Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Adoption in the Construction Industry in Malaysia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
3. Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
4. Potential CSFs for CSR Adoption in the Construction Industry
5. Research Methodology
- Sufficient experience in the construction industry;
- Involved in research and teaching on the topics related to CSR or sustainability or the construction industry;
- Experience in sustainable development projects such as environmental impact assessment, green buildings, sustainable highway, industrial building systems, and others;
- Hold a minimum of a bachelor’s degree for respondents from the construction industry practitioners, master’s degree for academia.
6. Results
6.1. Bias in the Delphi Process
- The collective unconscious bias was addressed by requiring expert panelists to provide reasons if they change their opinion on the ranking of CSFs in the controlled feedback process of Delphi Round 3.
- The contrast effect bias was minimized by randomizing the order of questions for each panel member and for each round. In addition, the collective group median was also reported in the controlled feedback process of Delphi Round 3.
- The neglect of probability bias was addressed by independently recording the probability rankings and severity rankings for each CSF.
- The Von Restorff effect bias was minimized by requiring expert panelists to provide reasons if they change their opinion on the ranking in the controlled feedback process of Delphi Round 3. In addition, the Delphi process was conducted in three successive rounds.
- The myside effect bias was addressed by requiring expert panelists to provide reasons if they change their opinion on the ranking in the controlled feedback process in Delphi Round 3. In addition, the final ranking of the CSFs was reported as median.
- The recency effect bias was minimized by conducting the Delphi process in three successive rounds, and the final ranking of the CSFs was reported as median. In addition, none of the expert panelists had been involved recently in events related to a similar study.
- The primary effect bias was addressed by randomizing the order of questions for each panel member.
- The dominance effect bias was addressed by treating expert panelists confidentially and anonymity.
6.2. Delphi Round 1
6.3. Delphi Round 2
6.4. Delphi Round 3
7. Discussion
7.1. Financial Resources
7.2. Top Management Support
7.3. Managerial or Internal Skills on CSR
7.4. National Economic Growth
7.5. Employees’ Education and Training on CSR
7.6. Participation of Key Stakeholders in the CSR Process
7.7. Effective CSR Communication
7.8. Organizational Structure
8. Conclusions
- 1.
- Represents one of the first studies of its kind focusing on CSFs for CSR adoption in the construction sector within the context of developing countries.
- 2.
- Conceptually and empirically examined the factors critical to the successful adoption of CSR in the Malaysian construction industry through the lens of CSFs theory. It is important to the existing literature, since none of the prior research addressed the CSFs for CSR adoption in the construction industry.
- 3.
- Provides new insights by addressing a theme that is less covered in the literature. As a corollary, the gap identified in literature will be partially filled with the outcomes of this study.
- 4.
- Employs a Delphi technique as a strategy of inquiries. It was used to respond to the call for subjective methods that are more robust and rigorous in addressing issues in the construction sector due to it transient nature.
- 5.
- From the research perspective, it is expected that the implications of this study could stimulate further interest in construction engineering management and CSR research.
- 1.
- Represents the first step of the CSR adoption process by uncovering the crucial factors that lead to successful CSR adoption. With such understanding, CSR will be able to be successfully adopted in line with the firm’s strategic objectives and its internal characteristics.
- 2.
- Highlights the benefits of CSR in the construction industry, which addressed an ethical business philosophy. Consequently, the negative images of the sector could be eliminated, and enhance the credibility and reputation of the industry.
- 3.
- Provides a guideline for the Malaysian construction firms to consider the crucial factors that lead to successful adoption of CSR. By considering CSFs, a construction firm is guided and directed to a better understanding of how to obtain optimal performance from CSR and minimize the risk of failure.
- 4.
- Policy-makers could also consider the findings revealed from this study when promoting the CSR agenda or development programs that adhere to the construction industry’s way forward.
- 5.
- Highlights CSR as a new approach, in regards to the ethical behaviour of a business, that can be used as a strategic competitive tool for construction firms to remain sustainable in business.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Loosemore, M.; Phua, F. Responsible Corporate Strategy in Construction and Engineering: Doing the Right Thing? Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ljubojevic, Č.; Ljubojevic, G.; Maksimovic, N. Social responsibility and competitive advantage of the companies in Serbia. In Proceedings of the 13th Management International Conference—Managing Transformation with Creativity, Budapest, Hungary, 22–24 November 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, M.; Kramer, M. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, A.B. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambooy, T. Legal aspects of corporate social responsibility. Utrecht J. Int. Euro. Law. 2014, 30, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loosemore, M.; Lim, B.T.H. Linking corporate social responsibility and organizational performance in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017, 35, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, A.A.E.; Ghaly, M.A.; Zainulabidin, N. Lean principles: An innovative approach for achieving sustainable in the Egyptian construction industry. Org. Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2014, 6, 917–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramezany, A. Critical review of factors that lead to the negative image of the construction industry. J. Multidis. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 6796–6802. [Google Scholar]
- Amnesty International. The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game: Exploitation of Migrant Workers on a Qatar 2022 World Cup Site; Amnesty International Ltd.: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Enshassi, A.; Kochendoerfer, B.; Rizq, E. An evaluation of environmental impacts of construction projects. Rev. Ing. Constr. 2014, 29, 234–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, X.; Christabel, M.F.H.; Shen, G.Q.P. Research on corporate social responsibility in the construction context: A critical review and future directions. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 18, 394–404. [Google Scholar]
- Battaglia, M.; Testa, F.; Bianchi, L.; Iraldo, F.; Frey, M. Corporate social responsibility and competitiveness within SMEs of the fashion industry: Evidence from Italy and France. Sustainability 2014, 6, 872–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stibbe, R.; Voigtländer, M. Corporate sustainability in the German real estate sector. J. Corp. Rea. Est. 2014, 16, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, A.; Mohandes, S.R.; Hamid, A.R.A.; Singh, B. The Practices of corporate social responsibility among construction companies in Malaysia. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2016, 12, 742–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bevan, E.A.M.; Yung, P. Implementation of corporate social responsibility in Australian construction SMEs. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2015, 22, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duman, D.U.; Giritli, H.; McDermott, P. Corporate social responsibility in construction industry: A comparative study between UK and Turkey. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 218–231. [Google Scholar]
- Rameezdeen, R. Image of the construction industry. In CIB Priority Theme—Revaluing Construction, A W065 ‘Organization and Management of Construction’ Perspective; CIB Publication 313; Sexton, M., Kahkonen, K., Lu, S.-L., Eds.; CIB: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Mwangi, W.; Otieno-Mwembe, S.O. The use of corporate social responsibility as a tool of doing business amongst Kenya’s construction firms. Int. J. Res. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 51–70. [Google Scholar]
- Alotaibi, A.; Edum-Fotwe, F.; Price, A.D.F. Critical barriers to social responsibility implementation within mega-construction projects: The case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, G.; Phua, F.T.T.; Kao, C.-C. Understanding the long term success of UK construction firms: The extent and role of ‘hidden’ corporate social responsibility. In Proceedings of the Joint CIB W070, W092 and TG72 International Conference on Facility Management, Procurement Systems and Public Private Partnership—Delivering Value to the Community, Cape Town, South Africa, 23–25 January 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kamal, E.M.; Flanagan, R. Key characteristics of rural construction SMEs. J. Constr. Dev. Coun. 2014, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Mamun, M.A.; Shaikh, J.M.; Easmin, R. Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Malaysian business. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 2017, 16, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Tu, Z.; Yuan, Y. Critical success factors analysis on effective information security management: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2014): Smart Sustainability: The Information Systems Opportunity, Savannah, GA, USA, 7–9 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kolodinsky, R.W.; Madden, T.M.; Zisk, D.S.; Henkel, E.T. Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 91, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrini, F. SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baden, D. A reconstruction of Carroll’s Pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st century. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zender, J.R. Assessing government performance across the triple bottom line. J. Gov. Fin. Manag. 2017, 66, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Żak, A. Triple bottom line in theory and practice. In Social Responsibility of Organizations Directions of Changes; Research Papers of Wroclaw University of Economics; Rojek-Nowosielska, M., Ed.; Publishing House of Wrocław University of Economics: Wrocław, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Coşkun Arslan, M.; Kisacik, H. The corporate sustainability solution: Triple bottom line. J. Acc. Fin. 2017, Special Issue, 18–34. [Google Scholar]
- Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Prado-Lorenzo, J.M.; García-Sánchez, I.-M. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: A resource-based theory. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1709–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barić, A. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholders: Review of the last decade (2006–2015). Bus. Syst. Res. 2017, 8, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, A.; Perrini, F. Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 91, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. N. Y. Times Mag. 1970, 13, 122–124. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, A.L.; Miles, S. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R.E.; Dmytriyev, S. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symp. Emerg. Iss. Manag. 2017, 1, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
- Lenz, I.; Wetzel, H.A.; Hammerschmidt, M. Can doing good lead to doing poorly? Firm value implications of CSR in the face of CSI. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 677–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tate, W.L.; Bals, L. Achieving shared triple bottom line (TBL) value creation: Toward a social resource-based view (SRBV) of the firm. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 803–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branco, M.C.; Rodriques, L.L. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 69, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galbreath, J. Which resources matter to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation 2005, 25, 979–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardeal, N.; António, N. Valuable, rare, inimitable resources and organization (VRIO) resources or valuable, rare, inimitable resources (VRI) capabilities: What leads to competitive advantage? Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 10159–10170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Toppinen, A.; Lähtinen, K.; Leskinen, L.A.; Österman, N. Network co-operation as a source of competitiveness in medium-sized Finnish sawmills. Silva Fennica 2011, 45, 743–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamaluddin, A.; Hasan, H.A.; Arshad, R.; Abu Samah, S.A. Social capital and innovation capital: Accountability towards small medium enterprises, (SMEs) sustainable performance. Malays. Acc. Rev. 2016, 15, 197–223. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, S.; Cowley, J. The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrini, F.; Minoja, M. Strategizing corporate social responsibility: Evidence from an Italian medium-sized, family-owned company. Bus. Ethics Eur. J. 2008, 17, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, M.M.; Arshad, F. Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage: The mediating role of social capital and reputational capital. J. Data Mark. Cust. Strat. Manag. 2012, 19, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boynton, A.C.; Zmund, R.W. An assessment of CSFs. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1984, 25, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Rockart, J.F. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1979, 57, 81–93. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Nisar, T.M.; Prabhakar, G.P. Critical success factors for build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects in China. Ir. J. Manag. 2017, 36, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Li, Z.; Wu, G.; Li, X. Critical success factors for project planning and control in prefabrication housing production: A China study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.M. Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of integrating BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: A Delphi survey of international experts. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, B.; Olanipekun, A.; Chen, Q.; Xie, L.; Liu, Y. Conceptualising the state of the art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry and its nexus to sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maon, F.; Lindgreen, A.; Swaen, V. Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangle, S. Critical success factors for corporate social responsibility: A public sector prespective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahreh, M.S.; Mirmehdi, S.M.; Eram, A. Investigating the critical success factors of corporate social responsibility implementation: Evidence from the Iranian banking sector. Corp. Gov. 2013, 13, 184–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuzi, N.M.; Habidin, N.F.; Hibadullah, S.H.; Zamri, F.R.M.; Desa, A.F.N.C. Critical success factors of corporate social responsibility practices for the Malaysian automotive industry. Int. J. Crit. Acc. 2015, 7, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, M.; Padmore, J.; Newman, N. Towards a new model of success and performance in SMEs. Int. J. Entre. Behav. Res. 2012, 18, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampadarios, E. Critical success factors for SMEs: An empirical study in the UK chemical distribution industry. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shen, L.; Govindan, K.; Choi, T.-M. Evaluation of barriers of corporate social responsibility using an analytical hierarchy process under a fuzzy environment—A textile case. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3493–3514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Setthasakko, W. Barriers to implementing corporate environmental responsibility in Thailand: A qualitative approach. Int. J. Org. Anal. 2009, 17, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrini, M.; Pozzebon, M. Integrating sustainability into business practices: Learning from Brazilian firms. Braz. Admin. Rev. 2010, 7, 362–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arevalo, J.A.; Aravind, D. Corporate social responsibility practices in India: Approach, drivers, and barriers. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2011, 11, 399–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, M.M.H.; Hossain, M.M.; Dewan, M.N.A. A framework for selecting optimal strategies to mitigate the corporate sustainability barriers. Corp. Own. Cont. 2015, 13, 462–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghasemi, S.; Nejati, M. Corporate social responsibility: Opportunities, drivers and barriers. Int. J. Entrep. Know. 2013, 1, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, B.G.; Ahmad, H.U.; Goh, B.H.; Song, M.K. Comparison of CSR activities between global construction companies and Malaysian construction companies. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 3, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolyperas, D.; Morrow, S.; Sparks, L. Developing CSR in professional football clubs: Drivers and phases. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2015, 15, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tay, M.Y.; Rahman, A.A.; Aziz, Y.A.; Sidek, S. A review on drivers and barriers towards sustainable supply chain practices. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2015, 5, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bello, F.G.; Banda, W.J.M.; Kamanga, G. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the hospitality industry in Malawi. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2017, 6, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- CSR Asia. A Study on Corporate Social Responsibility Development and Trends in China; CSR Asia/CSR Centre of the Embassy of Sweden: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Goyal, P.; Divesh Kumar, D. Modeling the CSR barriers in manufacturing industries. Bench. Int. J. 2017, 24, 1871–1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahin, A.; Zairi, M. Corporate governance as a critical element for driving excellence in corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2007, 24, 753–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, M. CSR in SMEs: Strategies, practices, motivations and obstacles. Soc. Responsib. J. 2011, 7, 490–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemo, S.A.; Oyebamiji, F.F.; Alimi, K.O. An evaluation of factors influencing corporate social responsibility in Nigerian manufacturing companies. Int. J. Acad. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2013, 2, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
- Shibin, K.T.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Dubey, R.; Singh, M.; Wamba, S.F. Enablers and barriers of flexible green supply chain management: A total interpretive structural modeling approach. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2016, 17, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, A.; Kakakhel, S.J. An exploratory evidence of practice, motivations, and barriers to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). Abasyn J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 9, 479–494. [Google Scholar]
- Bylok, F. The concept of corporate social responsibility in strategies of SMEs. Club Econ. Miskolc 2016, 12, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H.; Herold, D.M.; Yu, A.-L. Small and medium enterprises and corporate social responsibility practice: A Swedish perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazif, M.A. Corporate social responsibility for the current era. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Postgraduate Research, Pahang, Malaysia, 28–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yuen, K.F.; Lim, J.M. Barriers to the implementation of strategic corporate social responsibility in shipping. Asian J. Ship. Logis. 2016, 32, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agudo-Valiente, J.M.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Salvador-Figueras, M. Corporate social responsibility drivers and barriers according to managers’. Perception: Evidence from Spanish firms. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lincoln, A. Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria: Drivers and barriers experienced by female entrepreneurs when undertaking CSR. In Stages of Corporate Social Responsibility: From Ideas to Impacts; Idowu, S.O., Vertigans, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Yeh, S.-L.; Chen, Y.-S.; Wu, S.-S. The obstacles and solutions to the corporate social responsibility implementation in Taiwan. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2014, 5, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyebanji, A.O.; Liyanage, C.; Akintoye, A. Critical success factors (CSFs) for achieving sustainable social housing (SSH). Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Bi, J.; Liu, B. Drivers and barriers to engage enterprises in environmental management initiatives in Suzhou Industrial Park, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. Chin. 2009, 3, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekung, S.; Ujene, A.; Ebong, U. Drivers of corporate social responsibility within construction organization in Nigeria. Int. Let. Soc. Hum. Sci. 2014, 32, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamidu, A.A.; Haron, M.H.; Amran, A. Exploring the drivers and nature of corporate social responsibility practice from an African perspective. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2016, 6, 696–703. [Google Scholar]
- Wariua-Nyalwal, P.; Nyalwal, H.; Mutavi, T.; Muchiri, P. Factors that affect stakeholders’ participation in corporate social responsibility activities in Kenya Roads Board, Nairobi County. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 229–232. [Google Scholar]
- Šontaitė-Petkevičienė, M. CSR reasons, practices and impact to corporate reputation. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hallowell, M.; Gambatese, J. Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, D.; Lester, H.; Sobin, N. Toward statistics on construction engineering and management research. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network, Atlanta, GA, USA, 19–21 May 2014; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2014; pp. 1139–1148. [Google Scholar]
- Ameyaw, E.E.; Hu, Y.; Shan, M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y. Application of Delphi method in construction engineering and management research: A quantitative perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abolore, A.A. Comparative study of environmental sustainability in building construction in Nigeria and Malaysia. J. Emerg. Trends Econ. Manag. Sci. 2012, 3, 951–961. [Google Scholar]
- Hamid, A.R.A.; Singh, B.; Abdullah, A. The practices of corporate social responsibility among construction companies in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Geotechnical & Transportation Engineering (Geotropika) and the 1st International Conference on Construction and Building Engineering (Iconbuild) GEOCON 2013, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 28–30 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Abdirahman, A.; Hafiz, M.A.R.; Hairul, A.A. The effect of award on CSR disclosures in annual reports of Malaysian PLCs. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 831–852. [Google Scholar]
- Senawi, A.; Abdul Rahman, N.A.Y.; Ahmad Mohamed, N.; Che Pin, S.F. Corporate social responsibility practices among Malaysia top property developers. In Proceedings of the Social Sciences Research (ICSSR 2016), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18–19 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zahidy, A.A.; Sorooshian, S.S.; Mohamad, F. Conception of Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives in Industry. IEOM 2019, 57. [Google Scholar]
- Skulmoski, J.G.; Hartman, T.F.; Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2007, 6, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paré, G.; Cameron, A.-F.; Poba-Nzaou, P.; Templier, M. A systematic assessment of rigor in information systems ranking-type Delphi studies. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahidy, A.H.; Azizan, N.A.; Sorooshian, S. Methodology review: Investigation of entrepreneurship success. Qual. Manag. 2018, 19, 82–91. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, G., Jr.; Whittington, D. Charrettes as a method for engaging industry in best practices research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donohoe, H.M.; Needham, R.D. Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2009, 11, 415–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, L.E. Determining what could/should be: The Delphi technique and its application. Working Paper. In Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH, USA, 18 October 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Olawale, Y.A.; Sun, M. Construction project control in the UK: Current practice, existing problems and recommendations for future improvement. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 623–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alaloul, W.S.; Liew, M.S.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A. A framework for coordination process into construction projects. MATEC Web Conf. 2015, 66, 00079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajendran, S.; Gambatese, J.A. Development and initial validation of sustainable construction safety and health rating system. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agumba, J.N. A Construction Health and Safety Performance Improvement Model for South African Small and Medium Enterprises. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, R.C. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 763–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmenter, D. Finding Your Organization’s Critical Success Factors. 2019. Available online: https://davidparmenter.com/files/finding-your-organizations-critical-success-factors.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2018).
- Lin, C.-S.; Chang, R.-Y.; Dang, V.T. An integrated model to explain how corporate social responsibility affects corporate financial performance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8292–8311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hasan, M.M.; Habib, A. Corporate life cycle, organizational financial resources and corporate social responsibility. J. Contem. Acc. Econ. 2017, 13, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A.; Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strat. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 463–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Melo Moura, T.P.F. Critical success factors for project management support information systems: SEBRAE/RN Case. Rebrae 2016, 9, 8–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al Kuwaiti, E.; Ajmal, M.M.; Hussain, M. Determining success factors in Abu Dhabi health care construction projects: Customer and contractor perspectives. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 18, 430–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phan, T.N.; Baird, K.; Blair, B. The use and success of activity-based management practices at different organizational life cycle stages. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 787–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D.S. Theoretical and practitioner letters: Defining the socially responsible leader. Lead. Quart. 2008, 19, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tata, J.; Prasad, S. National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 2015, 22, 278–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wesselink, R.; Blok, V.; van Leur, S.; Lans, T.; Dentoni, D. Individual competencies for managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Osagie, E.R.; Wesselink, R.; Blok, V.; Lans, T.; Mulder, M. Individual competencies for corporate social responsibility: A literature and practice perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyugi, J.L. Rational and challenges of competency-based education and training: The “wickedness” of the problem. J. Educ. Prac. 2015, 6, 74–78. [Google Scholar]
- Srinivasu, B.; Srinivasa Rao, P. Infrastructure development and economic growth: Prospects and perspective. J. Bus. Manag. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013, 2, 81–91. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, S.; Jaafar, S.; Saleh, N. Analysis of corporate social performance (CSP) level of Malaysia public listed company. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management and Muamalah (2nd ICoMM)—Empowering Management and Muamalah through Knowledge Creation and Sharing, Selangor, Malaysia, 16–17 November 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Van Scheers, L. Is there a link between economic growth and SMEs success in South Africa. Invest. Manag. Finan. Innov. 2016, 13, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kefela, G. Knowledge-based economy and society has become a vital commodity to countries. Int. NGO J. 2010, 5, 160–166. [Google Scholar]
- Low, M.P.; Ong, S.F. The role of internal corporate social responsibility in professional service sector: An empirical study from Klang Valley, Malaysia. Asia Pac. J. Adv. Bus. Soc. Stud. 2015, 1, 113–123. [Google Scholar]
- Von Weltzien Høivik, H.; Shankar, D. How can SMEs in a cluster respond to global demands for corporate responsibility? J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 101, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prabawati, I.; Meirinawati, M.; Oktariyanda, T.A. Competency-based training model for human resource management and development in public sector. IOP Conf. Ser. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 953, 012157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ağan, Y.; Kuzey, C.; Acar, M.F.; Açıkgoz, A. The relationships between corporate social responsibility, environmental supplier development, and firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1872–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraz, F.A.; Gallardo-Vazquez, D. Measurement tool to assess the relationship between corporate social responsibility, training practices and business performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 129, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heismann, K. Why Stakeholder Engagement Is Key to Successful CSR Programs. Available online: https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/10/23/stakeholder-engagement-key-csr-online-communities (accessed on 9 October 2018).
- Prabhu, P.G. Study on the influence of stakeholders in construction industry. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. Appl. Sci. 2016, 4, 31–45. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, X.; Zhang, G.; Liu, J.; Feng, Y.; Zuo, J. Major participants in the construction industry and their approaches to risks: A theoretical framework. Proc. Eng. 2017, 182, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarfo, I.; Twum, E.; Koku, J.E.; Yankah, K.; Kloos, H.; Worku, M. Stakeholders participation and sustainability of corporate social responsibility programmes in Ghana: A study of AngloGold Ashanti Mine in Obuasi. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 2016, 6, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Isa, S.M. An analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on stakeholders’ loyalty: Perceptions of Malaysian organizations. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 2012, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, P.J.; Sethuraman, K.; Lam, J.Y. Impact of corporate social responsibility dimensions on firm value: Some evidence from Hong Kong and China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zatwarnicka-Madura, B.; Siemieniako, D.; Glińska, E.; Sazonenka, Y. Strategic and operational levels of CSR marketing communication for sustainable orientation of a company: A case study from Bangladesh. Sustainability 2019, 11, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chaudary, S.; Zahid, Z.; Shahid, S.; Khan, S.N.; Azar, S. Customer perception of CSR initiatives: Its antecedents and consequences. Soc. Responsib. J. 2016, 12, 263–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhardwaj, P.; Chatterjee, P.; Demir, K.D.; Turut, O. When and how is corporate social responsibility profitable? J. Bus. Res. 2018, 84, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stanaland, A.J.S.; Lwin, M.O.; Murphy, P.E. Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, Z.; Aziz, Y.A. Institutionalizing corporate social responsibility: Effects on corporate reputation, culture, and legitimacy in Malaysia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banham, H.; Wiesner, R. Organizational change in small and medium enterprises—A proposed new model. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management (AOM) Knowledge, Action and the Public Concern, Atlanta, GA, USA, 11–16 August 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Coulter, M. Entrepreneurship in Action, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- McCabe, D. Taking the long view: A cultural analysis of memory as resisting and facilitating organizational change. J. Org. Change Manag. 2010, 23, 230–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd-Hamid, Z.; Azizan, N.A.; Sorooshian, S. Constructionpreneurship: Entrepreneurship activity within construction industry. Aust. J. Bas. Appl. Sci. 2015, 9, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins, D.A.; Smith, T.E. Applying Delphi methodology in family therapy research. Cont. Fam. Therapy 1994, 16, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Potential Success Factor | Reference | Frequency | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Top management support | [14,55,56,57,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72] | 16 | 2 |
2. | Employees involvement | [57,58,64,69,71,72,73,74,75] | 9 | 7 |
3. | Organizational culture | [57,61,62,67,75,76,77] | 7 | 9 |
4. | Employees education and training | [55,61,63,64,65,69,70,71,72,73,74,78,79] | 13 | 3 |
5. | Financial resources | [14,57,61,64,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83] | 20 | 1 |
6. | Human resources | [14,67,79,81,82,84] | 6 | 10 |
7. | Managerial and internal skills | [55,56,64,65,72,77,79,85] | 8 | 8 |
8. | Integrating CSR visions with organization’s strategy | [56,57,69,71,72,75,76,81, 86,87,88] | 11 | 5 |
9. | Participation of key stakeholders | [55,56,58,61,67,69,71,78, 85,86,89,90] | 12 | 4 |
10. | Government support | [67,69,71,74,75,76,83,86,87,88] | 10 | 6 |
11. | Collaboration with strategic suppliers | [69,76,86] | 3 | 12 |
12. | Monitoring and communicating of CSR activities | [14,61,63,73] | 4 | 11 |
Description | N | % | Description | N | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | Consultant | 5 | 31.25 | Designation | Director | 3 | 18.75 |
Contractor | 4 | 25.00 | Principal | 2 | 12.50 | ||
Academician | 7 | 43.75 | Senior Engineer | 2 | 12.50 | ||
Gender | Male | 12 | 75.00 | Town Planner | 1 | 6.25 | |
Female | 4 | 25.00 | Architect | 1 | 6.25 | ||
Age | 21–30 | 4 | 25.00 | Senior Lecturer | 7 | 43.75 | |
31–40 | 3 | 18.75 | Experience in | Yes | 14 | 87.50 | |
41–50 | 2 | 12.50 | CSR | No | 2 | 12.50 | |
51–60 | 6 | 37.50 | Industrial | Consultant | 122 years | ||
Over 60 | 1 | 6.25 | and Academic | Contractor | 80 years | ||
Education | Bachelor | 6 | 37.50 | Experience | Academician | 85 years | |
Master | 4 | 25.00 | Total | 287 years | |||
Doctorate | 6 | 37.50 | Average/expert | 17.94 years |
Item | Critical Success Factor | N | % |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Financial resources | 14 | 87.5 |
2. | Top management support | 13 | 81.2 |
3. | Employees education and training on CSR | 11 | 68.7 |
4. | Participation of key stakeholders in the CSR process | 14 | 87.5 |
5. | Integrating CSR vision and initiatives with firm’s strategy | 9 | 56.2 |
6. | Government support | 13 | 81.2 |
7. | Employees’ involvement in the CSR process | 11 | 68.7 |
8. | Managerial or internal skills on CSR | 14 | 87.5 |
9. | Organizational culture | 11 | 68.7 |
10. | Human resources † | 8 | 50.0 |
11. | Monitoring and evaluating of the firm’s CSR activities | 13 | 81.2 |
12. | Strategic collaboration with suppliers | 13 | 81.2 |
Item | Critical Success Factor | Mean Rank | Group Rank |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Financial resources | 1.46 | 1 |
2. | Top management support | 3.21 | 2 |
3. | Employees education and training on CSR | 7.50 | 4 |
4. | Participation of key stakeholders in the CSR process | 7.64 | 7 |
5. | Integrating CSR vision and initiatives with firm’s strategy | 9.71 | 13 |
6. | Government support | 8.54 | 9 |
7. | Employee involvement in the CSR process | 9.50 | 11 |
8. | Managerial or internal skills on CSR | 7.00 | 3 |
9. | Organizational culture | 9.50 | 12 |
10. | Monitoring and evaluating of the firm’s CSR activities | 11.07 | 14 |
11. | Strategic collaboration with suppliers | 13.00 | 15 |
12. | National political stability † | 8.86 | 10 |
13. | Effective CSR communication † | 7.50 | 6 |
14. | Organizational structure † | 8.50 | 8 |
15. | National economic growth † | 7.00 | 4 |
Item | Critical Success Factor | Mean Rank | Group Rank |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Financial resources | 1.14 | 1 |
2. | Top management support | 2.29 | 2 |
3. | Employees education and training on CSR | 5.43 | 5 |
4. | Participation of key stakeholders in the CSR process | 6.86 | 6 |
5. | Integrating CSR vision and initiatives with firm’s strategy | 11.93 | 13 |
6. | Government support | 8.93 | 9 |
7. | Employee involvement in the CSR process | 10.36 | 11 |
8. | Managerial or internal skills on CSR | 4.14 | 3 |
9. | Organizational culture | 11.71 | 12 |
10. | Monitoring and evaluating of the firm’s CSR activities | 13.50 | 14 |
11. | Strategic collaboration with suppliers | 14.14 | 15 |
12. | National political stability † | 10.00 | 10 |
13. | Effective CSR communication † | 7.14 | 7 |
14. | Organizational structure † | 7.29 | 8 |
15. | National economic growth † | 5.14 | 4 |
Item | Critical Success Factor | Delphi Rank | Literature Rank |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Financial resources | 1 | 1 |
2. | Top management support | 2 | 2 |
3. | Managerial or internal skills on CSR | 3 | 8 |
4. | National economic growth † | 4 | - |
5. | Employees’ education and training on CSR | 5 | 3 |
6. | Participation of key stakeholders in the CSR process | 6 | 4 |
7. | Effective CSR communication † | 7 | - |
8. | Organizational structure † | 8 | - |
© 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/).
Share and Cite
Zahidy, A.A.; Sorooshian, S.; Abd Hamid, Z. Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Adoption in the Construction Industry in Malaysia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226411
Zahidy AA, Sorooshian S, Abd Hamid Z. Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Adoption in the Construction Industry in Malaysia. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226411
Chicago/Turabian StyleZahidy, Anat Anaqie, Shahryar Sorooshian, and Zahidy Abd Hamid. 2019. "Critical Success Factors for Corporate Social Responsibility Adoption in the Construction Industry in Malaysia" Sustainability 11, no. 22: 6411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226411