into
sustainability management due to a better availability of resources. In addition, larger size firms
are more advantageous in terms of economies of scale, advertising and new product development,
which could serve as sources of firm performance [35]. In this study, the number of employees would
represent the measure of size [54–56].
4. Development of Hypotheses Based on the Research Model

Based on contingency theory, there is no “one size fits all” solution to the challenges facing
companies in adopting SPM practices. Therefore, it is important to identify the internal and external
factors that drive SPM practices. In the context of the sustainable practices, the stakeholder theory
suggests that stakeholders play an important role in pressuring companies to adopt SPM practices,
which in turn can lead to a competitive advantage [40,41,57]. As such, the four contingent factors that
influence SPM practice are: (1) The organizational learning culture, (2) the advancement of technology,
(3) globalization and (4) pressure from stakeholders, in line with the studies of [55–58]
4.1. Organizational Learning Culture and SPMs

An organization or company’s capacity to learn is a crucial factor in influencing sustainable
performance measurement. Companies that are environmentally-conscious should encourage
employees to have the freedom to make environmental improvements. Employees should be able
to improve performance without the intervention of management, and management can commit to
environmental endeavours through the adoption of sustainability culture [54]. One way to create
a sustainable work environment is to create values, norms and behaviours to learn which support
sustainability-related behaviours [59]. According to [60], the implementation of environmental source
reduction is to be supported by cultural change. In a nutshell, an organization’s learning culture is
expected to influence the indicators of SPMs [61–64]. Based on the discussions above, Hypothesis 1
is that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). The organizational learning culture influences the indicators of SPMs.
4.2. Advancement of Technology and SPMs

The study in [42] concluded that advancement in technology is reflected by an increase in
the following areas: Consumption of resources in qualitative and quantitative terms, energy used,
efficiency level of production and disposal of wastes to reduce the eco-cost. This study measures the
advancement of technology based on the efficiency of resource consumption and disposal of waste,
as highlighted by [65]. Technology complexity and efficiency affects the decision-making process as
well as the measurement model, and thus, a dynamic performance measurement model is required
to provide useful signals to measure the efficiency of the production environment. Technological
advancement is the resource which enables a firm to generate innovations in relation to products,
processes and engineering projects [66]. The general innovation literature theorizes that technology is
the dominant driver of a firm’s innovative activities [67].
On the other hand, according to [68], the implementation of advanced technologies could
have a great deal of influence on the work environment, as this could ensure retraining of the
residual workforce (skill upgrading), and cause changes in job responsibilities due to the integration
across the practical areas of business. To some extent, the peculiarity between dissimilar types of
production/process techniques (e.g., unit production, small batch, large batch, mass and continuous
production) is an issue that has since been recognised as having an influence on the structure of internal
management control systems, such as SPMs. As a result, the expectation is that as the advancement
of technology increases, the measurement becomes more complex. Additionally, manufacturing
dimensions such as quality, innovativeness and flexibility need be considered, i.e., the company will
adopt SPMs. Similar findings were found in the studies by [55,65,66]. In line with the discussions
above, Hypothesis 2 is as stated below:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Advancement of technology influences SPMs.
4.3. Globalization and SPMs

According to [67–69], companies will change their control systems if operating under a more
competitive environment, as proper performance measurement models and monitoring are vital
for survival. In short, performance measurement models [70], particularly sustainable elements,
will be influenced significantly by growing competition in businesses. Many companies now
actively seek to confirm their superiority over their competitors in terms of environmental and social
peculiarities of quality of service, reputation, branding, flexibility, customization, innovation and rapid
response [71–73]. Clearly, products and processes which are associated with more environmental and
ethical practices usually earn a better reputation, where this ultimately transforms into economic gains
and puts them ahead their rivals. As such, companies with strong market positions have a greater
level of awareness for internal communication, and thus are likely to place a higher emphasis on the
policy of a performance measurement model to incorporate their sustainable initiatives.
Companies, predominantly those with a universal presence, are required to pledge to sustainable
practices, as a company’s reputation is crucial to the company’s success [74]. In short, globalisation,
which can be measured by the intensity of competition and international exposure, seems to influence
the indicators of SPMs, which is supported by [75,76]. Based on the discussions above, Hypothesis 3 is
formulated as below:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Globalisation influences the indicators of SPMs.
4.4. Pressure from Stakeholders and SPMs

According to [77], pressure from stakeholders in terms of responsibility, effectiveness and
efficiency in managing the sustainable performance of companies is growing, particularly in terms of
sustainable disclosure. The study in [78] recommended that Malaysian companies should earnestly
embark on environmental reporting if the disclosures are mandatory and in the best interests of
stakeholders. The belief is that as the concern for economic, environmental and social issues rises, the
pressure from stakeholders will need to increase in order to monitor company activities, particularly
for SPMs.
In fact, stakeholders (e.g., the regulators) are leading the way for sustainable reporting among
Malaysian electronics and electrical companies. For instance, Bursa Malaysia introduced the corporate
social responsibility (CSR) framework in 2006. The pressure from stakeholders is expected to influence
the indicators of SPMs [79–81]. Based on the discussions above, Hypothesis 4 is as stated below:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Pressure from stakeholder influences the indicators of SPMs.
4.5. Malaysian Manufacturing Firms as Population of Study

This research focused on manufacturing firms as the area of analysis. Three main reasons were
used to support the selection of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Firstly, the manufacturing sector
in Malaysian is highly sensitive to the influence of sustainability issues arising from regulators,
customers and other stakeholders. According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia, Malaysian
manufacturing firms spent a relatively large amount of environmental protection costs on waste
product handling, which affects their competitiveness. This is because a significant percentage of
Malaysian manufactured products are being exported to overseas markets which emphasise these
sustainability issues. Secondly, the practice of sustainable production by Malaysian manufacturing
firms is crucial to ensuring the continuous competitiveness of the country’s economy, as well as
becoming a high-income nation in 2020. Thirdly, much of the prior literature based on manufacturing
firms collected samples from developed economies. There was a lack of empirical studies concerning
developing countries, including Malaysia, despite the fact that manufacturing firms operating in
developing economies are inevitably subject to significant sustainability pressures globally.
5. Methodologies
All the research instruments and the operationalisation of the research variables were adapted
from previous studies as discussed above and a 5-point Likert scale was adopted in designing the
questionnaire. The complete questionnaire is in Appendix A.
Before the actual field work, pretesting and a pilot test was conducted, where a selected sample
of 1106 companies was used to carry out the field work. The various follow-ups that were made
resulted in a 19.7% response rate. This study focuses on the targeted population which is comprised
of respondents from both The Electrical and Electronics Association of Malaysia (TEEAM) and The
Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM). Both associations are the best representatives of
Malaysian E and E companies.
After cross-checking with both databases and eliminating duplicates, a single database which
consisted of 2212 companies was created from the whole population of electronics and electrical
companies registered in Malaysia with either TEEAM or FMM. Table 3 shows the sample size and
response rate for the study.
Table 3. Sample size and response rate.
Item No. of Companies

The Electrical and Electronics Association of Malaysia (TEEAM) 1600
Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) 2135
Final list from both TEEAM and FMM 2212
Selected sample size (50% of the final list) 1106
Received questionnaire 255
Final sample after filtering 217
Response rate based on final useable responses 19.7%
The data collected for this study were quantitatively analysed with the aid of the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Amos 18. Prior to the tests, several multivariate analysis
assumptions must be considered, namely missing data, sample size and normal distribution.
There were two major techniques involved in this study: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and
path analysis.
6. The Result
6.1. Non-Response Bias

The response and non-response biases were tested in this study using t-tests to compare the
similarities between the standard deviation, mean and the standard error of the mean of the late and
early responses in the main variables. Based on the mentioned facts, this study has classified 130
respondents as early responses and 87 respondents as late responses. The outcome has shown no
existence of a non-response bias (Table 4).
Table 4. Levene’s test for equality of variance on the non-response bias.
Number of Standard Std. Error Mean

Variable Response Mean
Cases Deviation Mean Difference
Organizational learning culture Early 130 3.748 1.111 0.133
0.088
(LC) Late 87 3.660 0.931 0.132
Advancement of technology Early 130 3.710 1.073 0.123
0.061
(AT) Late 87 3.649 0.989 0.140
Globalization Early 130 3.478 1.032 0.123
0.037
(GB) Late 87 3.441 0.941 0.133
Pressure from stakeholders Early 130 3.579 0.925 0.111
0.036
(PS) Late 87 3.543 0.887 0.125
Indicators of SPMs Early 130 3.970 0.982 0.115
0.046
(SpmI) Late 87 3.924 0.956 0.110
6.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 5 indicates the profiling of the respondents based on location, ownership, operational year
and size, respectively. The majority of the respondents (62.2%) were located in the Klang Valley
(which includes Selangor and Kuala Lumpur). From the results, more than 68% of the manufacturing
companies that responded to the survey were Malaysian owned, and most of the companies (40.1%)
have been operating for more than 20 years, and the majority of them (52.1%) are categorised as small
size, with less than or equal to 74 full-time employees.
Table 5. Companies profile based on location, ownership, age and size.
Frequency Percentage (%)

Klang Valley 135 62.2
Location Non-Klang Valley 82 37.8
Total 217 100.0
Malaysian-owned 149 68.6
Joint-Venture 34 15.7
Ownership
Foreign-owned 34 15.7
Total 217 100.0
New (≤10 years) 63 29.0
Middle (11 to 20 years) 67 30.9
Age (Operational Year *)
Old (>20 years) 87 40.1
Total 217 100.0
Small (≤74 full-time employees) 113 52.1
Medium (75 to ≤200 full-time employees 36 16.6
Size (No. of employees *)
Large (≥200 employees) 68 31.3
Total 217 100.0
Note: * Categorization is based on the guidelines provided by the National SME Development Council (NSDC).
Table 6 shows the values of the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, variance, range,
minimum and maximum for the independent variables and dependent variables, which comprise
of factors influencing SPMs and indicators of SPMs. Under factors influencing SPMs, there are
four independent constructs: (1) Organizational learning culture, (2) advancement of technology, (3)
globalization and (4) pressure from stakeholders. The sustainable performance measurement (SPM)
indicators consist of three sub-constructs: Economic, environmental and social indicators.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the research variables.
Central Tendency Variability Others

Ref
Mean Median Mode S.D. Variance Range Minimum Maximum
Factors Influencing SPMs #
(1)
Organisational LC 3.71 4 4 0.98 0.97 4 1 5
Learning Culture
(2) Advancement
AT 3.63 4 4 0.98 0.96 4 1 5
of Technology
(3) Globalization GB 3.45 3 3 1.02 1.03 4 1 5
(4) Pressure from
PS 3.55 4 4 1.10 1.20 4 1 5
stakeholders
Indicators of SPMs * (SpmI)
(1) Economic
EcI 4.13 4 4 0.81 0.66 4 1 5
Indicators
(2)
Environmental EnI 3.73 4 4 0.94 0.89 4 1 5
Indicators
(3) Social
SoI 4.08 4 4 0.82 0.67 4 1 5
Indicators
Note: S.D. refers to standard deviation; # (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); * (1 = not at all, 5 = large extent).
The results show high mean and standard deviation values for the SPM indicators and the
contingency factors were as follows: Economic (4.13; 0.81); environmental (3.73; 0.94); social (4.08; 0.82);
organizational learning culture (3.71; 0.98); advancement of technology (3.63; 0.98); globalisation
(3.45; 1.03); and pressure from stakeholders (3.55; 1.10), respectively.
6.3. Reliability
In addition, Table 7, shows the reliability test for factors influencing SPMs and indicators of
SPMs pre- and post-fitness modification. Collectively, the reliability for all data increased and met the
requirements of Cronbach Alpha (>0.70), construct reliability (>0.60) and AVE (>0.50). Collectively, the
normality test for all constructs fulfilled the requirement of skewness and kurtosis, in a range of −2 to
2 [82]. Essentially, the study was free from the issue of multicollinearity as the entire construct did not
exceed 0.85.
Table 7. Reliability test.
Construct Pre-Fitness Adjustment Post-Fitness Adjustment

Cronbach Alpha CR AVE Cronbach Alpha CR AVE
Factors influencing SPMs
Organizational
Learning Culture 0.823 0.976 0.434 0.928 0.969 0.656
(LC)
Advancement of
Technology 0.788 0.973 0.428 0.840 0.946 0.706
(AT)
Globalization
0.720 0.969 0.381 0.826 0.933 0.508
(GB)
Pressure form
stakeholders 0.923 0.989 0.542 0.929 0.953 0.648
(PS)
Indicators of SPMs (SpmI)
Indicators of SPMs
0.777 0.976 0.557 0.865 0.975 0.567
(SpmI)
Economic
0.572 0.954 0.368 0.725 0.971 0.508
(EcI)
Environment
0.785 0.978 0.467 0.861 0.974 0.563
(EnI)
Social
0.607 0.938 0.237 0.703 0.964 0.531
(SoI)
Note: The accepted criteria are: Cronbach Alpha > 0.7; CR > 0.6; AVE > 0.5.
Discriminant validity was tested via correlation statistics, as shown in Table 8. All the variables
showed positive correlations with each other, while LC had the highest correlation (0.635) with AT, but
the least (0.242) with SPMs. All the correlations between exogenous constructs were ≤0.85, which was
above the required level.
Table 8. Correlation matrix.
LC AT GB PS SpmI
LC 1.000
AT 0.635 1.000
GB 0.595 0.556 1.000
PS 0.603 0.550 0.528 1.000
SpmI 0.242 0.485 0.378 0.466 1.000
The Hausman endogeneity test was performed, which involved a two-stage least squares
estimation. Firstly, residuals were created by performing first stage regression of the independent
variables. Secondly, the regression was re-ran by including the residuals in the equation. The result
indicated that P = 0.0687, which did not suggest an endogeneity problem.
6.4. Structural Equation Modelling

The comparison of fit statistics between the initial and modified measurement models are shown
in Table 9. The modified measurement model yielded the following fit model: Chi-square (χ2 ) of
548.099, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.072, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI)
of 0.840, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) of 0.799, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.903,
Turker-Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.888, Normed Fit Index (NFI) of 0.833 and a Chi Square/degrees of
Freedom (χ2 /df) ratio of 2.116. Thus, Table 9 shows the fulfilment of all the criteria. The modification
process has significantly improved the overall model fit as the model fit is now acceptable for path
analysis to answer the research objectives.
Table 9. Comparison of the fit statistics between the initial and modified measurement model.
Fit Statistics Initial Measurement Model Modified Measurement Model

Chi-square (χ2 ) 4210.438 548.099
Degree of Freedom (df) 1363 259
P-Value 0.000 0.000
RMSEA 0.098 0.072
GFI 0.543 0.840
AGFI 0.502 0.799
CFI 0.622 0.903
TLI 0.603 0.888
NFI 0.530 0.833
x2/df 3.089 2.116
Note: P value = 0.000, RMSEA = below 0.08, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, NFI = either one above 0.9, χ2 /df = below 5.
Once the fit of the measurement model was acceptable, the second step was to test for the
structural model via path analysis. The standard error of the mean is a technique suggested to analyse
the inter-relationships or multi-regression of all the variables in a measurement model [83]. Table 10
also reveals the P value and R2 derived from the modified measurement model of SPMs.
Table 10. Regression result.
Coefficients Standard Error Critical Ratio (C.R.) P Value

SpmI <— LC 0.017 0.193 0.087 0.930
SpmI <— AT −0.299 0.142 −2.104 0.104
SpmI <— GB 0.454 0.112 4.056 0.000 ***
SpmI <— PS 0.580 0.166 3.511 0.000 ***
SpmI <— Size 0.003 0.073 1.563 0.118
Note: *** = p < 0.001; R2 = 0.704.
Table 10 shows that LC had a positive effect on SPMI (β = 0.017), however there was no significant
relationship between them, thus, H1 was rejected. In the case of AT and SPMI, there was a negative
effect (β = −0.299) but no significant relationship, hence, the rejection of H2. Furthermore, there was a
positive effect of GB on SPMI (β = 0.454) with the presence of a strong significant relationship, thus,
H3 was accepted, while with respect to PS and SPMI, there was also a positive effect of the latter on
the former (β = 0.580) that was supported by a strong significant relationship, thus, H4 was accepted.
In terms of the control variable, our findings reported no significant association between SpmI and
firm size (β = 0.003). The structural model showed that the independent variables explain 70.4%
(R2 = 0.704) of the dependent variable. Therefore, the results suggest that globalisation and pressures
from stakeholders are responsible for E and E companies’ focus on SPMs and economic, social and
environmental indicators in Malaysia.
7. Discussion
Factor (1), organizational learning culture and Factor (2), the advancement of technology, both
do not influence the SpmI of Malaysian E and E companies. One of the possible reasons is that E and
E companies in Malaysia are not convinced about the financial benefits of emphasizing sustainable
measurements or indicators of SPMs. As a result, policy makers of Malaysian E and E companies do not
emphasize any learning cultures or technologies for the sake of sustainability. This result is inconsistent
with [61,67]. However, [84] supports it. These outcomes are not in line with contingency theory. For
an organization’s learning culture, the finding indicates that learning cultures are highly internalised
among employees of the companies, however, the benefits of the learning cultures might not be
successfully translated into anticipated achievement in terms of SpmI. This is probably due to the lack
of an employee empowerment climate in a developing country like Malaysia, which limits employees’
self-directed decisions on sustainability activities. In terms of advancement in technology, the majority
of the sampled firms (>68%) in this study were small and medium (mostly family-owned) in size,
meaning that they might not be able to invest in advanced technology [55]. Another reason could
be that these companies with limited resources are reluctant to change to radically new technologies
which require huge capital investment and technical expertise. As a result, lacking in advancement of
technology among Malaysian firms has not benefited them in achieving superior performance. It is
important for Malaysian firms to overcome obstacles in adopting radical technologies in order to gain
superior performance from their technological management.
Factor (3), globalization, does in fact influence the SpmI of Malaysian E and E companies.
According to [22], business leaders truly realize how vital sustainable practices are for the survival
of their companies in the face of harsh global competitions. Hence, companies aggressively seek to
distinguish themselves from their rivals in terms of their environmental and social reputations, the
quality of their service, their branding, flexibility, customization, innovation and rapid responses.
Likewise, E and E companies, especially those with an international presence, are required to be
committed to a sustainability goal as the company’s reputation is crucial to its success, particularly
from the perspective of their major customers [74]. This is in line with contingency theory, suggesting
that globalization will affect a firms’ resource-allocation strategies. Companies are more likely to invest
in sustainability practices which could produce positive superior performance [39].
Factor (4), pressure from stakeholders, does influence the indicators of SPMs in Malaysian E and E
companies. According to [82], pressure from stakeholders’ anticipation on responsibility, effectiveness
and efficiency in managing the sustainable performance of companies is growing, particularly in terms
of sustainable measurement and disclosure. Government agencies are the obvious factor that influence
the adoption of sustainability practices. Stakeholder theory explains that the actions undertaken in
the best interests of the stakeholders would lead to a positive firm performance and the survival of
organizations in the long run [70,85].
This research has proved fruitful in unveiling a comprehensive SPM model with unprecedented
scope, stretching from factors to indicators of a SPM model for Malaysian E and E companies. Such an
unprecedented comprehensive SPM model is adequately capable of generating insight to address the
problem effectively. The main challenge in promoting sustainable practices among E and E companies
in Malaysia is still the mindset that focusing on sustainability may not promote financial outcomes. For
example, companies in Malaysia, especially E and E companies, still do not show their own initiative
to develop SPM indicators unless they receive pressure from external stakeholders or globalization.
Even though E and E companies are aware of how essential indicators of SPM are upon the outcomes
of SPMs, they remain unconvinced about the financial feasibility of adopting sustainable performance
measurements. As a result, stakeholders, especially policy makers, must play a leading, persistent and
initial role in encouraging the adoption of sustainable performance measurements among companies.
The details discussing the findings for each of the components are unveiled as follows:
In terms of the factors influencing the indicators of SPMs, two factors have a strong influence on
the indicators of SPMs: (1) Globalization and (2) pressure from stakeholders. Interestingly, both of
these factors are classified solely and purely as external factors. In contrast, internal factors like (1) the
organizational learning culture and (2) advancement of technology have no impact on the indicators
of SPM. In a nutshell, the research findings portray a very interesting and explicit fact that sustainable
performance measurement indicators are drivable by external factors, in the context of a developing
nation like Malaysia. In short, with more stringent rules from regulators (external forces), companies
will need to emphasise external factors such as globalization and pressure from stakeholders in order
to survive in harsh competitive environments. Companies in Malaysia, especially E and E companies,
still do not show their own initiatives to formulate indicators of SPMs unless they receive pressure
from external stakeholders or are under very intense exposure from globalization, such as intense
competition and internalization.
7.1. Contributions and Implications of the Study

The contributions and implications of this study are emphasised from three major perspectives:
Theoretical, social and political.
From the theoretical angle, the study has shown that the activities of the profit organizations can
be further justified on the grounds of the contingency theory with the applications of contingent factors
such as globalisation, organisational structure, size, ownership structure, culture and technology.
In relation to the social aspect, management, policy makers and government have the
responsibility of ensuring the production of goods and services that are capable of meeting up with
the needs of not only local consumers but also international communities, due to the requirements
of globalisation.
The political implication has to do with bills sponsored to ensure that appropriate laws are in
place to protect every stakeholder in the scheme of events both locally and internationally. Again, it is
in terms of upgrading the existing culture and equipping all organizations with the required learning
mechanisms that we can help increase productivity with the application of the right technology
by everyone.
7.2. Limitations and Areas for Future Research

One of the criticisms levelled against the contingency theory is the assumption about the
causation between contingency variables and sustainable performance measurements; whereas
these relationships are not in-depth enough to justify the exclusion of other factors [70]. Despite
methodological and theoretical issues, like model underspecification and any measurement error that
led to inconsistent results, the contingency theory has remained a sound theory for understanding
the relationship between contextual variables and sustainable performance measurements in the
greatly dynamic and complex sector context [85]. In future studies, we will focus our efforts
on not-for-profit organizations, in addition to carrying out longitudinal research with respect to
profit-oriented companies.
7.3. Conclusions
The evidence shown in this study has revealed that E and E companies are the second largest
exporter in the Malaysia economy, with four major areas of concentration. The study was based on
the contingency theory and stakeholder theory, with suggestions that no one factor explains the basis
for the effectiveness of a company and that stakeholders can exercise force on an organization to
meet their needs. However, of the four factors considered, two of them (globalisation and pressures
from stakeholders) influenced the SPMs, while the other two (organizational learning culture and
advancement in technology) did not have a significant influence. The contributions and implications of
this research are from theoretical, social and political perspectives, while the limitation is with respect
to the lesser application of the contingency theory. Meanwhile, research efforts in the future should
consider longitudinal studies and the relation of this area of study to non-profit organizations.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.H.T. and T.S.O.; Methodology, B.H.T.; Software, B.H.T.; Validation,
B.H.T., T.S.O. and A.S.L.; Formal Analysis, B.H.T.; Investigation, B.H.T.; Resources, T.S.O.; Data Curation, T.S.O.;
Writing—Original Draft Preparation, T.S.O.; Writing—Review and Editing, B.H.T., T.S.O. and A.S.L.; Visualization,
B.H.T.; Supervision, T.S.O.; Project Administration, B.H.T., T.S.O. and A.S.L.; Funding Acquisition, T.S.O. and
B.H.T.
Funding: The research was funded by Universiti Putra Malaysia and Multimedia University, Malaysia.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Higher
Education Ministry of Malaysia, (Grant no: FRGS/1/2016/SS01/MMU/02/9) and Putra Grant, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, (Grant no: UPM/700-2/1/GPM/2017/9590300).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1 Organisation Profile

Please state clearly:
1. Name of Organisation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
2. Full Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
3. Telephone Number: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. E-mail Address of Company: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... .
5. Number of Years in Operation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . year(s).
6. Number of Full Time Employees (40 working hours per week): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Number of employees based on ethnic groups: Malay . . . . . . . . . . . . Chinese . . . . . . . . . India
... . . . . Others . . . . . . .
8. Number of total executive level employees: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of female executives:
... ... ... ... ... ...
9. Total company revenue: 2016: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2017: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

10. Total net income: 2016: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
11. Total of shareholders’ capital: 2016: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ...
12. Total electricity consumption: 2016: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017: RM.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ...
13. Total industry waste 2016: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Metric tonnes. 2017: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metric tonnes.
14. Number of industrial accident reported (source: SOCSO): 2016: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017:..
. . . .
f years spent working in . . .your
. . . . .organisation:
... . ……………… years
f subordinates directly report to you: ………………………………
Appendix A.2 Respondent’s Profile
1. Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
formation:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
f years spent working in your organisation: ……………… years
…………………….. 2. Current position in the Organisation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
…………………… ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
………………… 3. Number of years spent working in your organisation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . years
formation: 4. Numberwith
ate the level of your agreement of subordinates
each of thedirectly following report to you: . .by
statements . . ticking
. . . . . . . the
. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
f years
…………………….. spent working in
5. your
Contact organisation:
information: ……………… years
x. Please use SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
f subordinates directlyPhone
…………………… reportNo.: . . . ………………………………
to you: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
d SD for strongly disagree. Fax No.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
…………………
ed in: E-mail: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
formation:
ate the level of your agreement with the eachlevelof the
Please indicate of following
your agreement statements bySA
with each ticking
of the the following
A statements by ticking
……………………..
x. Please use SA for
the strongly
relevant agree,
box. A for
Please agree,
use SA N for
for neither
strongly agree
agree,nor
A disagree,
for agree, D
N for
for neither agree nor disagree, D
D SD
……………………
d SD for strongly for disagree and SD for strongly disagree.
disagree.
………………… I am involved in:
ed
g in: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
my
fate
years spent working in your organisation:
SA
the level of your agreement with Aeach of ………………
theNfollowing years D
statements bySASD
ticking the
f subordinates directly 5.report
Planning to you: organisation’s Performance Measurement ModelA(PMM)
my………………………………
x. PleaseSD
D use SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
d SD for strongly disagree.
ng my 0rganisation’s PMM
formation:
ed
g myin: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
…………………….. SA A
ng the results of the PMM 6. Designing my organisation’s PMM
……………………
D SD
…………………
:ng
ate
my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s
the level of your
PMM
Critical Success with
agreement Factors
each of the following
g my 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)statements by ticking the
ational Learning Culture
x. Please use SA for strongly agree, the
A for agree,
ng the results of the PMM7. Analysing results ofN forPMM
the neither agree nor disagree, D for
ed in: N D SD
ng my 0rganisation’s
:isation
Organization’s PMM
Critical Success Factors the SPMs.
ensures all employees understand SA A
Dng the results
SD of theAppendix
PMM A.3 Organization’s Critical Success Factors
anization, employees’ understanding of the
N SPMs isD (A) Organizational
SD Learning Culture
nization’s
gOrganization’s
my 0rganisation’s high.
Performance Measurement Model (PMM) D
:isation SASuccess Factors
Critical A N SD
ensures all employees understand the SPMs.
ational Learning Culture 1. My organisation ensures all employees understand the SPMs.
s are given the opportunity to learn about the SPM s
anization,
ourses, employees’
training understanding of the
and seminars
N D PMMSD in my organization).
nization’s SPMs is high.
isation ensures all employees understand the SPMs.
sng
are given
the theof
results 2. In my
opportunity
the PMM organization,
to practise employees’ understanding of the organization’s SPMs is high.
the SPMs
anization, employees’
ourses, training understanding
and seminars of the
in my organization).
: Organization’s Critical
nization’s SPMs is high. Success Factors
ization
ationaldoes not fully
Learning utilise its expertise.
Culture
s are given the opportunity to practise the SPMs
ization has enough expertise to cope with changes
SA A
formation:
ate the level of your agreement with each of the following statements by ticking the
Df years spent SD working in your organisation: ……………… years
……………………..
……………………
g my 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
ed…………………in: Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 21 of 33
formation:
ate the level of your agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
A
……………………..
x.
D Please use
SD SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
f subordinates
…………………… directlyPMMreport to you: ………………………………
ed…………………in: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
g my 3. Employees are given the opportunity to learn about the SPM s
ng
ate the
theresults
formation:
level of ofyour
the PMM
agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
(e.g., courses, training and seminars in my organization). A
……………………..
x. PleaseSD
:df Organization’s
……………………subordinates directly
SD for stronglyCritical
report
disagree. Success to you: ………………………………
Factors
ed ational
………………… Learning Culture
in: 0rganisation’s
g my Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
formation:
ng the results of the PMM 4. Employees are given the opportunity to practise the SPMs A
f years
…………………….. spent working in your organisation: ……………… years
x. PleaseNSD
D use SA for D strongly SDagree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
f
……………………subordinates directly report to you: ………………………………
disation
SD for ensures
stronglyall disagree.
employees understand the SPMs.
ng
:…………………my 0rganisation’s
Critical Success Factors
ed g myin: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
ational
formation:Learning
ate the level Culture
of your agreement withofeach of the following statements by ticking the
anization, employees’ understanding
5. My organization the
does not fully utilise its expertise.SA A
ng
f the
years
…………………….. results
spent of the
working PMMin your organisation: ……………… years
x. PleaseSD
nization’s
D use SAisfor
SPMs strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
high.
d SD for strongly disagree.SD
…………………… N D
: Organization’s PMM
isation
ed………………… ensures allCritical
in:given employeesSuccess Factors the SPMs.
understand
sg are
my the opportunity
0rganisation’s Performanceto learn about the SPM
Measurement s (PMM)
Model
ational
formation:
ate the Learning
level of Culture
your agreement with each of the following statements by ticking the
ourses,
ng the training
results of and
the seminars
PMM6. My organization has enough expertise to cope withSA
in my organization). changes inAthe environment.
f years
……………………..
anization, spent working
employees’ in your organisation:
understanding of the ……………… years
x.
D Please use
f
……………………subordinates
nization’s N directly
D
SPMs is disagree.
high. report
SD to you: ………………………………
ds SD are for strongly
given the opportunity to practise the SPMs
ng
:…………………my 0rganisation’s
isation
ed in: ensures all employees understand the SPMs.
ational
formation:Learning Culture
sate
arethe level
given theofopportunity
your agreement
7. Thetobasic
with
learn eachthe
about
values
ofSPM
of our
the following
s
Organisation
statements bySA ticking the
include learning as a keyAto improvement.
ng
f
……………………..the
years results
spent of the
working PMMin your organisation: ……………… years
x.
D anization,
ourses, SD employees’
Pleasetraining
use SA and understanding
for strongly
seminars agree, of
forthe
in myAorganization).
agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
ization
f does
subordinates
N notdirectly
fully
D utilise
report
SD itstoexpertise.
you: ………………………………
……………………
nization’s
d SD for strongly SPMs is disagree.
high.
:ng
isation
…………………
my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s
ensures all
PMM
Critical
employeesSuccess Factors the SPMs.
understand
ed in:
sg are
my given the opportunity
0rganisation’s Performanceto practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
Measurement
ization
ational has
formation: enoughCulture
Learning expertise to cope with changes
ate the level of your
s are given the opportunity agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
ng the results of the PMM8. Keytopersonnel
learn about in the
my SPM s
organization involved in the performance A reporting.
onment.
……………………..
x. Please
Dourses, training use
SD SA for strongly agree, A for
and seminars in my organization). agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………
nization’s
dization
SD forNstrongly
SPMs isD high. SD
disagree.
ngyears
my does
spentnot
f: Organization’s fully
working
0rganisation’s utilise
in your
PMM itsorganisation:
expertise. ……………… years
values
isation
ed…………………in:
of
ensures allCritical
our Organisation
employeesSuccess
include Factors
learning
understand theasSPMs.
a
sg are
my given
fational the opportunity
0rganisation’s
subordinates Performance
directly report to practise
to the
Measurement
you: SPMs
……………………………… Model (PMM)
Learning Culture
sate
arethe level
given theofopportunity
your agreementto
9. Plenty
with
learn eachthe
about
of employees
13
ofSPM
the following statements bySA
in mysorganization involved in
ticking the
A
the performance reporting process.
ization has enough
ng the results of theexpertise
PMM to cope with changes
x.anization,
Please
ourses,
Donment. employees’
use SA
training
SD for
and understanding
strongly
seminars agree,
in my A of
for the
agree,
organization). N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
formation:
SD forN
nization’s
dization SPMs isD
strongly
does
high. SD
disagree.
not fully utilise its expertise.
ng
……………………..
:isation my 0rganisation’s
ed in: ensures all employees understand
sg are
Measurement
values
ationalofLearning
…………………… our Organisation
Culture include learning as a
s are given the opportunity to
10. Decisionlearn about the SPMorganizational
s SAreportingAprocess is always formal.
ization has enough
ng the results
………………… of theexpertise
PMM to copemaking in my
with changes performance
anization,
Dourses, employees’
training
SD understanding
and seminars in my 13 of the
organization).
onment.
ate theNlevel of is
your
D agreement
SD with each of the following statements by ticking the
nization’s SPMs high.
ization
:ng does not fully
my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s utilise
PMM
Critical its expertise.
Success Factors
x. Please
isation use SAall
ensures for strongly
employees agree, A for agree,
understand the SPMs.N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
sg are
Measurement
dvalues
ational
s SD
ofLearning
for
are given
our Organisation
strongly disagree.include
Culture
the opportunity
learning as a
to learnmaking
about the SPMorganizational
s
ization
ng the has enough
results of the PMM11. Decision
expertise to cope with changesin my performance reporting process is always transparent.
ed in:
organization).
onment. N SPMs isD
nization’s high. SD SA A
ization
: ng does not fully
my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s utilise
PMM
Success Factors
Disation ensures
s are given
all employees understand the SPMs.
SDthe opportunity to practise the SPMs
values
ationalofLearning
our Organisation
s are given the opportunity to learn aboutofthe
(B) Advancement SPM s
Technology
ization has enough
PMM to cope with changes
anization,
g my 0rganisation’s understanding
training and Performance
seminars
SA in my of the
Measurement
organization).
A
13 Model
N (PMM) D SD
onment. N SPMs isD SDorganisation’s products are complex in nature.
nization’s high.1. My
ization does not fully utilise
: Organization’s its expertise.
isation ensures allCritical
understand
values
ationalofLearning
our Organisation
sngaremygiven the opportunity
0rganisation’s PMM totolearn about the SPM s
ization has enough expertise cope with changes
ourses, training and seminars in my 13 of the
organization).
onment. N D SD
nization’s SPMsofisthe
ng the results high.
ization does not fullyPMM
utilise its expertise.
values of our Organisation include learning as a
s: Organization’s
are given the opportunity
Critical to learn
Success about the SPM s
Factors
organization).
ed…………………
in:
formation:
A
……………………..
x.
D Please use
……………………
d SD for strongly Sustainability
disagree. 2019, 11, 1058 22 of 33
ed…………………
in: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
g my
formation:
2. My organisation is innovative in expanding the product range.A
f years
…………………….. spent working in your organisation: ……………… years
x.
D Please use
……………………
ed…………………
g my
formation:
3. A
f years
ng spent working
the results
…………………….. of the PMM in My
yourorganisation
organisation: produces
……………… a high years
number of standardised products.
x.
D Please use
……………………
:ng my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s
…………………
PMM
ed in: 0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
g my
formation:
ational
ate Learning
the level Culture
of your agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
ng the results of the PMM 4. My organization’s products are combine of number of parts orAcomponents.
……………………..
x. PleaseSD use SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
D
……………………
d SD forNstronglyD disagree.SD
:isation
ed………………… ensures all employees
f years spent working in yourunderstand
organisation: ……………… years
ational
ate the Learning
level of Culture
your agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
f subordinates directly5.report to you:
Mass/line ………………………………
production. A
ng the results of the PMM
x.
D Please
anization, use
SD SA for
employees’ strongly agree,
understanding A for
of agree,
the N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
SD forNstrongly
dformation:
nization’s SPMs isD high. SD
disagree.
:isation
ed f years ensures all employees
spent working in yourunderstand
organisation: ……………… years
g my
…………………….. Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
sf subordinates
…………………… directly6.report to to
Jobbing learn about
you: the(i.e.,
SPM
………………………………
production s
unique, SA
customised products). A
anization,
D………………… SD employees’
ourses, training understanding of the
and seminars in my organization).
nization’s N SPMs isD high. SD
formation:
ng
ate my
the0rganisation’s
level of your PMM
agreement with each of the following statements by ticking the
:isation
Organization’s
ensures Critical
all employees Success Factors
understand the………………
SPMs.
sf are
g years
my
…………………….. spent
given working
0rganisation’s
the in your
Performance
opportunity to organisation:
Measurement
practise SPMsModel
theagree, years
(PMM)
x.ational
PleaseLearning
use SA for strongly agree, A for
Culture N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
s f are
…………………… given
subordinatesthe opportunity
directly report
7. My to learn
to about
you: the SPM
………………………………
organization’s production s is capital intensive rather than Labour intensive
dng SDthe results
for of the
strongly PMM
disagree.
anization, employees’ understanding of
ourses, training and seminars in my organization). the
ed…………………
in: N
nization’s
formation: SPMs isD high. SD
ng
ization
ate my
:isationthe0rganisation’s
does
levelnot
Organization’s fully
of your PMM
utilise
agreement
Success with each of the following statements bySA
Factors ticking the
A
f years ensures
spent all employees
working in your understand
organisation: the………………
SPMs. years
s are
……………………..
x. given
Please usethe
SA opportunity
for strongly to practise
agree, A the
for SPMs
D ational Learning
SD Culture
sf subordinates
directly(C)reportto to
learn
you:about the SPM s
………………………………
……………………
ng
dization
SDthe results
forhas of the
enough
strongly PMMGlobalization
expertise
disagree. to cope with changes
SA
ourses, training and seminars Aof the
in my organization). N D SD
ed…………………
onment.
g my
nization’s N SPMs isD high. 1. MySDOrganisation
Performance Measurement Model(i.e.
frequently (PMM)
semi-annually or quarterly) changes its marketing practices
formation:
ization
ate the does
levelnot fully
of your utilise
agreementits expertise.
with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
:isation
Organization’s Critical
ensures allsuchemployeesSuccess Factors
understand the SPMs.
as advertisements. A
s are
……………………..
x. given
Please usethe opportunity toagree,
practise theagree,
SPMs N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
D ational
values SDourSA
ofLearning for strongly
Culture
Organisation include A for
learning as a
……………………
dization
SD forhas enoughdisagree.
strongly expertise to cope with changes
anization,
ng
my 0rganisation’s
training understanding
PMM
organization).
ed…………………
onment.
g my N
nization’s SPMs is high. D SD
Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
ization
ate the does
levelnot fully utilise
of your agreementits expertise.
with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
A
isation
ng the ensuresofallthe
results employees
PMM understand
2. Products the SPMs.
are becoming obsolete at a very high rate in the industry.
s are
x.values given
Please usethe opportunity to practise the SPMs
D ofSDourSA for strongly
Organisation agree,learning
include A for agree,
as a N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
dization
SD forhas enoughdisagree.
strongly expertise to cope with changes
anization,
:ng employees’
my 0rganisation’s
ourses, training
Organization’s and understanding
PMM
seminars
Critical Successin my of the
organization).
Factors
ed onment.
in: 13
g my 0rganisation’s
nization’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
SPMs is Culture
high.
ationaldoes
ization Learning
3. Our competitors’ actions are unpredictable. SA A
sng the
are results
given theof the PMM
opportunity to practise the SPMs
Dvalues ofSD our Organisation include learning as a
ization N has enough D expertiseSD to cope with changes
ourses,
:isation training
Organization’s and PMM
seminars
Critical Successin my organization).
Factors
onment. ensures all employees understand 13 the SPMs.
ationaldoes
ization Learning Culture
4. Threat of new entrants/competitors is high
sng the
are results
given
anization, theof the PMM
opportunity
employees’ to practiseofthe
understanding theSPMs
nization’s N
ization hasSPMs enough D SD
expertise to cope with changes
is high.
:ng
isation
my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s
ensures all
PMM
Critical
employeesSuccess Factors
13 the SPMs.
understand
onment.
ational
ization Learning
doesthe Culture
notopportunity
fully utilise toitslearn
expertise.
s are given 5. Customer about the
demand SPM sunpredictably.
change
anization,
values
ourses,of employees’
our Organisation
and seminars include of the
in mylearning as a
organization).
ization N
nization’s hasSPMs isD
enough expertise
high. SDto cope with changes
: Organization’s
13 the SPMs.
understand
sonment.
are given the opportunity to practise the SPMs
anization,
values
ourses,of employees’
our Organisation
and seminars include of the as a
in mylearning
organization).
N D SD
formation: SA A
x.
D Please use
……………………..
df SD yearsforspent
strongly disagree.
working in your organisation: ……………… years
……………………
ed g in: 0rganisation’s
f subordinates
my directly report to you:
Performance ………………………………
Measurement Model (PMM)
…………………
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 SA A 23 of 33
Dformation: SD
x.f years
Pleasespent
use SA for strongly
working in youragree, A for agree,
organisation: N for neither
……………… agree nor disagree, D for
years
……………………..
df SD for strongly disagree.
g subordinates
……………………my 0rganisation’sdirectly report to you:
ed in:
…………………
ng the results of the PMM 6. Consumer tastes change unpredictably.
formation: SA A
D…………………….. SD
x. :ng my 0rganisation’s
Please use SA for
strongly
Critical agree,
Success A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
Factors
……………………
dfational
SD forspent
strongly disagree.
years working
Learning in your organisation: ……………… years
Culture
………………… Performance Measurement
7. My organisation engages Model
heavily(PMM)
on international trade
ed ng the
in: results of the PMM
(e.g., International export
ate the level of your agreement with each of the following statements and import business)by ticking the
N D SD SA A
x. Please
:formation: use
Organization’s SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
Disation SD
ensures allCritical
PMM understand the SPMs.
dng SD my
fational
0rganisation’s
for
years spentstrongly disagree.
working
Learning in your organisation: ……………… years
Culture
……………………..
ed g in:
f subordinates
my 0rganisation’sdirectly report to you:
Measurement Model (PMM) with foreign company on various aspects
……………………
8. My organization of the
has close collaboration
…………………
nization’s N SPMs isD high. SD (e.g., product development, technology transfer)SA A
Disation
formation: SD
ate theensures
level ofall employees
your agreement understand
with each theofSPMs.
the following statements by ticking the
:f Organization’s
years spent Critical
working in Success
your Factors ……………… years
organisation:
……………………..
x.sngare my
Please 0rganisation’s
givenusethe PMM toagree,
SAopportunity
for strongly learn A for agree,
about the SPMN for
s neither agree nor disagree, D for
fational
g
……………………
anization,
Learning
subordinates
my 0rganisation’s Culture
directly
employees’ report to you:
Performance
understanding ………………………………
Measurement
of the Model (PMM)
dourses,
SD fortraining
strongly disagree.
and seminars in my organization).
…………………
nization’s
ngin: SPMs is high.
the results of the PMM 9. The major customers of my company are from western countries particularly US, UK and EU.
ed
N
formation: D SD
sate
are the level
given ofopportunity
the your agreement with each
tounderstand
practise thethe of the following statements bySA
SPMs ticking the
A
isation
……………………..
ng my ensures all
0rganisation’s employees
PMM SPMs.
x. s Please
are givenuse
D:f Organization’s SA
the for strongly
opportunity
SD working
years spent Critical toagree,
Success
in your learn A for
about agree,
the SPMN
Factors ……………… years
organisation: for
s neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………
dourses,
SD for strongly
training disagree.
and seminars in you:
my organization).
fational
anization,
Learning
subordinates Culture
directly
employees’ report to
understanding ………………………………
of the
…………………
ng the results of the PMM(D) Pressure from Stakeholders
ed
izationin:
does not fullyPerformance
utilise its Measurement
expertise. Model (PMM) D
nization’s SPMs is high. SA A of theNfollowing statements SD
sate
are the level
given
N
formation:
ofopportunity
the your
D
agreement
SDto with each
1. Rules and regulations in my country are business friendly. A
practise the SPMs bySA
ticking the
x.:f Organization’s
Pleasespent
use SA for strongly agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
D years
isation
ization
…………………….. SD
ensures
has allCritical
working
enough employeesSuccess
in your
expertise
Factors
organisation:
understand
to with the
copeabout ………………
SPMs.
changes years
s are
dfational
SD given the
forLearning opportunity
strongly disagree.
Culture to learn the SPM s
ngsubordinates directly
my 0rganisation’s
onment.
…………………… report to you: ………………………………
PMM
ed ourses,
in: training and seminars in my organization).
ization
anization,
………………… does not fullyPerformance
employees’ utilise Measurement
its expertise.
understanding of the Model (PMM)
N D SD
2. Rules and regulations SA and social
A
s
formation:
nization’s
ng
values
ate
are
the
the SPMs
results
of our
level
given
ofis
of
the
high.
the
your PMM
Organisation include
agreement
opportunity to learning
with
practise each
the ain my
as the
of
SPMs
country statements
following are environmental
by ticking the friendly.
D isation
ization SDenough
ensures all employeesto understand the SPMs.
Pleasehas
……………………..
x. use SA forexpertise
strongly agree, copeAwith changes
for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
ng my
onment.
…………………… 0rganisation’s PMM 13
d:s Organization’s
are given
SD the opportunity
for strongly Critical
disagree. to learn
Factors
anization,
………………… employees’ Performance
understanding Measurement
of the Model (PMM)
ed ourses,
ational
in: training
Learningand seminars in my organization).
Culture
ization does not is
fully utilise its expertise.
3. Increasing mandatory
nization’s
ng
ate the
values SPMs
results
theof our
level high.
ofyour
the PMM
Organisation
of include
agreement learning
with each of arules
as the for environmental
following statements and social
bySA compliance.
ticking the
A
x. Please
s are given
Dization use SA for strongly
NSDthe opportunity
D SD agree, A for agree,
to practise the SPMs N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
has enough expertise 13
:sngaremy 0rganisation’s
given
Organization’s
disation
SD for strongly PMM
the opportunity
Critical
disagree. totolearn
Success
copeabout
with changes
Factors thethe SPM s
ensures all employees understand SPMs.
onment.
ourses, training and seminars in my organization).
ed ational
g my Learning Culture
ng the results of the PMM 4. My country is deem moderately freedom in doing business
anization, employees’ understanding its expertise.
(Easy of the
to learning
start business, SA A
values
s are of our
given Organisation
the opportunity include
to practise the as a obtain license and close business)
SPMs
D
nization’s NSD SPMs isD high. SD
:isation
Organization’s Critical Success Factors the SPMs.
ng my ensures
ization has enoughall employees
0rganisation’s expertise
PMM to understand
cope 13 with changes
sg mygiven
onment.
are 0rganisation’s Performance
the opportunity to learn Measurement
about the SPM Model
s (PMM)
ization
anization, does not fully
employees’ utilise its
understandingexpertise.
5. My organisation of the
only considers shareholders’ interests.
ourses, training
ng the results ofand seminars
the PMM in my organization).
nization’s N SPMs D
is high. SD
isation
ization ensures
has all
enough employees
expertise understand
to cope with the SPMs.
changes
:sngaremy 0rganisation’s
given
the opportunity
Critical to practise
Success the SPMs
Factors
13
sonment.
are given
ational the opportunity
Learning Culture to learn about the SPM s
anization,
training
ng the results ofand understanding
6. My organisation
seminars
the PMM of the
considers wide range of stakeholders’ interest
nization’s
values of our SPMs is high.
Organisation (e.g.,
include learning government,
employees, as a pressure group, media)
ization N does not fullyD utilise SD its expertise.
:s Organization’s
are given
isation ensuresthe opportunity
allCritical
employees tounderstand
Success practise the SPMs
Factors
13 the SPMs.
sational
are given the
Learning opportunity to learn about the SPM s
ization has enoughCulture
expertise to cope with changes
onment. employees’ understanding of the
anization,
ization
nization’s does
N not is
SPMs fully
D
high.utiliseSD its expertise.
SA A
formation:
x.
D Please use
……………………..
……………………
my
f subordinates Performance
directly report to you: Measurement
……………………………… Model (PMM)
………………… Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058
SA A 24 of 33
D SD
formation:
……………………..
f years
g spent working
my 0rganisation’s in your organisation:
Performance Measurement ………………
Model (PMM)years
……………………
ed in:
f subordinates directly 7.report
Growingto you: ………………………………
pressure from stakeholders’ demands upon my organizational strategies and goals.
ng
…………………the results of the PMM
SA A
D SD
formation:
x.:ng my 0rganisation’s
Organization’s
Please use SA for PMM
Critical Success
strongly agree, Factors
A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………..
dational
SD forLearning
strongly Culture
disagree.
f years
g spent working
my 0rganisation’s in Employee
your organisation:
Performance
8. Measurement ………………
has influenced Model years
(PMM)
my organizational strategies and Goals
……………………
ed in:
f subordinates directly(e.g., report to you: ………………………………
employee unions)
………………… N D SD SA A
: ate the level
Organization’s of your agreement
Critical Success with each
Factors of the following statements by ticking the
Disation ensuresSD all employees understand the SPMs.
formation:
x.ng my 0rganisation’s
Please
ational use SA for
Learning
PMM agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
strongly
Culture
……………………..
danization,
SD for strongly
employees’disagree.
understanding of the
…………………… Performance
9. Government Measurement
has Model
influenced my(PMM)
organizational strategies and goals
ed ng the
in: results of the PMM
N
nization’s SPMs is high. D SD
(e.g., green tax incentives, grant and subsidies)
…………………
isation ensures all employees understand the SPMs. SA A
: ate the level of your
Organization’s agreement
Critical Success with each of the following statements by ticking the
Factors
Ds are given SDthe opportunity to learn about the SPM s
x.ng my 0rganisation’s
Please
ational use SA for
Learning
PMM agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
strongly
Culture
anization,
f years spent
trainingworking understanding
in your in
and seminars of the ……………… years
organisation:
my organization).
g my
nization’s 0rganisation’s
SPMsof
f subordinates isthe Performance
high.
directly report
10. Measurement
to you:
Pressure ………………………………
groups/NGOs Model
have (PMM)
influenced my organizational strategies and goals
ed ng the results
in: PMM
N D SD
(e.g., reputation, pressure on government’ policies)
sformation:
: are given the opportunity
Organization’s Critical to learn
Factors
ourses, PMM in my organization).
ational training
…………………….. Learningand seminars
Culture
anization,
f subordinatesemployees’ understanding you: of the
……………………
ization does notdirectly report
fully utilise itstoexpertise.
………………………………
g my
nization’s 0rganisation’s
SPMsofisthe Performance
high.11. Media Measurement
has influenced Model (PMM)
sngare
…………………the results
given
N the opportunity
D
PMM
SDto practise the SPMsmy organizational strategies and goals
(e.g., reputation, branding)
formation:
ate
ization theensures
level
has ofall
enough your agreement
expertise to with
cope each
with ofSPMs.
the following statements by ticking the
changes
isation employees understand the
s f are
years
……………………..
:onment. given
spentthe
Organization’s opportunity
working in
Critical to
your
Successlearn about
organisation:
Factors the SPM
……………… s years
ourses,
fational training
subordinates and PMM
seminars in you:
my organization).
……………………
dization
SD fordoes
anization, notdirectly
Learning
strongly Culture
fully
employees’
report
utilise
disagree. itstoexpertise.
understanding
………………………………
of the
ed…………………
valuesin: of our Organisation include learning as a
nization’s SPMs isthe
high.
Appendix A.4 Characteristics and Outcomes of Sustainable Performance Measurements (SPMs) Model
sngare
ate the
theresults
given
formation:
level
N
of
theof your PMM
opportunity to practise
agreement
D expertiseSD with the SPMs
each of the following statements bySA ticking the
ization has enough to cope with changes A
……………………..
x. Please
isation use
ensuresSA for
all (A)
strongly
employees Economic
agree, AIndicators
13
understand for agree,
the N
SPMs.for neither agree nor disagree, D for
Dsonment.
are givenSDthe opportunity to learn about the SPM s
To Success
what extent the following activities/practices/initiatives are perceived to be IMPORTANT
d: Organization’s
SD for stronglyCritical
…………………… disagree. Factors
ourses,
ational training
Learning and
to seminars
your
Culture in
company? my organization).
ization
ed………………… does not fully
anization, employees’ utilise its expertise.
understanding of
values
g my of our OrganisationSA includeMeasurement
Performance A the as a Model
learning N (PMM) D SD
ate the level of your agreement with each of the following
nization’s SPMs is high.1. New product introduction for bigger market share statements by ticking
SA the
A
s are givenN the opportunity
D SDto practise 13 the SPMs
ization
x. PleaseSD
D has enough expertise to cope with changes
isation
onment.
ds SD ensures
for strongly all disagree.
ngaremygiven the opportunity
0rganisation’s PMM to learn about the SPM s
ed g in:
my 0rganisation’s Performance
ourses, training and seminars in my Measurement
organization).Model (PMM)
ization
anization, does not fully utilise
employees’ its expertise.
understanding of the
values of our Organisation include
2. Cost learning
cutting as a
initiatives SA A
nization’s
Ds are given SPMs is high.
SDthe opportunity to practise the SPMs
ization has enough expertise to cope 13 with changes
Organization’s
onment.
PMM
sg are
mygiven the opportunity
0rganisation’s to learn
Performance about the SPM
Measurement s (PMM)
Model
ourses, training
ng the results ofand seminars
the PMM in my organization).
3. Employees’ welfare investments
ization does not fully utilise its expertise.
N D SD
sngare
:isationmygiven the opportunity
0rganisation’s
Success 13 the SPMs
Factors
ization ensures all employeesto
has enough expertise cope with the
understand changes
SPMs.
onment.
ng the results of the PMM4. Follow governmental policy/initiatives
ization Ndoes not fully utilise its expertise.
values of our
nization’s SPMs isDhigh. SD
Organisation include learning as a
: Organization’s
isation ensures allCritical Success
employees Factors the SPMs.
understand
ization has enough expertise
ational Learning Culture to cope 13
with changes
anization,
N D SD
…………………….. SA A
Df subordinates
…………………… SD directly report to you: ………………………………
…………………
level of yourPerformance
formation:
ate the agreement with Measurement Model
each of the (PMM)statements by ticking the
following
f years Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 25 of 33
Pleasespent
……………………..
x. working
use SA in youragree,
for strongly organisation: ………………
A for agree, years
N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
df SD
subordinates
…………………… for stronglydirectly report to you: ………………………………
disagree.
ngin:my 0rganisation’s PMM
…………………
ed
formation:
A
……………………..
ng the
x. PleaseSD results of the PMMEconomic Outcomes
D
f years spent working To in your
whatorganisation: ………………
extent the following yearsare ACHIEVED/USED by your company?
outcomes
……………………
Large Cetain
f subordinates directly report to you: ……………………………… Not Limited Not
…………………
:gOrganization’s
ed in: 0rganisation’s
my Critical Success
Performance Factors
extent extent Sure extent at all
ate the level
ational of your
Learning agreement
1. Revenuewith each of the following statements bySA
Culture ticking the
A
formation:
x. PleaseSD
……………………..
dng SD myfor
N stronglyD
0rganisation’sdisagree.
PMM SD organisation: ……………… years
f years spent working in your
……………………
ed in:
isation ensures directly
all employees
f subordinates reportunderstand
Performance the SPMs.
Measurement
to you: Model (PMM)
………………………………
…………………
ng the results of the PMM 2. Net Profit SA A
Danization, SD
formation:employees’ understanding of the
nization’s
:ngyears
…………………….. SPMs
spent isCritical
my 0rganisation’s
f Organization’s high.
working PMM
in your organisation:
Success Factors ……………… years
g my
fational0rganisation’s
subordinates
Learning Performance
directly
Culture Measurement
report to you: Model (PMM)
………………………………
……………………
ed in: 3. Earning-per sharethe SPM s
sngare given
the
………………… theof
results opportunity
the PMM to learn about
SA A
ourses, training
level of and
formation:
ate theN D seminars
your SD in my
agreement withorganization).
each of the following statements by ticking the
D SD
f Organization’s
years
……………………..
isation
x. spent
Pleaseensures working
use SA all
for
PMM
in your
Critical
employees
strongly organisation:
Success Factors
understand
agree, the………………
SPMs.
A for agree, years
N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
dsfational
subordinates
are
……………………
SD given directly report
the opportunity
forLearning
strongly Culture
disagree. to to you: ………………………………
practise the SPMs
g my 0rganisation’s Performance
4. Employee Measurement
monetary Model (PMM)
remunerations
ng the results
…………………
anization, of the PMM
employees’ understanding of the
ed in: (e.g., Wage, salary, leave pay, bonus, allowance, commission)
formation:
ate theN
nization’s level
SPMsof isD
your SD
agreement
high. with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
A
:
x.f years
……………………..
ization
isation
Please spent
Organization’s
does
ensures
use working
not
SA all in
Critical
fully your
Success
utilise
employees
for strongly itsorganisation:
Factors
expertise.
understand
agree, A for ………………
the SPMs.
agree, N for years
neither agree nor disagree, D for
D SD
dsfational
subordinates
……………………
SD forLearning
are given
directly
strongly report to you: ………………………………
Culture
disagree.
the opportunity to learn about the SPM s
…………………
ization
anization,
ed
g my has enoughandexpertise
employees’
ourses, training seminars
Performance toincope
understanding my with
of thechanges
organization).
ng the results of the PMM 5. Employee benefits
formation:
ate
onment.
nization’s N
the level
SPMsof isD
your
high. SD
agreement with each of the followingleave
statements bySA
ticking the
A
(e.g., Medical, dental, child-care, passages, accommodation, transportation, meal)
……………………..
Disation
x. Please ensures
use
SD SA all employees
for strongly understand
agree, A for the SPMs.
:f Organization’s
years spent working
……………………
in your
Critical Success organisation:
Factors ……………… years
dvalues
sngSD
aremyfor
of
givenstrongly
our disagree.
theOrganisation
opportunity
0rganisation’s PMM include
to learnlearning
about the asSPM
a s
fational
subordinates
Learning directly report to you: ………………………………
Culture
…………………
anization,
ed
g my employees’
and Performance
seminars in my of the
organization).
ate the level of is
your agreement with13 each of(Inland
the following
nization’s
ization
ng
SPMs
does not
the results
high.
offully 6. Taxes paid to
utilise its expertise.
the PMM LHDN Revenuestatements
Board) bySA
ticking the
A
formation:
N D SD
x.s are
D Please usethe
SD
given SAopportunity
for stronglytoagree, A for
practise theagree,
SPMs N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………..
dsngSD
aremyfor
givenstrongly disagree.
the opportunity
0rganisation’s PMM totolearn about the SPM s
ization has enough
: Organization’s expertise
Critical Success cope with changes
Factors
……………………
ed
g in: 0rganisation’s
ourses,
my training and Performance
seminars in my organization).
onment.
…………………
ization does not
ng the results offully 7. Taxes
utilise
the PMM its breaks/relief
expertise. from LHDN (Inland Revenue Board) SA A
ate the level
nization’s SPMsof is
your agreement with each of the following statements by ticking the
high.
Ds are given SDthe opportunity to practise the SPMs
x. PleaseNuse SA for D strongly SD agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
:ng my ensures
ization 0rganisation’s
has enough
Organization’s
isation all PMM
expertise
Critical to
Success cope with the
Factors changes
ds SD
are for strongly
given disagree. tounderstand
employees
the opportunity learn about
13
SPMs.
the SPM s (PMM)
g my
onment. 0rganisation’s
ational Learning CulturePerformance Measurement Model
ed in: training and seminars
ourses, in my
8. Subsidies organization).
and grants received from Government
ization does not
ng the results offully utilise
the PMM its expertise.
anization, employees’ understanding of the SA A
values of
nization’s N our
SPMs Organisation
isDhigh. include learning as a
SD
Ds are given SDthe opportunity to practise the SPMs
:ng my ensures
ization 0rganisation’s
has enough
Organization’s
isation PMM
expertise
allCritical to
Success
employees cope with the
Factors
understand changes
SPMs.
13
onment.
ational Learning Culture to learn about the SPM s
sg are
0rganisation’s Performance Measurement Model (PMM)
ng the results of the PMM9. Tax incentives, grant and subsidises received on environmental initiative
and seminars in my of the
organization).
ization does not fully utilise(e.g., renewable sources, energy conservation, green building index)
its expertise.
values of
nization’s N our
SPMs Organisation
isDhigh. SD include learning as a
: Organization’s
isation ensures allCritical Success
employees Factors the SPMs.
understand
sng
are
0rganisation’s PMM totopractise 13the SPMs
ization
ationalhas enough
Learning expertise
Culture cope with changes
onment.
and seminars of the
N SPMs isD
nization’s high. SD
values
isation of our
ensuresOrganisation
all employees include learning asSPMs.
a
s are given the opportunity tounderstand
practise thethe
SPMs
: Organization’s Critical Success Factors
s are given
ization the opportunity
expertisetotolearn
copeabout
13 the SPM s
ationalhas enough
Learning Culture with changes
df SD for strongly
subordinates disagree.
directly report to you: ………………………………
ed in:
formation: SA A
D
…………………….. SD Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 26 of 33
……………………
………………… Measurement
10. Tax incentives, grant and Model (PMM)received on social initiative
subsidises
ate the level of your agreement with each of the following and
(e.g., donation, employee training participation
statements in local
by ticking thecommunities)
formation:
……………………..
dng SDmyfor strongly disagree.
0rganisation’s PMM
……………………
ed in:
………………… Environment indicators
ng the results of the PMM SA A
To what extent
ate the level of your agreement with theeachfollowing activities/practices/initiatives
of the following statements by tickingare theperceived to be IMPORTANT
D SD
formation: to strongly
your company?
x. Please use SA for agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
: Organization’s Critical SASuccess Factors A N D SD
……………………..
fational
g years Learning
my 0rganisation’s
spent Culture
working Performance
in your Measurement
organisation: ………………
1. Resources efficiency/productivityModel (PMM)
years
……………………
ed in: (e.g.,
f subordinates directly report to energy and material consumption)
you: ………………………………
…………………
SA A
N D SD
D SD
isation
ng my ensures all employees
0rganisation’s
formation: PMM understand the SPMs.
……………………..
f years spent working Performance
in Renewable Measurement
your organisation: Model (PMM)
anization,
ng employees’
the results
…………………… of the PMM 2.
understanding of the ………………
resources intensity years
ed in: (e.g., solar, wind, biomass, hydro)
f subordinates
nization’s SPMsdirectly
is high. report to you: ………………………………
…………………
SA A
:ate
the level of your Success with
agreement Factorseach of the following statements by ticking the
D SD
formation:
x.sational
are
Please Learning
givenusethe Culture
SAopportunity
for stronglytoagree,
learn A about the SPM
for agree, s neither agree nor disagree, D for
N for
……………………..
dourses,
SD fortraining
strongly and seminars in my organization).
disagree.
in Resources
3. Measurement
your organisation:
reuse and……………… Model (PMM)
recycle years
ng the results
…………………… of the PMM
ed in: N D SD
(e.g., energy/material recycle and reuse)
…………………
s are given
isation the opportunity
ensures all employees tounderstand
practise thethe SPMsSPMs. SA A
:ate
D SD
formation:
x. ational Learning Culture
anization,use
Please SA for
employees’ strongly agree, Aof
understanding forthe
……………………..
dization
SD fordoes
nization’s strongly
not is
SPMs disagree.
fully utilise
high. its expertise.
4. Waste Measurement
management Model (PMM)
intensity
……………………
ed in: N D SD
(e.g., landfill waste and scrap)
…………………
s are given
has enough expertisetotolearn
copeabout the SPM s
with changes SA A
:ate
Dourses,
onment. SD
training and seminars
ng my 0rganisation’s PMM in my organization).
x. ational Learning Culture
anization,use
Please SA for
employees’ strongly agree, Aof
understanding forthe
d SD for strongly
nization’s SPMs is disagree.
high.
g are
sng mygiven
values 0rganisation’s Performance
theOrganisation
opportunity Measurement
5. Pollutions/emission
to practise a Model (PMM)
asintensity
the SPMs
the of our
results of the PMM include learning
ed in: N D SD
(e.g., CO2 )
isation ensures all employees understand 13 the SPMs. SA A
Dourses, training
SD and seminars
ization PMM itsinexpertise.
my organization).
Learning utilise
Culture
nization’s
g are
mygiven SPMs is high.
0rganisation’s Performance Measurement
sng theof
the results 6. Investment
opportunity
theexpertise
PMM onthe
to practise SPMsModel
awareness (PMM)
and protection on environmental sustainability
ization has enough
N D SDto cope with changes
(e.g., training, rule and third parties verification)
onment.
ourses,
ng training and seminars
my 0rganisation’s PMM itsinexpertise.
my organization).
ization does
ationalof not fully
Learning utilise
Culture
values
anization, our Organisation
employees’ include learning
understanding of the as a
nization’s SPMs is high.Environment Outcomes
sng
are given
the theof
results opportunity
PMM totopractise
theexpertise the SPMs
ization has enough
N D SD cope 13 with changes
To what extent the following outcomes are ACHIEVED/USED by your company?
onment.
isation ensures all employees
Largetounderstand the SPMs.
Cetain Not Limited Not
s are given the opportunity learn about the SPM s
: Organization’s Critical Success
Extent Factors Extent Sure Extent at All
ization does
ationalof not fully
Learning utilise
Culture itsper
1. Sales expertise.
unit
values
employees’ include
understanding ofofthe
learningenergy
as a consumption
(e.g., high energy usage vs. low energy usage)
ization Nhas enough SDto cope 13
D expertise with changes
onment.
values of our
anization, Organisation
SA A
formation:
……………………..
……………………
ed…………………
in: Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058 27 of 33
formation:
A
……………………..
x.
D Please use
f subordinates
ng
…………………… directlyPMM
my 0rganisation’s report to you: ………………………………
ed…………………
g my 2. Sales per unit of primary material input
formation:
ng
ate the
theresults
level of ofyour
the PMM
agreement with each of the following statements bySA ticking the
f years spent working in your (e.g., high raw material
organisation: ……………… usage vs. low raw material usage) A
years
……………………..
D
f: Organization’s
subordinates directly
…………………… report to you: ………………………………
d SD for stronglyCritical disagree. Success Factors
ed…………………
formation:
3. Percentage of renewable energy consumption A
f
ngyears
the
…………………….. spent
results working
of the PMMin your organisation: ……………… years
x.
D PleaseNSDuse SA for
D strongly SD agree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………
disation
SD for strongly
ensures all disagree.
Organization’s
…………………
PMM
ed in:
formation:
ational
ate Learning
the level Culture
anization,
f years employees’
spent working
understanding
4.
in Percentage ofofrenewable
your organisation: the ……………… used as input to productionA
material years
……………………..
D
nization’s SPMsdirectly
is high. report to you: ………………………………
f subordinates
……………………
d SD forNstronglyD disagree.SD
:isation
ed………………… ensures all employees
in: 0rganisation’s understand
sg my
are given
formation: the Performance
opportunity to learnMeasurement
about the SPM Model
s (PMM)
ational
ate Learning
the level Culture
5. A
ourses,
f years
ng training
spent
the results
…………………….. ofand
working
the PMMin Percentage
seminars
your in my of reused component per
organization).
organisation: ……………… product
years
x. Please
Danization, use SA for strongly agree,
SDemployees’ understanding of the A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………
d SD N
for SPMs isD
nization’sstrongly high. SD
disagree.
sng my
are
:isation 0rganisation’s
given
Organization’s
…………………
PMM
the opportunity
Success Factorsthe SPMs
ed ensures all employees
in: 0rganisation’s understand the SPMs.
formation:
ational
ate Learning
the level Culture
sf years
ng
are given
the spenttheworking
results
opportunity
of the PMM6.
in your to learn
Percentage about
organisation: the
of recycled SPM s
material
……………… used as input to production A
years
……………………..
x. PleaseSD use SA for strongly agree, Aof fortheagree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
D anization,
and seminars in you:
my organization).
f subordinates
ization
…………………… does not directly
fully report
utilise to
its ………………………………
expertise.
N
d SD for strongly
nization’s D
SPMs is disagree.
high. SD
Organization’s
…………………
isation ensures all
PMM
Critical
understand
sg my
are given
formation: the Performance
opportunity to Measurement
practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
ational
ization
ate Learning
the has
levelenough Culture
of your expertise
agreement to cope
with with
each changes
of the following statements bySA ticking the
sf years
7. to learn about the SPM s A
spent working
ng the results
…………………….. of the PMM in Percentage of energy
your organisation: reuses/recycles
……………… years
x. onment.
Please
Danization, use SA for
SDemployees’ strongly agree,
understanding A for
of theagree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
ourses, training
f subordinates and seminars
directly report to in you:
my organization).
………………………………
……………………
d SD N
for strongly D
disagree. SD
:ng
izationmy 0rganisation’s
…………………
isation
does not fully
Organization’s
ensures
PMM
utilise
allCritical
employees
its expertise.
Success Factors the SPMs.
understand
edvalues
g of our Organisation
my include
Performance learning as a Model (PMM)
Measurement
sformation:
are given the opportunity to practise the SPMs
ational
ate Learning
the level Culture
s are given the opportunity 8. Kg to learn about
industry waste the
perSPM
unitsof sale A
ng the
……………………..
ization results
has of
enough the PMM
expertise to 13
copeAwith changes
x. Please
Danization, use SA for
SDemployees’ strongly agree,
understanding for
of theagree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………
d onment.
SD N
for strongly D
disagree. SD
:ng
…………………
PMM
does not fully utilise
Organization’s employees
its expertise.
understand
my Performance Measurement
s are given the opportunity to practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
ational
ate
values theofLearning
level
our of Culture
your agreement
Organisation include with each of
learning as the
a following statements bySA ticking the
s are given the opportunity 9. Scrapto learn about
per unit the SPM s
of sale A
ng the results
ization has of theexpertise
enough PMM to cope with changes
x. Please
anization, use
Dourses, training
SD SA for
employees’ strongly agree,
understanding A for
of agree,
the N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
and seminars in my 13 organization).
donment.
SD forNstrongly
nization’s SPMs isD high. SD
disagree.
:ng
Organization’s
PMM
employees
its expertise.
understand
sg are
my Performance
given the opportunity Measurement
to practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
ationalofLearning
values Culture include learning as a
our Organisation
s are given the opportunity to learn about
10. Tons of CO2 emissions the SPM pers unit of sale SA A
ng the results
ization of theexpertise
has enough PMM to cope with changes
Danization, SDemployees’
organization).
onment. N D SD
:ng
Organization’s
PMM
employees
its expertise.
understand
s are given the opportunity to practise Measurement
the SPMsModel (PMM)
ationalofLearning
our Organisation
s are given the opportunity 11. Tonsto learn
of COabout the SPM
2 emissions pers unit of electricity
ng the results
organization).
onment. N SPMs isD
:ng
Organization’s
PMM
employees
its expertise.
understand
ationalofLearning
our Organisation
s are given the opportunity to learnand
12. Training about the SPM
course s
on environmental awareness
ng the results
organization).
onment. N SPMs isD
: Organization’s its expertise.
understand
ationalofLearning
our Organisation
organization).
onment. N D SD
SA A
……………………..
x.
D Please use
……………………
…………………
g my
ate the level of your agreement
Sustainability with
2019, 11, 1058each of the following statements bySA
ticking the
A 28 of 33
x.f years
D Pleasespent
use SA
SD for strongly
working in youragree, A for agree,
organisation: N for neither
……………… agree nor disagree, D for
years
dng
f SD for strongly
subordinates
my disagree.
directly
0rganisation’s report to you: ………………………………
PMM
g my
formation:
ng 13. Rule and regulation on environmental protection SA
the results of the PMM A
D
…………………….. SD
……………………
g my
…………………0rganisation’s Performance
ational Learning Culture Measurement Model (PMM)
ate the
ng theresults
level ofofyour 14. Third parties
agreement
the PMM verification
with each and certificate
of the following on environmental
statements by ticking Protection
the and initiatives
formation:
x. PleaseNuse SA for D strongly SDagree, A for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………..
disation
:ng SDmyfor strongly
0rganisation’s disagree.
PMM
f Organization’s
years ensures allCritical
spent working Success
employees
in your Factors the………………
understand
organisation: SPMs. years
……………………
ed in: Learning Culture
ational
………………… Social indicators
ng the results
employees’ understanding of the SA A
To what extent
ate the level of your agreement with the
eachfollowing activities/practices/initiatives
of the following statements by tickingare
theperceived to be IMPORTANT
D
nization’s NSD SPMs isD high. SD
formation: to your company?
:isation
ensures all employeesSA Success Factors
understand
A the SPMs. N D SD
……………………..
fsational
g my
years Learning
0rganisation’s
spent Culture
working Performance
are given the opportunity in your Measurement
organisation:
1. Labour/employment Model
………………
to learn about the SPM issues
s (PMM)
years
……………………
ed in: (e.g., health and safety, training and development, industrial relations)
f subordinates
anization, directly
employees’
ourses, training report to
understanding
and seminars you: ………………………………
of the
…………………
SA A
D SD
isation
ng my ensures all employees
0rganisation’s
formation: PMM understand the SPMs.
x.s are given
Please usethe
SAopportunity
for stronglytoagree,
practise theagree,
A for SPMs N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
……………………..
in Employee
2. Measurement
your organisation: Model (PMM)
………………
productivity years
anization,
ng
…………………… the
results of the PMMunderstanding of the
ed in: training and seminars (e.g.,
f subordinates
nization’s SPMs directly report to Revenue/Operating
you: ……………………………… profit per employee)
…………………
ization does not is high.
fully utilise its expertise. SA A
:sateOrganization’s
arethe level
given the Critical
ofopportunity
your Success
agreement
to Factors
with
practise each
the of the following statements by ticking the
SPMs
D SD
formation:
x. s ational
are
Please
ization has Learning
given the
useenough Culture
SAopportunity
for stronglytoto
expertise learn
agree,
copeAabout the SPM
for agree,
with changes s neither agree nor disagree, D for
N for
……………………..
dourses,
SD fortraining
onment. strongly and seminars in my organization).
disagree.
3. EmployeeMeasurement
equality Model (PMM)
……………………
ed
izationin: N does not fullyD utilise SD its expertise.
(e.g., gender, ethnic equality)
…………………
svalues
are given
isation ensuresthe opportunity
all employees tounderstand
practise thethe
SPMs
of our Organisation include learning asSPMs.
a SA A
:ate Organization’s
the level of yourCritical Success with
agreement Factors
each of the following statements by ticking the
Dization has SDenough expertise to cope with changes
x. ational
Please Learning
use SA for Culture
strongly agree, A13for agree, N for neither agree nor disagree, D for
anization,
dization
SD fordoes
nization’s strongly
not is
SPMs disagree.
fully utilise
high. its expertise.
4. Customer Measurement
satisfaction Model (PMM)
ed in: N D SD
values of our Organisation (e.g., includecomplaint
learningfrom
as a customer)
s are given
has enough expertisetotolearn
copeabout the SPM s
with changes
Dourses, SD 13
onment.
ng training
my 0rganisation’sand seminars
PMM in my organization).
nization’s
g are
mygiven SPMs is high.
0rganisation’s Performance
5. Community Measurement
initiatives Model (PMM) philanthropy
sng
valuesthe of theOrganisation
our
results opportunity
of the PMM to practise
include learning as aand
the SPMs corporate
N D SD
(e.g., donation)
isation ensures all employees understand 13 the SPMs.
ourses,
ng training and seminars
my 0rganisation’s PMM itsinexpertise.
my organization).
ization
Learning utilise
Culture
nization’s SPMs is high.Social Outcomes
sng
are given
the theof
results opportunity
PMM totopractise
theexpertise the SPMs
ization has enough
N D SD cope with changes
To what extent the following outcomes are ACHIEVED/USED by your company?
onment.
isation ensures all employees understand
LargetoCetain the SPMs.
Not Limited Not
s are given the opportunity learn about the SPM s
Extent Extent Sure Extent at All
ization does
ationalof not fully
Learning utilise
Culture its expertise.
1. Number
values
employees’ includeoflearning
understanding industrial
of the as accident
a (source: SOCSO)
ization Nhas enough SDto cope 13
D expertise with changes
onment.
values of our
anization, Organisation
SA A
f years spent
……………………..
x. Please use working
SA for in youragree,
A for ………………
agree, N for years
D SD
df SD
subordinates
…………………… directly
for strongly report to you: ………………………………
disagree.
ed…………………
g my
formation:
Sustainability with
2019, 11, 1058each of the following statements bySA ticking the
A 29 of 33
f years
……………………..
x. Please spent
use SAworking
for in your
agree, A for ………………
agree, N for years
D SD
f SD
subordinates
……………………
dng for stronglydirectly report to you: ………………………………
disagree.
my 0rganisation’s PMM
ed…………………
g my
formation:
ate the level of your agreement with each of theinfollowing statements bySA
ticking the
A
ng the results of the PMM 2. Employees participation training and development programs
f years
……………………..
x. PleaseSD spent working in your organisation: ……………… years
D
dng f subordinates
……………………
SD for stronglydirectly report to you: ………………………………
disagree.
my 0rganisation’s
: Organization’s PMM
ed…………………
my
ational
3. Commitment with each of the union
of in-house following statements employees’
in safeguarding bySA
ticking the
A
interests
ng
f the
years results
spent of the PMM
working in your organisation: ……………… years
……………………..
x.
D Please use
f SD N
subordinates
…………………… D
directly SD to you: ………………………………
report
dng for strongly
my ensures
PMM
:isation
Organization’s Critical Success
all employees understand Factors the SPMs.
ed…………………
my
ational
4. Average with yearseach of the following statements bySA
of service ticking the
A
ng
f the results
years
anization, spent of the PMM
working
……………………..
x.
D Please use
f SD N SPMsdirectly
subordinates
nization’s
…………………… isDhigh. reportSD to you: ………………………………
dng myfor strongly
PMM
: Organization’s
understand
ed…………………
my
ational
formation:
sate
arethe Learning
given Culture to learn about the SPM s
theofopportunity
level your agreement
5. Revenuewith each of the following statements bySA
per employee ticking the
A
ng
f the results
years
working
……………………..
ourses,
x. PleaseSD
D training and seminars in my organization).
f N SPMsdirectly
subordinates
nization’s
…………………… isDhigh. reportSD to you: ………………………………
dng SDmyfor strongly
PMM
: Organization’s
ed…………………
sg are
in:given
my the opportunity
0rganisation’s Performancetounderstand
practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
Measurement
ational
formation:
sate
arethe Learning
given Culture
theofopportunity to learn about the SPM s
level your agreement
6. Operating with each
profit perofemployee
the following statements bySAticking the
A
ng
f the results
years
working
……………………..
x.
D ourses,
Please training
use
SD SA and
for seminars
strongly in my
agree, Aorganization).
f N SPMsdirectly
subordinates
nization’s D SD to you: ………………………………
report
……………………
dization
ngSDmyfordoes not is
strongly high.
disagree.
fully
PMM its expertise.
:isation
Organization’s
ensures Critical
all employees Success Factors the SPMs.
understand
ed…………………
sg are given the opportunity
in: 0rganisation’s Performance
my to practise the SPMsModel (PMM)
Measurement
ational
formation:
sate
arethe Learning
given Culture
theofopportunity totolearn about the
ization level
has enough your agreement with each ofSPM
the s
following statements bySAticking the
A
ng
f the results
years
anization, spent of theexpertise
working
employees’ PMM7. Percentage
in your
cope with
of women
organisation:
understanding of
changes
the
in upper
………………
management
years
……………………..
x. ourses,
Please
Donment.SD training
use SA and
for seminars
strongly in my
agree, Aorganization).
f SD N SPMsdirectly
subordinates
nization’s D SD to you: ………………………………
report
……………………
dization
ng myfordoes not is
strongly high.
disagree.
fully
PMM its expertise.
:isation
Organization’s
ensures allCritical
ed…………………
sg are
in:given
my
values theOrganisation
opportunity
0rganisation’s
of our Performancetounderstand
practise
include the SPMs
Measurement
learning as a Model (PMM)
sational
formation:
are Learning
given the Culture to learn
opportunity about the SPM s
ate
ization the level of
has enough your agreement
expertise
8. Equal with
to staff each
copeprofile of
with changes the following
according to ethnicstatements
groups bySA
ticking the
A
ng the
anization, results of the
employees’ PMMunderstanding of the
……………………..
ourses,
x.onment.
D training
PleaseSD and seminars in my 13
organization).
nization’s
…………………… N SPMs isD high. SD
dization
ngSDmyfor strongly
does disagree.
not fully
PMM its expertise.
: Organization’s
ed…………………
sg are
in:given
my
values theOrganisation
opportunity
0rganisation’s
practise
include the SPMs
Measurement
sational
are Learning
opportunity about the
ate
ization the level
has of
enough your agreement
expertise
9. Size to
of with
cope
market each
with ofSPM
changes
share
s
the following statements bySAticking the
A
ng the results
employees’ understanding of the
ourses,
x.onment.
D training
PleaseSD and seminars in my 13
organization).
dization
ngSDmyfor strongly
does disagree.
not fully
PMM its expertise.
:isation
Organization’s
ensures Critical
understand
ed sg are
my
values given
of the
our opportunity
in: 0rganisation’s Performance
Organisation to practise
include the SPMs
Measurement
sational
are Learning
given the Culture
opportunity to learn about the SPM s
ization has enough
PMM to cope with
10. Compliant fromchanges
customer SA A
anization,
training and understanding
seminars in my 13of the
organization).
Donment.SD
ization
ng does not fully
my ensures
PMM its expertise.
:isation
Organization’s allCritical
sg are
my
values given theOrganisation
opportunity
0rganisation’s
practise
include the SPMs
Measurement
sational
are Learning
opportunity about the SPM s
ization
ng the has enough
results of theexpertise
PMM to cope with
11. Donations changes
and grant programs
anization,
organization).
onment.
ization
ng my does not fully
PMM its expertise.
: Organization’s
s are given
values of theOrganisation
our opportunityincludetounderstand
practise the SPMs
sational
are Learning
given the Culture to learnlearning
opportunity about
as a
the SPM s
ization has
ng the resultsenough expertise
of the PMM 12. to
Enhancingcope with changes
community skill and infrastructure facilities
anization,
organization).
onment.
:isation
Organization’s
ensures Critical
understand
svalues
are given the
ofLearning opportunity
our Organisation to practise
include learning the SPMsas a
ational
s are given Culture
the opportunity
ization has enough expertisetotolearncopeabout the SPM s
with changes
anization, employees’ understandingorganization). of the
onment.training and seminars in my 13
ourses,
N D SD
SA A
D SD
ed in:
SA A
D SD
13. Involvement and sponsoring community programs
ational Learning The
Culture
copyright of above questionnaires belongs to BOON HENG TEH & TZE SAN ONG
If you have any queries, kindly email or contact us
Email address: bhteh@mmu.edu.my @ tzesan1108@gmail.com; tzesan@upm.edu.my
N D SD
isation ensures allReferences
1. MITI. Fact Sheet. 2012. Available online: http://www.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/2497 (accessed
N D on 5 SD January 2017).
nization’s SPMs is 2.high.Bloomberg 2011. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-07/lynas-s-nick-
curtis-builds-fortune-with-bet-on-rare-earths (accessed on 18 February 2017).
3. Mining Weekly. 2012. Available online: http://www.miningweekly.com/article/australia-imposes-mining-
tax-after-two-year-battle-2012-03-19 (accessed on 28 June 2017).
ourses, training and
4. seminars
Stede, in my organization).
W.A.V.D. How to become sustainable. MIA Account. Today 2010, 23, 32–34.
5. Mandelbaum, D.G. Corporate Sustainability Strategies. Temple J. Sci. Technol. Environ. Law 2007, 26, 27–42.
6. GRI. 2010.
s are given the opportunity Available
to practise theonline:
SPMshttps://www.globalreporting.org (accessed on 19 September 2017).
s are given the opportunity
7. to learn
ASR (Asian about the SPM
Sustainability s Sustainability in Asia, ESG Reporting Uncovered; Responsible Research;
Rating).
Asian Sustainability
ourses, training and seminars Rating: Singapore, 2010; p. 14.
8. MIDA, Malaysian Industrial Development Authority. 2014. Available online: www.mida.gov.my/home/
electrical-and-electronic/posts/ (accessed on 28 September 2017).
s are given the opportunity
9.
to practise the SPMs
Khalifah, A.N.; Jaafar, Z.; Adam, R. Processing Trade, Exporting and Efficiency of Establishments in
Malaysia’s E&E Industry. In Proceedings of the 13th International Convention of the East Asian Economic
Association Grand Copthorne Hotel, Singapore, 19–20 October 2012. Convention Theme.
onment. 10. Hart, S. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [CrossRef]
11. Epstein, M.J. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social,
Environmental, and Economic Impacts; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2008.
ization has enough12.expertise to cope
Lecy, J.D.; with
Schmitz, changes
H.P.; Swenlund, H. Non-Governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A
onment. modern synthesis.
13 Voluntas Int. J. Volunt. Non-Profit Organ. 2012, 23, 434–457. [CrossRef]
13. Bobe, C.M.; Dragomir, V.D. The sustainability policy of five leading European retailers. Account. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 2010, 9, 268–283.
values of our Organisation include
14. Hockerts, learning as service
K. Eco-efficient a innovation: Increasing business-ecological efficiency of products and
services. In Charter M., Greener Marketing: A Global Perspective on Greener Marketing Practice; Greenleaf
13 UK, 1999; pp. 95–108.
Publishing: Sheffield,
15. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11,
130–141. [CrossRef]
16. Owen, G. Integrated reporting: A review of developments and their implications for the accounting
curriculum. Account. Educ. 2013, 22, 340–356. [CrossRef]
17. Tencati, A. 24 Corporate Reporting. In A Handbook of Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility; Gower
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; p. 413.
18. Burritt, R.L.; Hahn, T.; Schaltegger, S. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management
accounting: Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tools. Aust. Account.
Rev. 2002, 12, 39–50. [CrossRef]
19. Székely, F.; Knirsch, M. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable
performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2005, 23, 628–647. [CrossRef]
20. Perrini, F.; Tencati, A. Sustainability and Stakeholder Management: The Need for New Corporate
Performance Evaluation and Reporting Systems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 296–308. [CrossRef]
21. Onyali, C.I.; Okafor, T.G.; Benjamin, O. Effectiveness of triple bottom-line disclosure practice in
Nigeria-Stakeholders perspective. Eur. J. Account. Audit. Finance Res. 2015, 3, 45–61.
22. Deloitte CFO Insights. Sustainability: Developing Key Performance Indicators, Measuring Sustainability Is
the Bottom Line. 2009. Available online: www.deloitte.com/us/cfocenter (accessed on 14 October 2016).
23. Jones, P.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D. Corporate social responsibility and the UK’s top ten retailers. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 2005, 33, 882–892. [CrossRef]
24. Fauzi, H.; Idris, K.M. The relationship between CSR and financial performance: New evidence from
Indonesia Companies. Issues Soc. Environ. Account. 2009, 3, 66–87. [CrossRef]
25. Erol, I.; Sencer, S.; Sari, R. A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance
of a supply chain. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1088–1100. [CrossRef]
26. Buchholz, R. Principles of Environmental Management: The Greening of Business; Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1993.
27. Welford, R. Cases in Environmental Management and Business Strategy; Pitman: London, UK, 1994.
28. Jaffe, A.B.; Peterson, S.R.; Portney, P.R.; Stavins, R.N. Environmental regulations and the competitiveness of
U.S. manufacturing. What does the evidence tell us? J. Econom. Lit. 1995, 33, 132–163.
29. Porter, M.; Van der Linde, C. Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134.
30. King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and
financial performance. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5, 105–116. [CrossRef]
31. Schaltegger, S.; Synnestvedt, T. The link between ‘green’ and economic success: Environmental management
as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 65,
339–346.
32. Jayanti, R.K.; Gowda, M.R. Sustainability dilemmas in emerging economies. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2014, 26,
33. Wyeth, G.B.; Nulkar, G. Sustainability in emerging markets: Evidence from India. Sustain. J. Record 2014, 7,
34. Manrique, S.; Martí-Ballester, C.P. Analyzing the effect of corporate environmental performance on corporate
financial performance in developed and developing countries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1957. [CrossRef]
35. Burgess, T.F.; Ong, T.S.; Shaw, N.E. Traditional or contemporary? The prevalence of performance
measurement system types. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2007, 56, 583–602. [CrossRef]
36. Saxena, R.; Khandelwal, R.K. Can Green Marketing be used as a tool for Sustainable Growth? A Study
Performed on Consumers in India- An Emerging Economy. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 2010, 6,
37. Chenhall, R.H.; Langfield-Smith, K. Multiple perspectives of performance measures. Eur. Manag. J. 2007, 25,
38. Rejc, A. Toward contingency theory of performance measurement. J. East Eur. Manag. Stud. 2004, 9, 243–264.
[CrossRef]
39. Betts, T.K.; Wiengarten, F.; Tadisina, S.K. Exploring the impact of stakeholder pressure on environmental
management strategies at the plant level: What does industry have to do with it? J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92,
40. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [CrossRef]
41. Freeman, R. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
42. Scholtens, B. A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial
performance. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 46–55. [CrossRef]
43. Kitzmueller, M.; Shimshack, J. Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. J. Econ. Lit. 2012, 50,
51–84. [CrossRef]
44. Ferreira, A.; Moulang, C.; Hendro, B. Environmental management accounting and innovation: An
exploratory analysis. Accounting, Audit. Account. J. 2010, 23, 920–948. [CrossRef]
45. Nayha, A.; Horn, S. Environmental sustainability–aspects and criteria in forest bio-refineries. Sustain.
Account. Manag. Policy J. 2012, 3, 161–185. [CrossRef]
46. Ilinitch, A.Y.; Soderstrom, N.S.; Thomas, T.E. Measuring corporate environmental performance. J. Account.
Public Policy 1998, 17, 383–408. [CrossRef]
47. Bartolomeo, M.; Bennettl, M.; Bouma, J.J.; Heydkamp, P.; James, P.; Wolters, T. Environmental management
accounting in Europe: Current practice and potential. Eur. Account. Rev. 2000, 9, 31–52. [CrossRef]
48. Marc, J.E. Implementing Corporate Sustainability: Measuring and Managing Social and Environmental
Impacts. Strateg. Financ. 2008, 89, 24–31.
49. John, M. Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. J. Environ. Sustain.
2011, 1, 19–27.
50. IFAC. International Guidance Document of EMA, IFAC. 2005. Available online: http://www.ifac.org
(accessed on 23 September 2017).
51. Hanson, J.D.; Melnyk, S.A.; Calantone, R.J. Core values and environmental management. Greener Manag. Int.
2004, 46, 29–40. [CrossRef]
52. Govindarajulu, N.; Daily, B.F. Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
2004, 104, 364–372. [CrossRef]
53. Gilbert, G.R.; Veloutsou, C.; Goode, M.M.H.; Moutinho, L. Measuring customer satisfaction in the fast food
industry: A cross-national approach. J. Serv. Mark. 2004, 18, 371–383. [CrossRef]
54. Ramus, C. Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental
sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2001, 43, 85–105. [CrossRef]
55. Kuo, Y.K. Organizational commitment in an intense competition environment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2012,
113, 39–56. [CrossRef]
56. Gadenne, D.; Mia, L.; Sands, J.; Winata, L.; Hooi, G. The influence of sustainability performance management
practices on organisational sustainability performance. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2012, 8, 210–235. [CrossRef]
57. Maletič, M.; Maletič, D.; Gomišček, B. The impact of sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation
practices on the organisational performance: A cross-country comparison. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 158–169.
[CrossRef]
58. Wadongo, B.; Abdel-Kader, M. Contingency theory, performance management and organisational
effectiveness in the third sector: A theoretical framework. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2014, 63,
59. Kitazawa, S.; Sarkis, J. The relationship between ISO 14000 and continuous source reduction. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 2000, 20, 225–248. [CrossRef]
60. Sita Nirmala Kumaraswamy, K.; Chitale, C.M. Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance
organizational learning. J. Manag. Dev. 2012, 31, 308–322. [CrossRef]
61. Chabowski, B.R.; Mena, J.A.; Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. The structure of sustainability research in marketing,
1958–2008: A basis for future research opportunities. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 55–70. [CrossRef]
62. Jabar, J.; Soosay, C.; Santa, R. Organisational learning as an antecedent of technology transfer and new
product development: A study of manufacturing firms in Malaysia. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2011, 22, 25–45.
[CrossRef]
63. Luca, N.R.; Suggs, L.S. Strategies for the social marketing mix: A systematic review. Soc. Mark. Q. 2010, 16,
64. Drejer, A. Integrating Product and Technology Development. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2004, 3, 125–136.
[CrossRef]
65. Figueiredo, P.N. Does technological learning pay off? Inter-firm differences in technological
capability-accumulation paths and operational performance improvement. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 73–94.
[CrossRef]
66. Horbach, J. Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel data sources.
Res. Policy 2008, 37, 163–173. [CrossRef]
67. Link, A.N.; Siegel, D.S. Unions and technology adoption: A qualitative analysis of the use of real-time control
systems. J. Labour Res. 2002, 23, 615–630. [CrossRef]
68. Slack, N.; Chambers, S.; Johnston, R. Chapter 8: Process Technology. Pearson Education: Operation
Management (4th Ed.). Available online: http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_slack_opsman_4/17/
4472/1144941.cw/index.html (accessed on 18 February 2018).
69. Dedhia, P.; Doshi, H.; Rane, M. Low Powered Solar ECG with ZigBee Based Bio-Telemetry. J. Technol. Innov.
Renew. Energy 2012, 1, 23. [CrossRef]
70. Teh, B.H.; Jaffar, N.; Ong, T.S. Sustainable Performance Measurement (SPMs) Model: Effects of Product
Technology and Process Technology. Pertan. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2015, 23, 35–103.
71. Zachary, M.A.; McKenny, A.; Short, J.C.; Payne, G.T. Family business and market orientation construct
validation and comparative analysis. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2011, 24, 233–251. [CrossRef]
72. Chung, J.E.; Huang, Y.; Jin, B.; Sternquist, B. The impact of market orientation on Chinese retailers’ channel
relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2011, 26, 14–25. [CrossRef]
73. Hill, Wee and Udayasankar International Business: An Asian Perspective; Mcgraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA,
2012.
74. Mourdoukoutas, P.; Mourdoukoutas, P. Bundling in a semi-global economy. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2004, 16, 522–530.
[CrossRef]
75. Hunt, S.D.; Madhavaram, S. Teaching Marketing Strategy: Using Resource-Advantage Theory as an
Integrative Theoretical Foundation. J. Mark. Educ. 2006, 28, 93–105. [CrossRef]
76. Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder Influences on Sustainable practices in the Canadian Forest Products
Industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 159–180. [CrossRef]
77. Ahmad, N.N.N.; Sulaiman, M. Environmental disclosure in Malaysian annual report: A legitimacy theory
perspectives. Int. J. Commer. Manag. 2004, 14, 44–58. [CrossRef]
78. Carlman, I. The rule of sustainability and planning adaptivity. Sustain. Coastal Zone Manag. 2013, 34, 163–168.
[CrossRef]
79. ACCA Professional Accountant Paper P1 BBP Learning Media; BPP Learning Media: London, UK, 2010; Chapter
1; p. 56.
80. Bursa Malaysia. Media Release. 2010. Available online: http://bursa.listedcompany.com/newsroom/
Media_Release_23Nov2010.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2017).
81. Hess, D.; Warren, D.E. The meaning and meaningfulness of corporate social initiatives. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2008,
113, 163–197. [CrossRef]
82. Awang, Z. Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS Graphic; Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA: Selangor,
Malaysia, 2012.
83. Rosen, M.A.; Kashawy, H.A. Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, practices and needs.
Sustainability 2012, 4, 154–174. [CrossRef]
84. Heng, T.B.; Lee, C.L.; Foong, Y.P.; Ong, T.S. A framework of a sustainable performance measurements (SPMS)
model for the Malaysian electronic and electrical industry. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 20, 107–119. [CrossRef]
85. Ferreira, A.; Otley, D. Design and Use of Management Control Systems: An Analysis of the Interaction between
Design Misfit and Intensity of Use; Working Paper; Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
(CIPFA): London, UK, 2010.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

sustainability

Keywords: sustainable performance measurements; organizational learning culture; advancement of

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1058; doi:10.3390/su11041058 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1.1. Development of Performance Measurement Practices

Figure 3. Sustainable reporting by region in 2010.

Table Percentages of merchandise exports in Malaysia.

Year Year Commodities

1.2. Research Objectives

2. Research Model Based on Theoretical Foundations

Table 2. Operationalization of the research variables.

3. Sustainable Performance Measurement (SPM) Practices

3.1. Economic Indicators

3.2. Environmental Indicators

3.3. Social Indicators

3.4. Control Variable

4. Development of Hypotheses Based on the Research Model

4.1. Organizational Learning Culture and SPMs

4.2. Advancement of Technology and SPMs

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Advancement of technology influences SPMs.

4.3. Globalization and SPMs

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Globalisation influences the indicators of SPMs.

4.4. Pressure from Stakeholders and SPMs

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Pressure from stakeholder influences the indicators of SPMs.

4.5. Malaysian Manufacturing Firms as Population of Study

Table 3. Sample size and response rate.

Item No. of Companies

6.1. Non-Response Bias

Table 4. Levene’s test for equality of variance on the non-response bias.

Number of Standard Std. Error Mean

6.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 5. Companies profile based on location, ownership, age and size.

Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the research variables.

Central Tendency Variability Others

Table 7. Reliability test.

Construct Pre-Fitness Adjustment Post-Fitness Adjustment

Table 8. Correlation matrix.

6.4. Structural Equation Modelling

Fit Statistics Initial Measurement Model Modified Measurement Model

Table 10. Regression result.

Coefficients Standard Error Critical Ratio (C.R.) P Value

7.1. Contributions and Implications of the Study

7.2. Limitations and Areas for Future Research

Appendix A.1 Organisation Profile

9. Total company revenue: 2016: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2017: RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi