Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Implementing Environmental Management Systems Within the AECOM Sector in Malaysia

Abstract

Environmental management systems (EMSs), such as ISO 14001, are commonplace across the architecture, engineering, construction, operations, and management (AECOM) sectors of advanced economies. However, their uptake remains limited across emerging markets and developing economies. This study explores stakeholders’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to implementing EMSs within the AECOM sectors of Malaysia. Guided by a positivist stance, the study takes a quantitative approach using an online questionnaire to gather the opinions of AECOM professionals. The findings reveal that participants believe the most significant benefits of implementing EMSs in Malaysia are to improve corporate image and contribute to the environmental standards of the sector, whereas the most significant barriers to implementing EMSs are lack of client support and the difficulty in coordinating environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors. Based on the evidence collected, the study recommends encouragement by the government of Malaysia to drive forward environmental management and further research into the reasons for the lack of reported support for ISO 14001 within the supply chain.

1. Introduction

Since the 1970s, there has been a three-fold increase in the extraction of the Earth’s natural resources [1]. It is estimated that by 2060 this need for resources will double and, as such, it will potentially contribute to a 43% increase in greenhouse gas emissions [1,2]. Concerns about global climate change and the availability of non-renewable resources have, therefore, heightened the pressure on architecture, engineering, construction, operations, and management (AECOM) organizations to reduce their environmental impact [3] whereby there is a growing expectation for most of these organizations to align their day-to-day activities with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs were produced to encourage a worldwide transition toward a sustainable future. Across developing and advanced economies, many organizations are voluntarily opting to engage with the SDGs [4], and through these activities they are inspiring their supply chains to do the same [5]. Gradually enhanced regulations provide further support to address environmental challenges [6].

The AECOM sector is no different to many other sectors in confronting the challenges of delivering various targets underpinning the SDGs. While all of the SDG goals are relevant to the AECOM sector [7], the greatest contribution would be made by addressing SDGs 6, 7, and 11, plus a contribution to SDGs 4, 8, 12, and 13 [8]. There are many benefits to doing so, which include customer satisfaction, commitment to environmental responsibility, green image, and improved community, industry, and government relations [9].

To accord with expectations, AECOM managers need to be able to review the environmental performance of their organizations, and one way of doing this is by implementing an environmental management system (EMS). An EMS, as defined by the ISO 14001 [10] norm, comprises a framework and tasks that enable organizations to reduce their environmental impacts and increase their operating efficiency [9]. Through this, ISO 14001 enables organizations to prioritize their objectives in supporting environmental management in the purest sense, i.e., to ensure compliance with relevant environmental legislation, reduce waste, minimize resource use, and improve corporate reputation [11,12] and the delivery of the SDGs [4,8,13]. Previous research, however, suggests an array of challenges in the implementation of EMSs, and these vary across countries [13,14,15,16,17].

The global uptake of environmental management systems (EMSs) in construction is growing, particularly in Asia and Europe. However, adoption has been slower in some regions. While the factors influencing EMS implementation have been explored in countries like China, Australia, Italy, and the UK, there is a lack of research on the Malaysian AECOM sector. This study aims to address this gap by examining Malaysian professionals’ perspectives on the benefits of and barriers to EMS adoption and by comparing these views with those from other countries.

Across Asia, approaches to support the achievement of the SDGs vary significantly, as does environmental performance. For instance, within Southeast Asia, most countries fall in the 60–70 bracket on the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) score [18], and with respect to the Environmental Performance Index are on par with the poorest African countries [19]. To date, there have been minimal investigations into the uptake of EMSs across Southeast Asia and no previous studies on their implementation in the construction and engineering sectors of Malaysia. Therefore, this study examines stakeholder perceptions of the benefits and barriers of implementing EMSs (namely ISO 14001) in the Malaysian AECOM sector.

2. Background

Interest in managing environmental impacts through the adoption of recognized standards began with BS7750, a British Standard introduced in 1994 [20], and was soon followed by ISO 14001 in 1996, with updates in 2004 and 2015 [21]. Other schemes do exist, such as EMAS (a European environmental management system) and BS8555 (a UK version where organizations can develop their system through a stepwise approach) [22,23]. However, ISO 14001 is the most globally utilized scheme. It aims to enable organizations to (1) reduce negative impacts on the environment, through preventing pollution; (2) continually improve the environmental performance of the organization; and (3) promote compliance with environmental legislation [24].

The uptake of ISO 14001 has increased from approximately 15,000 certifications in 1999 to over 300,000 in 2023, with China having the highest number of certifications (19% of all certifications) [25]. The construction sector, with over 27,000 certifications, shows the highest number of certificates across all the various sectors [25]. While the global construction industry is noted as having this high number of ISO 14001 certifications, there is no information disclosed about the relative distribution within the global north and south nations. Without this information it is difficult to determine the impact and response to the challenges of protecting the environment in various nations of the world.

2.1. Benefits of Implementing EMSs

Widespread increases in the uptake of ISO 14001 suggest that many organizations are recognizing the potential benefits they receive from the implementation of EMSs [24]. Over the years, many studies have been conducted on the benefits and barriers of ISO 14001 [14,15,16,17,26]. An exploration of academic literature has found nine commonly perceived benefits of implementing an EMS: (1) fewer fines associated with violations; (2) improved corporate image due to environmental performance; (3) contribution to the improvement in public environmental standards; (4) contribution to environmental protection; (5) better overall business competitiveness; (6) fewer environmental complaints; (7) improved work environment that boosts morale; (8) reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries; and (9) less environmental risk in air, land, and water pollution [14,15,16,17,20,26,27,28,29]. However, the relative importance of the EMS benefits varies across countries. For instance, the top priorities in Hong Kong are environmental protection and reduced environmental risk [30]; in Nigeria, a reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries [14]; in Ghana, cost savings due to the reduction in fines associated with convictions [17]; in the UK, a reduction in environmental risks (such as polluted air, land, and water) [15]; in the USA, contributing to the environmental standards of the construction industry [16]; and in Australasia, the potential to enhance the reputation and image of an organization (i.e., an environmentally friendly organization is expected to result in a better customer, community, and stakeholder relationship) [31]. Common to all of these studies is the suggestion that organizations trust that the ISO 14001 certification provides a certain level of confidence to stakeholders and customers [32].

The benefits from EMSs can be classified into internal and external: (1) the internal gains are organizational, financial, and people benefits, while (2) the external gains are commercial, environmental, and communication benefits [33]. This aligns with the observation that, globally, consumers and corporations have become progressively more aware of the need to protect the environment, and they would rather choose suppliers with excellent environmental records as this helps firms to strengthen their relationship with the public and develop the trust and confidence of consumers [24]. In Malaysia, 94% of the practitioners in the manufacturing sector agree that a company’s reputation will be enhanced after the adoption of an EMS [34]. Moreover, in Malaysia, increased staff morale and motivation are important benefits that can be achieved through the implementation of an EMS [35]. Other advantages of EMS implementation include lower operating costs, increased market access, demonstrated regulatory compliance, improved environmental performance, improved customer trust and satisfaction, enhanced corporate image and credibility, employee involvement and education, a potential impact on world trade, the opportunity for access to the international construction market, good reputation and brand awareness, higher sales and investor confidence, cost reduction, and increases in revenue in the long run [36,37,38].

2.2. Barriers to Implementing EMSs

Previous research has highlighted key barriers to the adoption of EMSs, which are both internal and external to specific businesses. The internal barriers include lack of resources, understanding and perception, implementation problems, and attitudes, along with company culture [33]. The external barriers relate to the certification costs, lack of financial resources, institutional weaknesses, and lack of support and guidance [33]. Studies in Saudi Arabia stress that the limited support or guidance from the government to different sectors is perceived as the most salient barrier preventing Saudi organizations from engaging with EMSs [39]. However, such organizations also display negative attitudes toward documentation, lack of financial support to assist firms in the implementation of ISO 14001, and high fees paid to consultancy agencies and accreditation agencies to implement ISO 14001 on their behalf [39].

In Malaysia, the top three reported internal barriers that hamper the adoption of EMSs are all staff-related: inadequate employee commitment, lack of training, and lack of management support [28]. This corroborates research on the Hong Kong construction industry noting the lack of knowledge and skills in relation to sustainability [30].

The challenges in operating EMSs in the construction sector include the lack of top management concern, the multiple attributes of ISO 14001, the length of the registration process, the high volume of documentation and paperwork activities required for registration, implementation, and certification, and the excessive costs of implementation [40]. Evidence indicates that there is a recurring reference to cost issues, including short-term costs in employing environmental consultants, setting up management structures, and organizing training for employees [33]. As observed a decade after the ISO 14001 was introduced, the typical reasons for lack of engagement were the conflict between cost and environment, an environmentally passive culture within the construction industry, lack of cooperating project parties, and clash between contract time and implementing EMSs [41].

In a study from Turkey, the three main disadvantages of ISO 14001 noted included lack of knowledge and personnel, cost and implementation, and no apparent benefits [40]. In Singapore, the seven challenges that prevented EMS implementation were legal ramifications, insufficient support for implementation, inadequate senior management commitment, inadequate employee commitment and involvement, high implementation costs, and unclear employee responsibilities and obligations [42]. The Turkish study [43] supported the ideas put forward in the Singaporean research [36] suggesting that cost of management, insufficient trained staff, and expertise were the issues. However, the Singaporean study [36] also highlighted a failure of subcontractors to buy into the system because of the perceived barriers to implementing the EMS. This is again reflected in the findings from a survey undertaken in the China construction sector [44], which revealed that financial burden, poor rates of return, low environmental awareness, and inadequate legal enforcement are the main obstacles to implementing EMSs in the construction industry. The study concluded that the government should lead the industry by providing training and financial support, and improving the legal framework to increase awareness and promote ISO 14001 [44].

2.3. EMSs in the Malaysian AECOM Sector

The Government of Malaysia has increasingly noted the importance of sustainability in the construction sector and intends to move the nation toward sustainable growth by the year 2030 [45]. To facilitate this, the 12th Malaysia Plan (2021–2025) aims to increase economic growth alongside maintaining environmental sustainability [46], while the 13th Malaysia plan (2026–2030) keeps the focus on sustainability and climate resilience [47]. However, research has indicated that in boosting the economic growth of a nation, the building and construction sector is a major player that enables other sectors such as manufacturing to increase along with the increased employment opportunities [48]. In Malaysia, the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by about 3–5% over the last few decades from the impact of the construction sector [49]. There has also been a significant increase in the population size, which is expected to reach 41.5 million by 2040 [50]. This increase in population will require more homes and infrastructure. In terms of carbon emissions, the Malaysian construction sector amounts to 24% of the nation’s emissions [51]. Malaysia was ranked 30th globally among the countries producing the highest emissions [52]. However, with the expected increase in population and resultant construction, these figures will no doubt increase. As a country, it will also have to deal with the impacts of climate change and associated consequences, e.g., landslides, floods, and epidemics [53], which will potentially also become more of an issue in the future.

3. Materials and Methods

Following previous studies, this study was guided by a positivist stance and applied a deductive reasoning approach, which utilized a quantitative questionnaire [14,15,16,17,27]. This enabled the collection of data with minimum interference from the researcher. An online survey was selected as this enabled the collection of data from a specific group of participants in a form that is time efficient and effective. Other data collection instruments were considered and discounted. These included instruments such as interviews that are time-intensive and carry a higher risk to objectivity as well as focus groups and the Delphi method that are not suitable as the research focuses on individual professional perspectives rather than an agreed group view of the situation.

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

The survey questions were formulated based on a literature review and similar studies conducted in the UK [15], US [16], Nigeria [14], Maldives [27], and Ghana [17] (

Table 1. Key papers similar to the subject study.

Ref.	Publication Year	Country	Sample Size
[14]	2016	Nigeria	37
[15]	2021	UK	49
[16]	2023	USA	47
[27]	2023	Maldives	41
[17]	2025	Ghana	52

Source: Own elaboration.

). The questionnaire (Appendix A) was compiled using Qualtrics and administered using an online distribution technique to 529 AECOM professionals. The invitation to participate in the study was distributed via email and professional social media platforms with a target sample size of 100–150 respondents. It is acknowledged that this sample selection approach creates a bias towards those known to the researchers and who engage with social media groups. However, AECOM practitioners are known to engage with professional social media [54]. The email invitation included details of the purpose of the study and a hyperlink to the questionnaire.

The questionnaire included four sections: (1) participants’ details (company size, number of years of professional experience, professional membership, and academic background); (2) benefits of implementing an EMS; (3) barriers to the implementation of an EMS; and (4) participant identifier. Section 2 comprised ten benefit statements in a random order to avoid any preference. The statements were formulated based on previously identified benefits of EMSs. Section 3 comprised twelve randomly ordered statements relating to previously identified barriers. Participants were asked to score the significance of each statement using the standard 5-point Likert scale (‘strongly agree’ (SA), ‘somewhat agree’ (SWA), ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (N), ‘somewhat disagree’ (SWD), and ‘strongly disagree’ (SD)) [55]. Section 4 allowed participants to create a unique identifier, which, if they later desired, would enable their withdrawal within a 2-week window from the day of their participation in the survey.

Data collection was conducted based on the appropriate ethical signoff by the College of Arts, Technology and Environment of the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. The questionnaire, participant information sheet, and consent form were issued together. All participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary and that by returning the questionnaire they were giving their consent to take part in the survey. As their responses would be anonymous, the participants were also informed that there would be no opportunity to withdraw once the completed survey had been returned and anonymized following the 2-week ‘cooling-off’ withdrawal window. The study was conducted in accordance with UK universities’ ethics regulations.

3.2. Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using Excel to establish the mean and weighted average. In line with previous studies conducted in the US [16] and Nigeria [14], Equation (1) shows the weighted average formula $WA{S}_i$ for a given factor i:

$${WAS}_i={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{j=1}^5\left({\alpha }_j{n}_{ij}\right)}{N}},$$

(1)

where

${\alpha }_j$—numerical value given to each of the ranking categories where ‘strongly disagree’ is allocated to the lowest rank and ‘strongly agree’ is allocated to the highest rank;

$n_{ij}$—number of respondents for factor i with respect to the ranking category $j$;

$N$—total number of respondents for all of the questions.

Previous studies noted that the use of this formula on its own is not sufficient to calculate the ranking of the factors [14,16]. As a result, to measure dispersion, the use of a coefficient of variation, determined by dividing $WA{S}_i$ by the standard deviation, was applied. Hence, Equation (2) presents the adjusted score formula, where BIV_i denotes the Benefit/Barrier Index Value for each factor i:

$${BIV}_i={WAS}_i+{\displaystyle \frac{{WAS}_i}{{\mathsf{\delta }}_i}}$$

(2)

where

δ_i—standard deviation for each factor i.

The work here is part of ongoing wider research into the use of ISO 14001 throughout the world to ascertain the effectiveness and usefulness of the system within different countries.

4. Results

The survey was distributed to 529 AECOM practitioners. Of the 75 responses received, only 41 surveys were fully complete (54.7%), resulting in an effective response rate of 7.8%. While this is a relatively low response rate, it must be noted that the uptake and adoption of EMSs across Malaysia is somewhat low compared to many other countries, and the AECOM sector is typically low for all countries compared to other sectors. Therefore, it is probable that the many of those invited will not have had experience of implementing or using an EMS and, thus, will have chosen not to engage with study. This highlights the necessity for an understanding of the perceived benefits and barriers influencing the implementation of EMSs. Moreover, the sample size used in this study is similar to identical studies conducted in other countries [14,15,16,17,27]. The findings from the analysis of these responses are presented and discussed under three sections: participant profiles, benefits of EMSs, and barriers to implementing EMSs.

4.1. Participant Profiles

The sample included AECOM professionals working predominantly for organizations with fewer than 250 employees (71%), and who were members of professional organizations, such as the Board of Quantity Surveyors Malaysia, Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia, Malaysian Institute of Architects, Board of Engineers Malaysia, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors IEM, and Chartered Institute of Building (71%). All of them had at least an undergraduate degree, with 29% having postgraduate or doctorate degrees. Their professional experience varied significantly, with the largest group having 1–2 years of professional experience (37%), followed by those with 10+ years of experience (27%), 3–5 years of experience (22%), and 6–9 years of experience.

4.2. Benefits of EMS Implementation

The questionnaire listed a set of ten factors, which were recognized as being potential benefits of implementing EMS in the construction industry (

Table 2. List of beneficial factors.

Code	Beneficial Factor
BF-a	Reduction in fines and cost savings associated with convictions
BF-b	Improved corporate image in environmental performance
BF-c	Contribution to the environmental standards of the construction industry as a whole
BF-d	Contribution to levels of environmental protection
BF-e	Increase in overall business competitiveness
BF-f	Reduction in environmental complaints
BF-g	Improved staff work environment, thus increasing morale
BF-h	Reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries
BF-i	Reduction in environmental risks—polluted air, land, and water
BF-j	Compliance with employers’ prequalification requirements

Source: Own elaboration.

). Through an analysis of the questionnaire responses (

Table 3. Questionnaire responses and calculation of parameter values for the beneficial factors.

Factor	SA	SWA	N	SWD	SD	Total	WASi	St. Dev.	BIVi	BIVi Rank
BF-a	6	18	15	2	0	41	3.68	0.79	8.41	8
BF-b	12	22	7	0	0	41	4.12	0.68	10.28	1
BF-c	12	20	9	0	0	41	4.07	0.72	9.79	2
BF-d	9	21	11	0	0	41	3.95	0.71	9.62	5
BF-e	10	18	13	0	0	41	3.93	0.75	9.19	6
BF-f	13	16	9	2	1	41	3.93	0.98	7.96	10
BF-g	10	20	10	1	0	41	3.95	0.77	9.13	7
BF-h	13	19	9	0	0	41	4.10	0.74	9.74	3
BF-i	17	15	9	0	0	41	4.20	0.78	9.63	4
BF-j	8	16	15	2	0	41	3.73	0.84	8.24	9

Source: Own elaboration.

), the benefits of implementing EMSs were ranked (

Table 4. List of beneficial factors in ranked order.

Rank	Code	Beneficial Factors
1	BF-b	Improved corporate image in environmental performance
2	BF-c	Contribution to the environmental standards of the construction industry as a whole
3	BF-h	Reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries
4	BF-i	Reduction in environmental risks—polluted air, land, and water
5	BF-d	Contribution to levels of environmental protection
6	BF-e	Increase in overall business competitiveness
7	BF-g	Improved staff work environment, thus increasing morale
8	BF-a	Reduction in fines and cost savings associated with convictions
9	BF-j	Compliance with employers’ prequalification requirements
10	BF-f	Reduction in environmental complaints

Source: Own elaboration.

, Figure 1).

Based on the data analyzed, the top three most significant benefits of EMSs ranked by the respondents are factors BF-b (improved corporate image in environmental performance), BF-c (contribution to the environmental standards of the construction industry as a whole), and BF-h (reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries). The lowest-ranked benefits were BF-f (reduction in environmental complaints), BF-j (compliance with employers’ prequalification criteria), and BF-a (cost savings owing to reduced fines connected with convictions).

4.3. Barriers to Implementation of EMSs

The questionnaire listed a set of twelve factors recognized as being potential barriers to implementing EMSs in the construction industry (

Table 5. List of barriers to implementation of EMSs.

Code	Barriers to Implementation of EMSs
EB-a	Lack of government legal enforcement
EB-b	Lack of technological support within the organization
EB-c	Lack of tailor-made training on environmental management
EB-d	Lack of trained staff and expertise
EB-e	Lack of support from working staff
EB-f	Lack of client support
EB-g	Increase in management and operation costs
EB-h	Increase in documentation workload
EB-i	Change in existing practice structure and policy
EB-j	Difficult coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors
Eb-k	Cost savings do not balance against the expense of thoroughly implementing management strategies
EB-l	Ambiguous or absent government targets for the construction sector

Source: Own elaboration.

). Through an analysis of the questionnaire responses (

Table 6. Questionnaire responses and calculation of parameter values for the barriers to implementation of EMSs.

Factor	SA	SWA	N	SWD	SD	Total	WASi	St. Dev.	BIVi	BIVi Rank
EB-a	15	19	5	1	1	41	4.12	0.90	8.76	3
EB-b	14	15	8	4	0	41	3.95	0.97	8.06	6
EB-c	12	14	14	1	0	41	3.90	0.86	8.49	4
EB-d	12	17	8	2	2	41	3.85	1.06	7.53	11
EB-e	10	17	10	3	1	41	3.78	0.99	7.66	8
EB-f	13	19	8	1	0	41	4.07	0.79	9.31	1
EB-g	10	15	13	3	0	41	3.78	0.91	7.99	7
EB-h	11	11	10	8	1	41	3.56	1.16	6.66	12
EB-i	8	14	15	4	0	41	3.63	0.92	7.65	9
EB-j	15	13	13	0	0	41	4.05	0.84	8.96	2
EB-k	9	16	12	3	1	41	3.71	0.98	7.53	10
EB-l	10	17	13	0	1	41	3.85	0.88	8.28	5

Source: Own elaboration.

), the barriers to implementing EMSs were ranked (

Table 7. List of barriers to implementation of EMSs in ranked order.

Rank	Code	Beneficial Factors
1	EB-f	Lack of client support
2	EB-j	Difficult coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors
3	EB-a	Lack of government legal enforcement
4	EB-c	Lack of tailor-made training on environmental management
5	EB-l	Ambiguous or absent government targets for the construction sector
6	EB-b	Lack of technological support within the organization
7	EB-g	Increase in management and operation costs
8	EB-e	Lack of support from working staff
9	EB-i	Change in existing practice of company structure and policy
10	EB-k	Cost savings do not balance against the expense of thoroughly implementing management strategies
11	EB-d	Lack of trained staff and expertise
12	EB-h	Increase in documentation workload

Source: Own elaboration.

, Figure 2).

According to the results, factors EB-f (lack of client support), EB-j (difficult coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors), and EB-a (lack of government enforcement) are the top three barriers to EMS implementation as ranked by the respondents. The lowest-ranking benefits were EB-h (increase in documentation workload), EB-d (lack of trained staff and expertise), and EB-k (cost savings do not balance against expense of thoroughly implementing management strategies).

5. Discussion

5.1. Benefits of Implementing EMSs

This study revealed that the major benefit of implementing ISO 14001 is improving corporate image in environmental performance—a leading factor that was noted in previous studies [14,15,16,27,30]. The second most significant beneficial factor found was the contribution to the environmental standards of the construction industry. This appeared among the top three factors in Maldivian [27] and US studies [16]. A previous study conducted in Malaysia [24] mentioned that consumers and corporations have become progressively more aware of the need to engage in actions that protect the environment, and they would choose suppliers with excellent environmental records. The above two top benefits are found to occur in both developed and developing nations, whereas the third benefit (reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries) was only noted in developing nations. The reduction in environment-related sickness and injuries was also noted in previous research on the Nigerian construction industry [14].

In accordance with past studies in the UK [15] and the Maldives [27], the least significant benefit in this study was found to be a reduction in environmental complaints. The next lowest-ranked factor was compliance with employers’ prequalification requirements, which was not highlighted in previous studies, which may suggest that this is specific to the participants in this research. However, since few participants commented on this factor, clear conclusions cannot be drawn on this factor. Awareness might be low, possibly because some companies do not have prequalification requirements when hiring employees. Therefore, internal management should consider setting up guidelines to implement these requirements within their organizations. Further, more research is needed to understand why compliance with employers’ prequalification requirements is not seen as important compared to other factors that impact on the company’s performance and profitability.

Another factor noted as less concerning is the cost savings from reduced fines associated with convictions. This might be due to fewer regulations or lower fines. This finding is consistent with other studies on Finland and Vietnam [26,29] that also found it to be of lower importance.

5.2. Barriers to Implementing EMSs

The top three most significant barriers to implementing EMSs in the Malaysian construction industry were found to be lack of client support, difficult coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors, and lack of government legal enforcement. The lack of client support was ranked first by the professionals in Malaysia, which is supported by a Singaporean study mentioning that the drawbacks of ISO 14001 adoption include short-term costs in employing environmental consultants, setting up management structures, and organizing training for employees [36]. The same study also identified a lack of client support, which leads to disruption to workflow and delays, and that adopting ISO 14000 will increase the costs of operation [36]. Other researchers also noted that lack of involvement with the project parties is one of the barriers of implementing EMSs [41].

Challenges associated with the coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors were ranked second in relation to significant barriers of implementing an EMS. This has also been noted in research conducted in the US [16] and Hong Kong [41] in the context of an environmentally passive culture within the construction industry, lack of cooperating project parties, and contract time and implementing EMSs.

The third most significant barrier to implementing EMSs in the construction industry in Malaysia is the lack of government enforcement, which was also a major factor in the Maldives. This may be due to the maturity of the environmental legislation within those countries [29]. A survey undertaken in the Chinese construction industry revealed that inadequate legal enforcement is an obstacle to the implementation of EMSs [42]. The study concluded that the government should take steps to lead the industry by providing training and financial support and improving legal frameworks to increase awareness and promote ISO 14000 for China’s construction industry. It may be that as countries develop their environmental agendas, this barrier becomes less of an issue. The Malaysian government by allocating funds and incentives has now created an initiative to promote EMSs in the construction industry which contributes to the Green Technology Master Plan 2017–2030 fostering environmental improvements [45]. Furthermore, the three least significant barriers included an increase in documentation workload, a lack of trained staff and expertise, and cost savings not balancing against the expense of thoroughly implementing management strategies.

The least significant barrier was the increase in documentation workload. This is a similar result to the Hong Kong study that placed this barrier 9th out of 13 statements, suggesting that it was judged to be of low relevance by the participants [30]. However, this result differs significantly from UK research on SMEs, where the increase in documentation workload was ranked 5th out of 16 barriers [15]. The second least significant barrier was the lack of trained staff and expertise. This is a major difference from studies carried out in Hong Kong [30,54,56] and Singapore [42] that mentioned that lack of professional equities is an important barrier to implementing EMSs. Moreover, many practitioners of EMS do not know how to implement these sustainable concepts because of a lack of knowledge or skills [57]. Finally, the third least significant barrier to implementing EMSs was the fact that the cost savings do not balance against the expense of thoroughly implementing management strategies, which links to a previous study [16]. In a study conducted on UK SMEs [15], this barrier was ranked the second most important out of the list of barrier factors in the study. This indicates that the contractors in the UK believed that they had not received or would not receive large profits despite their initial investments by implementing an EMS [15]. The professionals in the Malaysian construction industry rated this statement as one of the least significant barriers to the implementation of EMSs in the construction industry. This is an interesting finding that suggests there may be a change in perception in relation to the cost of EMSs.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The construction sector is being pressured to make improvements in respect to reducing their negative environmental impacts. This study has highlighted the possibility of utilizing ISO 14001 to achieve this by examining the benefits of and barriers to EMS implementation in the Malaysian construction sector. The most significant benefit of engaging with an EMS in the Malaysian construction sector was found to be the improvement in corporate image in environmental performance. The most significant barrier to implementing EMSs in the Malaysian construction sector was the lack of client support. These findings suggest that while companies may be willing to improve their environmental practices to signal their quality, they may not necessarily be going beyond their own activities to promote sustainable practices as a response to their client needs. This is contrary to past research highlighting the relevance of client-driven changes. However, given the early stage of EMS implementation in Malaysia, is not surprising, and this is perhaps something to look into in the future.

Shifting clients’ expectations is an important catalyst for suppliers to change their behaviors. European experience suggests that clients such as public sector and environmentally engaged companies have the power to impose higher expectations in their supply chain and thus drive more environmentally conscious behaviors. Environmental management is an issue of importance for the Government of Malaysia, who created the Green Technology Master Plan 2017–2030. The construction sector does have lower rates of engagement with ISO 14001 compared to the manufacturing industry. The government, through its plans, has the power and means to encourage more engagement. The lack of legal requirement has been noted in other research as a barrier to EMS implementation and this is the same in Malaysia. For the Malaysian government, this means that it needs to consider using its position of power to drive change through legal requirements.

The significance of the benefits and barriers to EMS adoption in the Malaysian construction industry has been investigated and analyzed. In this study, the key benefits associated with EMSs in the construction industry are (a) improvement in corporate image in environmental performance; (b) contribution to the environmental standards of the construction industry as a whole; and (c) reduction in environmental-related sickness and injuries. These findings show that construction firms see EMS implementation as bringing about changes that will benefit society. They consider a rise in industry standards and public attitudes as a positive aspect, as they recognize that EMSs can help protect the environment.

Aside from the advantages, there is an acknowledgement that EMS integration might be difficult at times. The barriers identified in this study are (a) a lack of client support; (b) difficult coordination of environmental performance among multi-tier subcontractors; and (c) lack of government legal enforcement. The lack of client support is the most significant barrier to implementing EMSs in the Malaysian construction industry. Subcontractors or clients could work together to increase the effectiveness of the EMS and to increase the EMS adoption rate. The Malaysian Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) plays a key role in the construction industry in Malaysia where policy and structure could promote the system and increase awareness of EMSs for the construction sector. The government plays a vital role, and legal enforcement should be made to increase the rate of implementation.

EMS efficiency is dependent on all aspects of construction cooperation, which is not always the case. There is, therefore, a long way to go before the requirements for sustainable growth are met. As mentioned above, the Government of Malaysia is well placed to promote ISO 14001 more openly through legislative means, but perhaps more importantly, to ensure credibility, it could engage in supporting researchers to examine why the construction industry has a low implementation rate compared to other sectors and how to explore non-regulatory ways of promoting sustainability in the AECOM sector. The need for sustainable development is becoming more widely recognized, and this article argues that the greening of the AECOM industry has a significant role to play in this journey while also noting the challenges that exist. Finally, as society progresses toward a more sustainable future, these barriers should become simpler to overcome, and the benefits should become more significant as the desire for decreased environmental impacts grows. Some companies seem to be clear about their role in addressing sustainability in the sector. There is evidence that EMSs can be used as a signal for the quality of the business and thus improve the value of the company. Hence, it is expected that the decision-makers in the business would be well placed to promote EMSs and use this as a key element of contributing to well-rounded CSR evidence that reinforces the business’ competitive position.

This research is subject to limitations due to the use of English as the language of the questionnaire, which might have led to the exclusion of some potential participants. By the very nature of online surveys, this research may be subject to self-selection bias. While 41 questionnaires were completed, the low completion rate may have affected the results. However, as EMSs are not widely used in Malaysia, it may well be the case that many who did not return the questionnaires had no awareness of EMSs and therefore would not have participated in this research. This is something that could be reviewed in more detailed future studies. This study did not examine the factors that affected the participants’ ranking of the barriers and benefits of EMSs. Hence, this is something to be explored in future research.

Observations from this study suggest that conducting a case study analysis to obtain more specific details about certain areas of Malaysia such as Klang Valley, Kuala Lumpur, or the state of Selangor would be useful. Mixed-method qualitative and quantitative research can be adopted, where online interview sessions with several industry players might be helpful. Furthermore, in the future, researchers could conduct research across wider public or specific industries outside of the AECOM sector.