International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science

Apply as Reviewer
Submit Your Manuscript
Track Paper
Apply as Reviewer
Submit Your Manuscript
Track Paper

IJRISS

Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds
Submission Deadline
Submit Your Paper

IJRISS

Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds
Submission Deadline
Submit Your Paper
Submission Deadline-29th November 2024
November 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-05th December 2024
Special Issue on Economics, Management, Sociology, Communication, Psychology: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-20th December 2024
Special Issue on Education, Public Health: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

Building a Greener Future: Can Malaysia’s Property Development Sector Achieve Sustainable Development Goals?

  • Nik Faizah Nik Mahmood
  • Herwina Rosnan
  • Gancar Candra Premananto
  • 1-15
  • Nov 26, 2024
  • Sustainability
Building a Greener Future: Can Malaysia’s Property Development Sector Achieve Sustainable Development Goals?
Nik Faizah Nik Mahmood1 and Herwina Rosnan2*, Gancar Candra Premananto3
1Sime Darby Property Berhad, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
2Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia
3Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, 60286 Surabaya, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author
Received: 16 October 2024; Accepted: 25 October 2024; Published: 26 November 2024

ABSTRACT

The primary focus of this current research centers specifically on the property development sector within the larger construction industry domain. It is within this sector that the impact on the environment, resulting from development and construction activities, is particularly pronounced, especially in urban areas undergoing rapid urbanization. These urban areas, or cities, are known to be major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for an estimated 75 percent of global energy consumption and up to 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Although studies on environmental sustainability are extensive, the discussion on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda from the perspective of industry players remains scarce. Therefore, the main objective of this exploratory research is to discover property developers’ commitments and the challenges faced in attaining the sustainability agenda. The research adopts a qualitative research approach where data was collected from seven companies based on purposive sampling techniques. The interview sessions were recorded, transcribed, and data were analyzed using the grounded theory analysis technique. The findings highlighted the positive direction of sustainability practices among property developers in Malaysia with the instrumental role of the government. Overall, the property development sector in Malaysia has witnessed a noticeable shift towards embracing the sustainability agenda in recent years. Increased awareness and efforts are evident as the industry addresses its historical challenges of inefficiency and environmental impact. The study contributes to a greater understanding of the phenomenon that addresses the empirical gap of the study.
Keywords: challenges, Malaysia, property development sector, sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

INTRODUCTION

The significant increase in the growth of economies has put the environment and natural resources on the way to destruction and the sustainability concept has gained much interest over the years across many industries. The masses have come to realize that mother earth is slowly being polluted and damaged by activities made by irresponsible parties. High profits in the short run are usually the most common driver of those unscrupulous activities that continue to negatively affect the surrounding environment.
However, the biggest obstacle faced by companies would be to make sure that their sustainability concept implementation is real and substantial (Desivyana et al., 2023); Jones and Comfort, 2020; Finkbeiner et al., 2010). Being sustainable is becoming part of one’s daily life. Hence, in the recently announced Budget 2023, Malaysia’s Prime Minister addressed the United Nations Assembly in New York by stating that the nation needs to urgently intensify development efforts in dealing with the global warming crisis. Climate change is impacting the nation which led to a budget that focuses on focuses on 1) Commitment towards Carbon Neutrality 2050, 2) Safeguarding Biodiversity, and 3) Sustainable Communities. There are several green incentives proposed such as Green Investment Tax Allowance (GITA) and Green Income Tax Exemption (GITE) to encourage green initiatives among businesses for products such as solar power generation integrated into battery storage systems. It is evident here that the government is encouraging sustainability practices among businesses and communities to ensure resilience and care for future generations’ mindset within the Malaysian culture.
In recent years, efforts toward achieving resilient cities have been strengthened with various initiatives and actions. In the Twelfth Malaysia Plan (RMK12), 2021 – 2025, it was reported that a number of initiatives were implemented during the previous Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016 – 2020 (RMK11) to pursue green growth in order to achieve the country’s aspiration towards environmental sustainability and resilience. However, this was met with a stumbling block from a few initiatives which resulted in unsustainable consumption and production practices, loss of biodiversity as well as lack of supporting enablers or tools for environmental protection. During RMK11, pursuing green growth for sustainability and resilience was one of the six defined strategic thrusts, in line with Malaysia’s voluntary target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity by up to 40% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020. Although Malaysia only contributes 0.7 percent of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions today, the Government continues to fulfill its commitment to reduce the GHG intensity to GDP up to 45 percent by 2030, based on emission intensity in 2005, in line with the aspiration towards becoming a low-carbon nation.
The Construction Industry Transformation Programme (CITP) aims to help Malaysia become a fast-growing economy in a resilient, low-carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive manner. To continue driving the industry towards this goal, the Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB) has introduced the Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan (2021-2025). This plan includes the establishment of the Sustainable Construction Excellence Centre (MAMPAN) to promote sustainable construction through innovative initiatives. Additionally, the National Construction Policy (NCP 2030) serves as a guide for achieving inclusive and sustainable national development by 2030. The CITP (2015) highlighted inefficiencies and environmental harm in Malaysian construction practices, prompting the development of the CITP program to set an environmentally sustainable construction benchmark for neighboring developing countries. The construction industry in Malaysia has low productivity compared to other industries and lags behind in adopting modern technology. In the Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan (2021-2025), sustainability is a core value that emphasizes reducing the industry’s environmental impact through the use of recyclable resources, waste, and energy reduction, environmentally friendly offices, and conservation efforts.
In the current ever-changing business environment, organizations face an increased need to address the changing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demands expressed by a wide range of interested parties, including customers, clients, business associates, and shareholders. Malaysia has made a commitment to reach the 17 SDGs by 2030. Additionally, in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Malaysia has promised to decrease carbon intensity to 45 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030 compared to the levels observed in Malaysia also aspires to be a net zero nation by 2050. As the world faces increasing global challenges related to climate change, social equity, and governance, there has been a shift towards adopting more sustainable practices. Just as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have become a worldwide ethical obligation, the SDGs framework also seeks to ensure that Malaysia’s economic growth is harmonized with inclusivity, fairness, and justice for its key stakeholders. Statistics show that more or less 40% of waste is generated from the construction and demolition of buildings and recyclability indexes are very poor (Gomathi & Pradeep, 2019). There is an urgent need for Malaysian businesses to brace themselves into complying with environmentally sustainable practices as indications to the world that the country is serious with its sustainability commitment to reduce carbon emissions, increase the usage of low-carbon building materials as well as work towards a circular economy or zero waste by means of the 3R’s of recycling which are Reduce, Reuse, Recycling, and an additional 4th R would be Repurpose or Upcycling.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Brundtl and Commission (1987) initially defined the concept of sustainability as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Bengtsson & Agerfalk, 2011; Longoni et al., 2014). The idea of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has quickly gained renewed interest due to the urgency of sustainable development in the global arena. The commitment by the United Nations Rio+20 summit in Brazil in 2012 was to have a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) that would be integrated into the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) established earlier in 2000. The sustainable development definition should include the security of people and planet since the human population is forecasted to increase to 9 billion by 2050 (Griggset al., 2013). Sustainability is applicable in most areas including the economy, organizations and the people and it is considered a comprehensive systemic concept (Buys et al., 2014).   Companies that embrace the sustainability concept fully will support all three pillars of sustainability namely the economic, social, and environmental pillars (Lopes et al., 2016). Generally, most companies agree that the optimum balance achieved between the three pillars of sustainability would be the best guide for the management in order for them to strive to become a sustainability-driven organization (Heikkurinen & Bonedahl, 2013). The survival of companies today is based on how their business processes are able to incorporate green elements continuously into their system in order to create value to the customers, meet their current needs, and achieve higher customer satisfaction without compromising the needs of future generations (Ghisetti et al., 2015).
The construction industry is one of the most environmentally detrimental industries in the world (Saarani, 2022), impacting directly the use of raw materials and within the building sector, the transition from a linear to a circular economy is still at an early stage (Bertino et al., 2021). Business models need to be reconsidered to include new and improved methods and innovative ways that could help businesses achieve a net reduction while using scarce resources and minimizing the waste disposed to landfills. Environmental sustainability can be the key competitive advantage in creating business value for the construction industry players (Metz et al., 2016). Construction companies should be able to shift sustainability goals interchangeably with the market demand, create value propositions, and meet compelling needs while adapting sustainability concepts into the product design which will in turn affect the overall market performance (Keskin et al., 2013).
Embracing SDGs commitment proved to be a challenge even for developed countries. Studies by Jones and Comfort (2020) on the commitment made by housebuilders in the UK revealed that although they claimed that the companies are committed to SDGs, the scale and extent of their commitment vary. Companies tend to commit to specific SDGs based on their own priorities. In addition, measurement and metrics to measure sustainability achievement are problematic and lack of standardization. Similarly, a study by Desivyana et al. (2023) on the Swedish property development industry found that there are no universally accepted, comprehensive guidelines for the implementation of sustainability, whether at the national or corporate level. Nonetheless, construction firms’ awareness of sustainable concepts, particularly concerning the possible economic advantages of integrating circular economy principles into their projects, remains limited (Bursiaga, 2020).
Some of the best practices that are worth sharing from sustainability-driven companies who are already progressing well in their sustainability agenda among others are to inculcate a sustainability mindset, to set high benchmarks in terms of achieving sustainability performance, and continuously focus on any other sustainability-related opportunities.
However, developers are profit driven and follow market trends. Presently, most developers view sustainability as an added burden with added cost. One of the elements that make sustainable buildings expensive is the products or materials used. Presently, developers have to import green products and this would definitely lead to higher costs (Abidin, 2010). In a market system, sustainable development requires sustainability of innovation and entrepreneurs who can achieve environmental or social goals with superior products or processes that are successful in the marketplace of mainstream customers (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Conventional wisdom suggests that young and new firms have advantages in innovation and as such they are the potential candidates of offering radical solutions to the challenges of sustainability (Keskinet al., 2013).
Several key elements identified by Hallstedt et al. (2013) with regards to integrating sustainability in the business processes are 1) to get buy-in from senior management for their support in any sustainability-related initiatives; 2) to involve the discussion on the subject of sustainability perspective early in the product planning and design process; 3) to get procurement people with the right skills and competencies to get the sustainability items in all contract agreement; 4) to incorporate social and cultural elements into product design to ensure that sustainability is felt in every product life cycle; 5) to allocate tasks for each team member for smooth implementation of sustainability concept in the product design process; 6) to establish a structured system to share knowledge and lessons learnt in order to allow for competency building among employees and also to be able to disseminate information regarding decisions made in potential projects ahead; and 7) to make full use of sustainability assessment tools as guide. Hallstedt et al. (2013) also highlighted the main factors for the successful implementation of sustainability efforts as part of the early involvement during the product design stage. These factors are categorized into four (4) components including 1) organization itself, 2) internal business processes, 3) roles and responsibilities, and 4) assessment tools. Companies who try to incorporate these main factors early in the product planning process would see positive results in the later years which leads to the company’s success in the long run.
It is critical for companies to continuously find solutions to the challenges faced while at the same time, continuously focusing on addressing ways to satisfactorily meet all stakeholder’s demands and requirements (Morioka, Evans & de Carvalho, 2016).  This concurs with the views of Abidin (2009) where sustainability elements that garnered the highest percentage are related to the environment such as high protection of the environment (88.6%), efficient environmental planning, control, and management (80%), and minimum usage of the raw materials (68.6%). Other items that are more related to social in sustainability terms recorded a moderate percentage: enhance consumers’ satisfaction and quality of life (71.4%) and social public needs (42.9%). The last items with the lowest percentage are related to the economy such as gaining profit without compromising future needs (42.6%) and continuous upkeep of stable and high level of growth for the Malaysian economy (48.6%). Based on the overall findings, it can be deduced that there was a consensus that sustainability is about protecting the environment, but many are still unaware that sustainability is also about balancing the social and economic aspects of construction (Abidin, 2009).
Companies still maintain their reservation about adopting fully the sustainability agenda into their workplace to ensure that the implementation is feasible for the business. Demaid and Quintas, (2006) assert that environmental solutions that are not cost-effective will not be proposed unless instigated by clients, demanded by legislation, or come from accepted, local business ethics. The direction of the industry is now shifting from developing with environmental concerns as a small part of the process to having the development process integrated within the wider context of the environmental agenda (Abidin, 2009). One of the catalysts suggested in order for organizations to be able to integrate sustainability agenda quicker into their business strategies is through the organization’s innovation process.
There are some sustainable projects in Malaysia that have shown a high degree of sustainability elements in their product concepts. However, generally, the level of embracement of sustainability concept among property developers is still below the desired level of expectations by the government and consumers. The concept of sustainability is still relatively new to some property developers despite the introduction of sustainability-related initiatives by the government. It has been observed that the sustainability concept was not applied to all projects. With this scenario in mind, the conclusion here strengthens the argument that the industry is still at its infancy stage in this field (Abidin, 2009). According to Mohammed et al. (2021), there is a lack of awareness and knowledge in the Malaysian construction industry about waste management reduction and their findings revealed that the top factors for waste generation on reducing, reusing, and recycling are lack of design and documentation and lack of guidance for effective construction waste-collecting. The amount of waste generated at a construction site in Malaysia is an estimated average of 5 tons per day with an estimated breakdown of 4.4 tons/ day of waste generated from high-rise building construction and 2.47 tons/ day for landed housing projects. This evidence clearly concluded that many construction companies from developing countries have low construction waste awareness. Therefore, this current exploratory research, focusing on the sustainability commitments of local property developers, is considered necessary and will address the existing empirical gap of study.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The primary focus of this current research study centers specifically on the property development sector within the larger construction industry domain. It is within this sector that the impact
on the environment, resulting from development and construction activities, is particularly pronounced, especially in urban areas undergoing rapid urbanization. These urban areas, or cities, are known to be major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for an estimated 75% of global energy consumption and up to 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Dulal & Akbar, 2013).
In order to delve deep into the phenomenon and gain comprehensive insights, a qualitative research approach has been chosen as the most suitable methodological framework. The primary objective of this study is to capture the perspectives and viewpoints of local property developers operating within their respective companies, shedding light on their understanding and interpretation of the concept of sustainability. Additionally, the study aims to identify and understand the various issues faced by these companies in their efforts to uphold and implement sustainable practices within their operations.
To achieve these objectives, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposively selected group of property developers situated within the Klang Valley area. The targeted population for this study comprised a total of 79 local property developers, all of whom are listed under Bursa Malaysia. Given the qualitative nature of the research, the sample selection was not based on statistical criteria, but rather on the premise of identifying information-rich cases that offer significant insights related to the phenomenon under investigation.
Table 1: Participants’ Profile
Participant Location of Interview Designation Tenure (Years) No of Employees
P1 Petaling Jaya Senior Executive – Corporate Sustainability 9 1600
P2 Kuala Lumpur Manager – Product Development 14 1490
P3 Kuala Lumpur Manager – Quality Assurance and Control 13 300
P4 Kuala Lumpur Manager (Architect) 17 500
P5 Kuala Lumpur Acting Assistant Manager, Sustainability 2 1,080
P6 Petaling Jaya Assistant Manager, Sustainability 1 1,010
P7 Petaling Jaya Senior Executive, Quality 8 1,450
The final sample size for this study consisted of seven companies, which were deemed sufficient to yield a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the challenges faced by property developers in relation to sustainability practices (Patton, 1990). The data collected from the interviews were analyzed using the grounded theory analysis technique, which encompasses several stages of coding and categorization. The grounded theory method contains three data analysis steps: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The initial stage of analysis involved open coding, where the interview transcripts were systematically and analytically broken down, enabling the researcher to identify events, actions, and interactions, as well as compare them for similarities and differences. Following this, the axial coding stage was conducted, whereby categories were linked to sub-categories, and new categories emerged throughout the analytical process as further interviews were carried out. This process is akin to the open coding stage, but at this juncture, the researcher sought to establish connections between the main categories and their respective sub-categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
In line with the recommendations of Williams and Moser (2019), the final stage of analysis involved selective coding, where all the identified categories were consolidated and unified around a “core” category, ensuring a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the data. Additionally, any categories that required further elucidation were filled in with descriptive details, allowing for a more thorough exploration of those particular categories (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

RESULTS

A total of seven participants were selected, each representing a distinct property development company operating within Malaysia. Importantly, all participants possessed firsthand experience with sustainability-related matters within their respective roles. The participants were chosen based on the following criteria: (1) They had to be associated with a Malaysian property development company, (2) they were required to possess knowledge and expertise regarding sustainability-related concerns within their organization, and (3) their willingness to actively participate in this research and share their valuable work experiences was crucial.
The results describe the perspectives and experiences of these participants and a richer understanding of the issues and challenges faced by property developers in Malaysia.  These encompass various aspects such as the measurement system, supply chain, return on investment, and the role of the government. The detailed results for these four categories are presented in the following paragraph.
Measurement System
The study found that the current measurement system is complex and the scoring criteria are difficult which requires multiple engagements with various stakeholders for specific information and proper documentation to justify each indicator’s score results. According to Participant 1:
“The Sustainability Index in our company is complex, it is measuring quantitative and qualitative of the township development during the value chain of the development. So, to give a specific scoring criterion for each indicator is very difficult, meaning that you have to engage certain departments and townships and other stakeholders to really give a very good to be specified in each indicator. We need to engage with many stakeholders.
The participants further explained that a good sustainability measurement system captures both quantitative and qualitative aspects of a township’s development. The measurement system needs to be comprehensive enough to cater to the property development value chain. This measurement system must be robust enough to be able to assess the sustainability components in a project at any stage of the property development such as either at the planning stage, on-going or matured, completed townships.
“…. the challenge to convert the current Sustainability Index not only to measure the on-going projects but to cater the value chain; across the value chain from the planning stage until
handover…” (P4)
Despite the challenges, some companies starting to embark on a Sustainability Management System where all sustainability data such as carbon emissions, energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon sequestration through tree planting, water, and waste recycling are tracked in a single IT platform. However, data needs to be validated further to ensure accurate reporting for management’s sound decision process. One company has developed an in-house internal rating system that is aligned with the Global Reporting Index (GRI) reporting standards, an international independent standards organization that helps businesses, governments and other organizations understand and communicate their impacts on issues such as climate change and human rights in a global common language. GRI allows companies to disclose their sustainability data which promotes a high level of transparency to relevant stakeholders in understanding the depth of sustainability practices in the companies that they are interested in becoming business partners. The standards cover comprehensively a wide range of topics from biodiversity to waste. As the saying goes “we can’t manage things that we can’t measure” is true to its core which has driven one company to establish its own Sustainability 2030 Goals to suit the property development industry based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (SDGs 2030). In the case of this company, their specific property-related sustainable goals have been concurred and approved by the Board Committee in March 2020 just after the pandemic and global lockdown about to start. With this implemented, sustainability performance recognition has become part of a healthy competition system between townships that highlights and rewards high performers with the highest sustainability scores.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The implementation of new initiatives would be effective if the tasks are being considered to be included in  any employee’s individual yearly scorecards or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The common problems that arise among employees for not incorporating sustainability within their work area were mostly cited as not being required since the job scope was not specified in their KPIs.
“If it doesn’t affect their P&L they won’t bother; another one if it doesn’t affect their KPIs, they won’t bother either. When they keep on saying that, would you be able to show evidence that this will drive the profitability in their townships?” (P1)
Sustainable design and construction can involve complex systems and technologies, which may require specialized expertise. Developers may face challenges in finding professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to implement sustainable practices effectively. To relatively smaller property developers (P3 and P4), they view sustainability as a long way to go. At the same time, they claimed that customers do not expect many sustainability elements in the way they work due to low expectations looking at the sheer size of the company.
Another reflection with regards to the sustainability agenda was that sustainability was more of an afterthought rather than putting the thoughts during the earlier development planning stage. Here, it shows the low priority displayed within the project team. This is where the KPIs role would benefit in terms of internalizing sustainability into work projects due to the nature of crafting and planning KPIs during the early part of the year. However, some companies claimed that they conducted meetings and discussions at the planning stage with other stakeholders. This is consistent with (Keskin et al., 2013) that companies are aware that incorporating sustainability at the start of the project planning phase would be the most ideal to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the sustainability elements planned to be part of the product design. However, the challenges for most companies would be the lack of knowledge and competency and the task of integrating sustainability in all phases of the product design process would require such skills and experience in order to make it work
Fragmented Supply Chain
Companies engage with supply chains on eco-efficiency practices with the aim of encouraging them to implement the same behavior at their respective workplaces. The property development sector involves numerous stakeholders, including architects, contractors, suppliers, and consultants. Coordinating and aligning sustainability practices throughout the fragmented supply chain can be challenging, particularly if there is a lack of collaboration and communication among these stakeholders. According to P3, it would take a while for the suppliers to be on board with the sustainability journey.
“I don’t think there is ever, at this moment in time, where the suppliers proactively, we have some issues with our suppliers or our sources. In Malaysia, I think that is something that they won’t do. Still, a long way to go. Simple things like on the people pillar, you go to all our suppliers or manufacturers, the quality of their working condition, as simple as that. I think that is why the other day, sanctions by the US, on Malaysia’s rubber gloves manufacturer. Also, an issue. Because apparently, Malaysia not really looking into the human aspect of it”.
However, some participants revealed that regular vendor engagement sessions are vital to ensure business partners are aligned with the property developer’s overall sustainability directions toward achieving net zero targets. These awareness sessions benefit stakeholders by increasing the level of education on the importance of tracking carbon emissions, water consumption, waste, and recycling management at their offices as well as construction sites. Awareness of the importance of human rights is also emphasized which includes the welfare of their workers, especially foreign and migrant workers in terms of complying with the worker’s quarters’ hygiene standards. According to Act 446, employers are to provide minimum standards of accommodations for workers in a place of employment and to provide health, hospitals, medical, and social amenities for their employees.
Some property developers also work closely with consultants. Consultants help property developers tackle climate change risks by having mitigating strategies and adaptation in order to combat these types of risks within the company’s business processes. Greenhouse gases (GHG) inventory is starting to gain attention among the board members to ensure the data integrity before any declaration of net zero is shared with the public. Tree data inventory is also being tracked to calculate the rate of carbon sequestered in order to be able to simulate whether the company can attain net zero carbon by the expected date, which in this case until the year 2050. With these data in hand, companies are able to forecast their carbon sequestration projection until their target year. The purpose of these engagements with suppliers, contractors, and consultants is to gauge the level of ESG awareness and implementation at any stage of business activities. This way, the company can identify if any of its ESG implementations by vendors are aligned with the UN SDG 2030.
Return on Investment (ROI)
There is always the issue of cost when it comes to implementing new concepts into products. Companies have to look beyond financial profitability to balance environmental, social, and governance considerations when making any sound decision. Property developers have to consider the maintenance cost by making sure that the overall design needs to be commercially viable. Cost is always the stumbling block to most and there is a need to change the mindset and attitude towards investment in green products and technology to reap long-term benefits. Surely, they need to be commercially viable in order to work both ways, for the property developers and also for home buyers so as to achieve a win-win situation. Although most construction companies know and are aware of the need for sustainability in their business processes, most of them choose not to execute them just yet and the majority will adopt the “wait-and-see” attitude.  This has essentially become a norm that impedes the overall implementation of the sustainability policy within the construction industry. In one case cited, a contractor included green concrete in the construction methodology. However, due to a lack of confidence (poor education on the quality attributes), consultants are reluctant to approve the new alternative low-carbon material into their projects in order to minimize risk. The major task is to convince the management and colleagues and to show that the sustainability agenda has a real impact on their townships’ profitability. As P5 puts in:
“The reality here is if it doesn’t affect their Profit & Loss (P&L) they will not bother to spend much time on what is considered “nice-to-have” features in their products. Also, if it does not affect their KPIs, they will not bother either. So, participants are facing these walls being put up by those who insist that if only they can see the evidence that approaching things the sustainability way would help drive profitability which impacts the bottom line.”
Somehow, all activities need to be shown with hard evidence in terms of Return on Investment (ROI). According to participants, they managed to do some correlation analysis based on previous years’ results and townships’ profit before interest and tax (PBIT). Based on the results, it shows a positive correlation. Slowly the sustainability agenda gained support a little but not much at the beginning. Notwithstanding, the mindset of “wasting time” on answering sustainability index assessments was still lingering among the project teams. Eventually, they just need a little bit of convincing by looking at data showing the evidence of sustainability which led to profitability, instead of the other way around which the current thinking is “sustainability means cost”. Employees need assurance that cost optimization is, indeed, part of the sustainability element.
Government
With regard to the role of government, all participants agree that there are improvements on how the government tackles sustainability issues in Malaysia. Generally, the government is pushing many new policies relating to the preservation of biodiversity, conserving energy as well as the encouragement to transition towards renewable energy in both commercial and residential sectors.
Policy and Regulations
Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria are increasingly becoming an important part of the investment and risk management decision process. For large public-listed companies that are currently being rated in terms of their ESG performance will be bound to comply with the current sustainability guidelines. The reason being FTSE4Good has certain criteria for public-listed companies to comply with in order to be part of the ESG indices. Bursa Malaysia has FTSE4Good, launched in Dec 2014, the F4GBM (FTSE4Good Bursa Malaysia) Index is aimed to 1) Support investors in making ESG investments in Malaysian listed companies, 2) Increase the profile and exposure of companies with leading ESG practices, 3) Encourage best practice disclosure, and 4) Support the transition to a lower carbon and more sustainable economy. In July 2021, Bursa Malaysia and FTSE Russell launched the FTSE4Good Bursa Malaysia Shariah (F4GBMS) Index to cater to investor demand for ESG and Shariah-compliant index solutions. The F4GBMS index is designed to track constituents in the F4GBM Index that are Shariah-compliant.
Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is also key that the board is consistently prodding the top management with questions regarding sustainability risks. It is also one the heavyweights in the list of questionnaires commonly posed by sustainability indices, especially on the most difficult aspect of quantifying the sustainability risks while incorporating it as part of the feasibility study for projects. Risks heat maps should display sustainability risks on the risk dashboard as part of board oversight as stipulated in the Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (MCCG) with the latest revision which took effect on 28th Apr 2021.  The main update of this version is “…strengthen board oversight and the integration of sustainability considerations in the strategy and operations of companies…”. With this inclusion, sustainability, we can conclude on the subject which already starting to gain strong interest and traction for companies to comply.
Companies with net zero carbon targets are currently trying to engage with consultants to review the inventory and baselines used in the company’s carbon footprint for operation carbon measurement and advise/ guide the company in the process to follow the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) method/ target development and work in developing carbon reduction approach/ pathways roadmap. Companies employ SBTi to help drive their ambitious net zero climate actions by enabling organizations to set science-based emissions reduction targets. With the adoption of SBTi, companies are able to gauge how much and how quickly they need to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent the worst effects of climate change. SBTi promotes best practices in emissions reductions and net-zero targets and provides technical assistance and expertise by bringing together a team of experts to provide companies with independent assessment and validation of targets.
In terms of disclosure, the latest Bursa Malaysia’s Enhanced Sustainability Reporting Framework amendments announced in September 2022 have gradually imposed specific criteria when disclosing sustainability data to the public. One of the changes is in terms of climate change reporting, key capital markets stakeholders such as investors and financial institutions are also demanding better climate-related disclosures to facilitate investment decision-making. In this regard, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) Recommendations have been accepted as the widely applicable climate disclosure framework for businesses globally. The company would also wish to undertake quantitative climate change forecast risk assessment scenario modeling and seek consultant’s advice to guide the company in ensuring climate change disclosure is aligned to TCFD. Financial markets need clear, comprehensive, quality data on climate change impacts. This includes risks and opportunities presented by rising temperatures, climate-related policy, and emerging technologies in our changing world. TCFD aims to address challenges to fulfill the requirements of financial markets that need companies’ accurate and timely disclosure. Deliverables expected with this form of collaboration would be among others reviewed/ revised carbon footprint methodology, operational carbon reduction roadmap, and climate change risk scenario modeling (forecasted quantitative risk) and guidance to ensure TCFD-aligned company disclosure.
Companies that commit to driving sustainability have policy statements publicly announced on their corporate websites. Sustainability already forms part of their working culture which is evident in the group policy which serves as a strong foundation to continuously develop and anchor their sustainability strategies and targets around their established sustainability spheres. These policies were signed off by the Group Managing Director to show the company’s commitment to a sustainability pathway. By having these policy statements publicly disclosed, sustainability indices assessors such as Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) or Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) will be able to cite this form of commitment externally and rate according to evidence of policies and guidelines in place.
Corporate governance is one of the key pillars in ESG and companies tend to put more focus on the Environmental section, followed by Social and then Governance, in that order. The Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (MCCG) emphasizes more on increased board involvement in terms of sustainability which companies are to adhere to. They address the urgent need for companies to focus more on ESG practices to be applied in their businesses. Risk and opportunities are to be managed to ensure balance in the three spheres of environmental, social, and governance. In the new MCGG revision of 2021, they updated on the introduction of best practices and guidance on strengthening board oversight and the integration of sustainability into their work process flow.
One participant shared that the company’s Group Policies & Authorities (GPAs) are updated on a yearly basis and designed to empower managers and employees to achieve the company’s targets and objectives within the boundaries of business ethics with superior corporate governance. They are living documents and will be constantly updated as the governance environment and stakeholders’ expectations of good practice evolve. They are broadly categorized as functional policies, ethics and conducts, policies to protect group assets, key group processes, and limits of authority. Compliance with these policies is expected at all times from employees and they are expected to make a due inquiry to understand their obligations and duties under them and comply accordingly. The company is committed to upholding high standards of integrity and good governance across its activities and business operations. They actively foster a culture that places uncompromised integrity, transparency, accountability, and professional business ethics as the foundation for the company’s continuous growth, in achieving long-term shareholder value, while aligning with the interest of stakeholders.
Good governance is one of the key pillars that drive the achievement of the company’s objectives, provide the foundation for a high-performing organization, and ensures the company is well-placed to respond to the volatility of the external environment. The company believes that good governance goes beyond just adhering to a set of legal or statutory requirements, even though these requirements form the basis or foundation of governance. It is about doing what is right, always. This belief is important as the Group’s various stakeholders (internal and external) in today’s globalized and connected world expect the company to go beyond expectations when it comes to its performance in the economic, legal, environmental, and social spheres. Doing what is right requires the conviction of its people – from the Board to all employees, supported by effective policies, processes, and technologies.
To support the continuous operations and achievement of the company’s governance objectives, one company has established the required infrastructure that defines the working relationship between the Board, the Management, and its other stakeholders (leadership, directions, accountability, and communication) that provides clarity to an internal control mechanism (authority, control, and transparency) which supports the achievement of the company’s objectives and goals while ensuring adequate resources are in place to support and execute the governance framework.
Manage municipality
In terms of biodiversity, one company has this policy of ensuring that for every palm oil tree fell (in the case of clearing old crude palm oil agriculture land), the company is to replace it with another tree, preferably endangered, rare, and threatened (ERT) species which helps to increase the company’s carbon sink. A carbon sink is anything that accumulates and stores carbon and therefore, removes carbon from the atmosphere. Hence, carbon sinks absorb more carbon than they release. However, local authorities might limit the number of trees planted due to high maintenance costs. There were instances whereby property developers need to reduce no of trees before handing over to the local authorities. In this situation, property developers should come together to form a concerted effort to collaboratively work with the government to ensure that both parties are aligned towards the same sustainability goals.
In terms of renewable energy, a good case study would be the introduction of Net Energy Metering (NEM) introduced by the national electric utility company, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), customers are allowed to sell back energy generated by their own solar panels at their homes in order to offset their monthly electricity bills. The same for solar farming, or Large-Scale Solar (LSS). Policies are being revised with initiatives in order to encourage more people to practice sustainability at home. Old policies have been revised so there is a buyback strategy. There is a system process that customers need to apply for a license to have the electricity generated back to the grid in terms of kilowatt (kW) which ultimately offset the electricity bill. Also, they offer the option to have an energy storage system (ESS) or battery for the residents to store energy generated by the solar panels which can at least support partially the electricity needs during the nighttime. It would be good if stored electricity from a hybrid car battery can be transferred to the house to support the nighttime electricity usage which in the end the house may not need to depend fully on TNB.
In terms of safety, all these additional requirements that come with new technology that supports sustainability efforts may need to undergo the local Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia (BOMBA) requirements and inspections in order to obtain their approval. This type of sustainability feature should not affect the surrounding neighbors but at the same time, helps save electricity bills and practice sustainable living. This type of collaboration on sustainability partnerships is crucial in order to seamlessly bring the sustainability agenda to the forefront.
Human Rights
It is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under any circumstances in their workplaces. In Malaysia’s context, migrant workers are a constant set of issues in the property industry. There is a growing demand for foreign workers according to Master Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM) and Construction and Development Board (CIDB) which companies need to be extra cautious in making sure their welfare is being taken care of and does not violate any human rights set internationally. News headlines cautioned that “industries that are more reliant on low-skilled foreign workers tend to have median salaries and wages”. There are salient human rights focus areas or issues that are related to the property industry such as forced labor, working conditions, hours and wages, violence & sexual harassment, exploitation & no retention of identity documents, safety & health, child protection, equal opportunity & non-discrimination and freedom of association & expression. Analysis among real estate companies concluded that most property developers listed under “The Edge Top Property Developers Awards” have the following pertaining to human rights such as Governance and Policy Commitments, Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence, Remedies and Grievance Mechanisms, Performance: Practices & Responses (Ongoing management of Human Rights outcomes) and Transparency/ Communicate to clients, beneficiaries, affected stakeholders and publicly about outcomes, and the actions taken. Companies interviewed have their own framework, scope, stakeholders, and governance in terms of businesses and human rights.
One company is about to embark on a due diligence process based on International Labor Organizations (ILO). The only tripartite UN agency since 1919 brings together governments, employers, and workers of 187 member states, to set labor standards, develop policies and devise programs promoting decent work for all women and men. The eleven (11) indicators of forced labor are 1) Abuse of vulnerability, 2) Deception, 3) Restriction of movement, 4) Isolation, 5) Physical and sexual violence, 6) Intimidation, and threats, 7) Retention of identity documents, 8) Withholding of wages, 9) Debt bondage, 10) Abusive working and living conditions, and 11) Excessive Overtime.
The social welfare of company employees is very much taken care of by one company interviewed. Special care packages are being distributed at each employee’s home to ensure that each employee is equipped with the proper masks, face shield, thermometer, oximeter, and RTK test kit to ensure safety when one is asked to report for duty physically at the office.
The current study revealed that Malaysia’s government is now utterly upholding its sustainability agenda. Undeniable policy matters but enforcement is instrumental. A study by Abidin (2009) on the level of sustainability implementation in the property development industry in Malaysia found that Malaysia is lacking enforcement and thus, there is a need for government intervention. The study found that a total of 63% of total respondents believe that the industry will not change much in the next five (5) years which is still applicable based on today’s situation that government intervention is very much needed to drive the sustainability initiatives among the construction companies. The level would just be moderate and will not improve much. Only 17% of respondents believed that it will improve slightly better and another 17% believed that the overall sustainability level will still be low. Rogge and Reichardt (2016) did highlight that the process of policymaking regarding sustainability transitions should be deliberated further to ensure sustainability concepts are being thoroughly discussed and incorporated into the final policy. Based on responses gathered from respondents, the government’s active role in formulating sustainability policy is critical to move the nations towards a net zero carbon target. A good example from a waste management point of view would be strong enforcement against illegal dumping needs to be revamped in addition to penalties and taxation imposed on those who generate a high volume of waste.

DISCUSSION

The findings revealed that the level of sustainability in the property development sector in Malaysia still requires some improvement and is consistent with Rani et al. (2020) who did a study and found that even though Malaysia is progressing positively toward sustainability goals, more effort is needed.
Designing sustainability at the very early stage during planning and conceptualization would be one of the key success factors in order to achieve a sustainability level in products and services. Demaid and Quintas (2016) shared a case in Europe that showed the excellent results of successful collaboration between stakeholders at the very early stage of the design process. Here we can conclude despite different geographical locations, the sustainability practices require sustainability to be incorporated early during the planning stage. All stakeholders who are involved in the product design process such as engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, contractors, suppliers, and vendors started to work closely together early during the product concept stage. The Malaysian scenario is true to what has been explained by Petala et al. (2010) that organizations do face challenges with regard to the incorporation of sustainability in the early stages of their new product development processes. The same with Hallstedt et al. (2013) who highlighted the main factors for the successful implementation of sustainability efforts as part of the early involvement during the product design stage which includes the organization itself, internal business processes, roles and responsibilities, and assessment tools. Based on the interviews with large public-listed companies, they try to comply with Bursa Malaysia’s sustainability index requirement, and this aligns with Ghisetti et al. (2015) who stated that organizations tend to incorporate green elements continuously into their system in order to create values to the customers, meet their current needs and achieve higher customer satisfaction. Also, it has been observed that companies that embrace the sustainability concept fully will support all three pillars of sustainability and agree that the optimum balance achieved between the three pillars of sustainability would be the best guide for the management in order for them to strive to become a sustainability-driven organization (Lopes et al., 2016; Heikkurinen & Bonedahl, 2013)
Under the cost category, this finding is aligned with Suzuki (2015) who pointed out that high capital costs would be one of the most common barriers for players in the industry to embrace green practices. The general consensus gathered from the series of interview sessions supports Suzuki (2015) who also highlighted that sustainability-related practices are of low priority when it comes to budgeting or securing financing. Brook and Pagnanelli (2014) also commented the same that most companies are reluctant to jump into the sustainability bandwagon due to the risk of commitment to high initial investment and lower margins in the short term. Abidin (2010) concluded that developers still view sustainability as an added burden with added cost and compared to today/s findings, the conclusion might not differ much even though the last study was done more than ten years ago.

CONCLUSION

The property development sector in Malaysia has shown increasing awareness and efforts toward embracing the sustainability agenda in recent years. While the industry has historically faced challenges in terms of inefficient practices and environmental impact, there has been a notable shift towards incorporating sustainable principles and practices.
Various initiatives and programs have been implemented to promote sustainable development within the property sector in Malaysia. The Construction Industry Transformation Programme (CITP), the Construction 4.0 Strategic Plan, and the National Construction Policy (NCP) are examples of key policies and frameworks that emphasize sustainability and guide the industry towards more environmentally friendly and socially inclusive practices. Furthermore, there has been a growing focus on green building certifications such as the Green Building Index (GBI) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which encourage the adoption of sustainable design, construction, and operation practices. These certifications provide benchmarks and guidelines for developers to create more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly buildings. Additionally, sustainable urban planning and development concepts, such as transit-oriented development (TOD) and low-carbon cities, are being promoted to reduce reliance on private vehicles, promote walkability, and enhance overall livability in urban areas.
The study contributes to deeper understanding on why sustainability is still low within the industry in Malaysia. While progress has been made, it is important to acknowledge that there may still be challenges and barriers hindering the full-scale adoption of sustainable practices in the property development sector. Factors such as standard measurement systems, cost considerations, lack of awareness or knowledge, and the interplay among various stakeholders may pose obstacles. However, with the concerted efforts of government bodies, industry stakeholders, and increasing public awareness, the property development sector in Malaysia is gradually moving towards the sustainability agenda. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach involving education and awareness campaigns, supportive policies and regulations, financial incentives, and collaboration between developers, industry professionals, government agencies, and other stakeholders. This knowledge can contribute to the development of effective strategies and solutions aimed at overcoming these challenges and fostering a more sustainable property development sector. As sustainability becomes increasingly important, interdisciplinary research that integrates environmental, social, and economic dimensions is a future potential research direction in the property development sector.
The main limitations of this study include, the number of samples in qualitative research is generally small to enable an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon. And, this study does not attempt to achieve representativeness and hence, the result was not to be generalized on a larger scale but more focused on the case study of property developers in Malaysia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School for supporting the production of this paper.

REFERENCES

  1. Abidin, N. Z. (2009). Sustainable construction in Malaysia–Developers’ awareness. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 53, 807-814.
  2. Abidin, N. Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34(4), 421-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.011
  3. Bengtsson, F., & Agerfalk, P. J. (2011). Information technology as a change actant in sustainability innovation: Insights from Uppsala. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.09.007
  4. Bertino, G., Kisser, J., Zeilinger, J., Langergraber, G., Fischer, T., & Österreicher, D. (2021). Fundamentals of building deconstruction as a circular economy strategy for the reuse of construction materials. Applied sciences, 11(3), 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030939
  5. Brook, J. W., & Pagnanelli, F. (2014). Integrating sustainability into innovation project portfolio management–A strategic perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 34, 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.11.004
  6. Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. UN Documents Gathering a Body of Global Agreements.
  7. Burciaga, U. M. (2020). Sustainability assessment in housing building organizations for the design of strategies against climate change. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 1(4), 136-147.
  8. Buys, L., Mengersen, K., Johnson, S., van Buuren, N., & Chauvin, A. (2014). Creating a Sustainability Scorecard as a predictive tool for measuring the complex social, economic and environmental impacts of industries, a case study: Assessing the viability and sustainability of the dairy industry. Journal of environmental management, 133, 184-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.013
  9. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1990-0602
  10. Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (2006). Knowledge across cultures in the construction industry: sustainability, innovation and design. Technovation, 26(5), 603-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.003
  11. Desivyana, N. M. N., Farmakis, O., Cusumano, L., & Rempling, R. (2023). Challenges in the adoption of sustainable criteria in the Swedish property development industry. Procedia Computer Science, 219, 1752-1759.
  12. Dulal, H. B., & Akbar, S. (2013). Greenhouse gas emission reduction options for cities: Finding the “Coincidence of Agendas” between local priorities and climate change mitigation objectives. Habitat International, 38, 100-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.05.001
  13. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309-3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309
  14. Ghisetti, C., Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2015). The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of eleven European countries. Research Policy, 44(5), 1080-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.001
  15. Gomathi, S., & Pradeep, T. (2019). Application of 3R Principles in Construction Project-A Review. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Advances, 2(3).
  16. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., … & Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305.
  17. Hallstedt, S. I., Thompson, A. W., & Lindahl, P. (2013). Key elements for implementing a strategic sustainability perspective in the product innovation process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.043
  18. Heikkurinen, P., & Bonnedahl, K. J. (2013). Corporate responsibility for sustainable development: a review and conceptual comparison of market-and stakeholder-oriented strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43, 191-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.021
  19. Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2021). The UK’s largest volume housebuilders and the sustainable development goals. Property Management, 39(1), 139-152.
  20. Keskin, D., Diehl, J. C., & Molenaar, N. (2013). Innovation process of new ventures driven by sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.012
  21. Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014). The role of New Forms of Work Organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.009
  22. Lopes, C. M., Scavarda, A., Hofmeister, L. F., Thomé, A. M. T., & Vaccaro, G. L. R. (2016). An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and
  23. open innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.083
  24. Metz, P., Burek, S., Hultgren, T. R., Kogan, S., Schwartz, L. (2016). The Path to Sustainability-Driven Innovation. Research-Technology Management, 59(3), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2016.1161409
  25. Mohammed, M., Shafiq, N., Elmansoury, A., Al-Mekhlafi, A. B. A., Rached, E. F., Zawawi, N. A., … & Ibrahim, M. B. (2021). Modeling of 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) for sustainable construction waste reduction: A partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sustainability, 13(19), 10660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910660
  26. Morioka, S. N., Evans, S., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2016). Sustainable Business Model Innovation: Exploring Evidences in Sustainability Reporting. Procedia CIRP, 40, 660-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.151
  27. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. fourth. Thousand Oaks.
  28. Petala, E., Wever, R., Dutilh, C., & Brezet, H. (2010). The role of new product development briefs in implementing sustainability: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3-4), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.06.004
  29. Rani, W. N. M. W. M., Kamarudin, K. H., Razak, K. A., & Asmawi, Z. M. (2020). Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in urban development plans for resilient cities. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 409, No. 1, p. 012024). IOP Publishing.
  30. Saarani, P. S. N., Tharim, A. H. A., Ahmad, A. C., & Salleh, R. M. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on the Strategies of Managing Waste in Relative to Green Building (GB) Practice. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.47836/pjst.30.2.28
  31. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
  32. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
  33. Suzuki, M. (2015). Identifying roles of international institutions in clean energy technology innovation and diffusion in the developing countries: matching barriers with roles of the institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.070
  34. Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55.

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

0

PDF Downloads

0 views

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics

General Information
Publication Process
Authors
Guidelines
Browse Articles & Issues

Copyright © 2024 RSIS International

Paper Submission Deadline

GET OUR MONTHLY NEWSLETTER

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.