See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281852946

Sustainable Performance Measures for Malaysian Automotive Industry

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2015.33.06.257

CITATIONS READS
17 15,943

5 authors, including:

Nurul Fadly Habidin Nursyazwani Mohd Fuzi

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
188 PUBLICATIONS   1,404 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   508 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nor Azrin Md Latip Azman M.N.A

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
28 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS    166 PUBLICATIONS   969 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Development of Total Productive Maintenance and Six Sigma Process Improvement Model for Malaysian Automotive Industry View project

Eco-Green Lean Six Sigma Performance Improvement (EGLSSPI) System for Business Engineering Process: Strategic Prototype for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and
Control Improvement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurul Fadly Habidin on 18 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

World Applied Sciences Journal 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2015.33.06.257

Sustainable Performance Measures for Malaysian Automotive Industry

Nurul Fadly Habidin, Anis Fadzlin Mohd Zubir, Nursyazwani Mohd Fuzi,
Nor Azrin Md Latip, Mohamed Nor Azhari Azman

Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of Management and Economics,

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia
Departments of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Economics,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia
Department of Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia

Abstracts: The purpose of this study is to examine the sustainable performance measures for Malaysian
automotive industry using confirmatory factor analysis. In this study, sustainable performance measures
focused on environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and corporate social responsibility
sustainability. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the model on a sample of 227 respondents
in Malaysian automotive industry. The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that three factors for
sustainable performance measures for Malaysian automotive industry were valid and reliable. This research
provides fundamental knowledge and direction for researchers in further research as well as practitioners to
constantly improve organizational performance through the implementation of sustainable performance in
Malaysian automotive industry.

Key words: Sustainable performance Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability Corporate

social responsibility Confirmatory factor analysis Automotive industry

INTRODUCTION Recent development in the global economic situation

Early in 1979, the idea of establishing an automotive
assembling and manufacturing industry in Malaysia was
suggested by the fourth Deputy Minister of Malaysia,
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. To achieve the status of a
developed nation for Malaysia, he created various
strategic plans to accelerate Malaysia’s industrialisation
capabilities such as PROTON, which was officially
incorporated on May 1983.
Under this policy, two national car projects, namely
Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Berhad (PROTON)
(founded in 1983) and Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua
(PERODUA) (founded in 1994) have conquered the
automotive industry, commanding 29% of the local market
share for the year ending March 2011. For the long-term
mission, Malaysian automotive industry is hoping to
boost the industrialisation process to reach the status of
a developed nation by the year 2020.
has created the requirement for organisations to
reconstruct and restructure their business strategy in
order to sustain their performance and effectiveness while
remaining competitive in the market positions. In addition,
the role of quality improvement within an organisation has
become a crucial issue in world-class performance [1, 2]
such as productivity, quality, safety and environment. A
particular evidence from PROTON Annual Report (2011)
for the year ending 2010 stated that it had been a landmark
year in terms of strengthening PROTON’s operational
sustainability practices.
The sustainability initiative program is one of the
business strategies in an effort to improve organisational
performance [3]. Moving beyond its comfort zone into a
more challenging zone, the organisation should be willing
to take higher risks and be innovative as a golden
opportunity to accomplish better achievement. Malaysian
automotive itself should be prepared in several aspects

Corresponding Authors: Nurul Fadly Habidin, Department of Management and Leadership, Faculty of Management
and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia.

1017
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
such as reducing cost, improving quality and ensuring
timely delivery in an attempt to achieve an excellent level
in world class performance [4].
According to PROTON Annual Report [5], three risk
factors were highlighted by PROTON which should be
effectively managed because the existential risks might
affect the sustainable performance (SP) of Malaysian
automotive industry. Longenecker and Ariss [6] pointed
out that many organisations fail to accomplish desired
performance result when implementing quality initiative
programmes because of ineffective planning practices and
failure to remove performance barriers. Thus, it is requires
a strategic quality improvement practice [7, 8] such as SP
in the attempt to jump to a higher level of the global
competition.
Therefore, it is necessary for organisations to
understand and measure their performance improvement
in SP perspectives which aim to address the social,
environmental and economic performance aspects [9-12].
Moreover, it assists the organisation to achieve its goals,
understand its current situation and current issues and
alternative solutions [13]. Effective performance
measurement can be considered a significant factor in way
of doing something, customers’ satisfaction, continuous
improvements and work under control [14].
Literature Review
Malaysian Automotive Industry: Among the Southeast
Asia region, PROTON has transformed itself from a
humble car assembler to Malaysia’s largest auto
manufacturer and indigenous original equipment
manufacturer [5] until the establishment of the secondary
national car marker, PERODUA in 1993. Both PROTON
and PERODUA dominated the local automotive industry
to bring Malaysia into a journey which is best summed up
as one of pride, passion and progress.
Strategically located in the centre of Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia offers vast
opportunities for global automotive and component
manufacturers in order to set up manufacturing and
distribution operations. Evidence show that Malaysia has
been attracted global automotive companies (e.g. Toyota,
Honda, Nissan, BMW and Peugeot) and international
component manufacturers (e.g. Delphi, Continental,
Denso and Bosch) in order to launch their product in this
country and meet the highest consumer demands [15].
However, Malaysian government should also
regulate the entry of foreign products in order to ensure
the local automotive performance can survive in the local
1018
and global market. Thus, a regulatory structure practice
was gazetted to protect and control the automotive
manufacturing activity. South Africa, for example, could
sustain their economic performance by adopting an import
substituting policies [16].
The Brazilian automotive industry could create a
fairly competitive automotive industry, based on a range
of import substituting policies [17]. Current study by Wad
and Govindaraju [18], the Malaysian automotive industry
expanded in terms of sales, production, employment and
local content, but failed in industrial upgrading and
international competitiveness.
For this reason, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)
and the National Automotive Policy (NAP) were
announced as industry protections to support the local
automotive industry. Both AFTA and NAP have set up
the main goal on the well-being of the Malaysian
automotive industry in terms of competitiveness and
industry expansion. For example, according to the AFTA
policy, there are three main objectives namely: (i) to create
a single market and an international production base; (ii)
to attract foreign direct investments; and (iii) to expand
intra-ASEAN trade and investments [19].
Thus, to face many challenges in the automotive
environment, these policies could bring many advantages
for the local automotive industry. Various efforts have
been made by the Malaysian government in an attempt to
establish the Malaysian automotive industry, directly and
sub industry, indirectly.
Sustainable Performance (SP): The successful
implementation of sustainable development could improve
more than one dimension of SP namely environmental
sustainability, economic sustainability and social
responsibility sustainability [20, 21].
In addition, existing performance measurement is
used to improve organisational performance such as
helping the organisation measure progress towards its
goals, understand its current situation, address the key
issues and the options available [13]. According to Ghosh
[22], effective performance measurement can let us know
about a way of doing something, achieve the goals,
customers’ satisfaction, work under control and
improvements are necessary.
Gadenne et al. [23] found that customer value, new
product development and information capital performance
are linked with a single sustainability performance
management practices, whereas the other four
performances such as environmental, employee value and
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015

Table 1: SP Measures and Their Measurements Items

SP Measures Item Literature/ Authors
EN 1. Reduction of air emissions.
2. Reduction of effluent waste.
3. Reduction of solid wastes.
4. Reduced in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials.
5. Reduced in frequency for environmental accidents. [40, 41, 42, 43]
EC 1. Reduced in cost of materials purchasing.
2. Reduced in cost for energy consumption.
3. Reduced in fee for waste treatment.
4. Reduced in fine for environmental accidents. [44, 45, 46, 47, 48]
CSR Performance 1. Improved responsibility towards human right.
2. Improved responsibility towards safety
3. Improved personal desires of employees to do what is right. [49, 50, 51]

financial performance are linked with multiple Economic Performance (EC)

sustainability performance management practices.
To summarise, SP measurement is the process to identify
how successful organisations or individuals have been in
attaining their objectives and strategies.
Sustainable Performance (SP) Measures: Performance
measures are critical for successful implementation of
sustainability programs and actions both for the short and
long term performance. The proposed SP consists of the
three performance measures in 14 measurement items, for
environmental and social responsibility which are
measured by five items respectively, while economic item
uses four items as shown in Table 1.
Environmental Performance (EN): The other research
fields for industrial sustainability are developing and
rapidly growing in order to reduce environmental
impact in the most efficient way [24, 25]. Beyond
environmental efficiency in manufacturing [26, 27, 28]
have identified that minimising manufactured
products is attracting more attention as energy cost
is increasing as well as decreasing the environmental
impact.
Environmental initiatives considered include ISO
14000 certification, pollution prevention, recycling of
materials and waste reduction [29]; plant performance is
assessed with the dimensions of the four competitive
capabilities of quality, delivery, flexibility and cost. Hoppe
and Coenen [30] suggest that prior lean manufacturing
experiences are positively related to EN practices. In
doing so, environmental sustainability requires improved
resources use-productivity [31] in order to reduce natural
resource material as well as consequent waste and
pollutant outputs.
Economic sustainability is the criteria by how a pound of
profit is made are a building block in the creation of a just
capitalism; progressive profitability must replace simple
financial profitability as the sole yardstick of business
success [32].
Rennings et al. [33] investigated the effects of
different characteristics of EU Environmental
Management and Auditing Scheme (EMAS) on technical
environmental innovations and economic performance.
They found that there is an increase in the number of
employees, turnover and export. In short, a careful design
of EMAS is important for both the environmental and
economic performance of a facility.
Similarly, by using the Material Flow and Economic
Exchange (MFEE) model, Kumar and Sutherland [34] have
focused on certain profit-enhancement strategies which
may be employed to ensure the economic sustainability in
the US automotive industry.
CSR Performance: Over the decades, future business
assessments should view CSR in the global market
perspective. Hutchins and Sutherland [35] who evaluated
social sustainability for supply chains have identified the
positive impact of social change and the need to establish
a comprehensive social footprint.
According to Parast and Adams [36] and Habidin
et al. [37], CSR and benchmarking can effectively improve
the organisational performance. The findings showed that
top management support for quality is the main driver of
practices associated with CSR. CSR appears to have a
significant impact on internal quality results but it does
not have a significant effect on external quality results.
Flack and Heblich [38] and Fuzi et al. [39] concluded that
CSR is a way of promoting social trends in order to

1019
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha Rule of Thumb
Cronbach's Alpha Internal Consistency
0.9 Excellent
0.8 < 0.9 Good
0.7 < 0.8 Acceptable
0.6 < 0.7 Questionable
0.5 < 0.6 Poor
< 0.5 Unacceptable
enhance society's basic order, which is defined as
consisting of obligations which cover both the legal
structure and social conventions.
Methodology: All the data in this research was collected
through a survey design with online and offline
questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered
simultaneously in each PROTON and PERODUA vendor
by researcher. The questionnaire was mailed to the
General Manager Level/Quality Control Manager or the
person with the equivalent position in the company.
These persons are best suited to self-report the decisions
made regarding the manufacturing practices and the
results of the quality program implementation. During the
data collection, 227 questionnaires were answered
completely by General Manager Level/Quality Control
Manager in the Malaysian automotive industry.
Reliability Analysis: Reliability issues in current
accounting literature have generally focused on the
quantitative approach [52, 53]. According to Cronbach
[54], Allen and Yen [55], Anastasi and Urbina [56] and
Aiken [57], the first important thing for the researcher is to
achieve an acceptable level of reliability.
The recommended Cronbach’s Alpha value and
internal consistency used in this study is in line with
Cronbach [54] and the summary as shown in Table 2.
Validity Analysis: In quantitative research, validity is
one of the most essential manifestations of research
method. Validity refers to the extent to which the number
obtained truly reflects what the user intended to
measure. Particularly in quantitative accounting research,
Ryan et al. [58] raise the ultimate question on whether the
researcher can draw valid conclusions from the research
design. Buckley et al. [59] seem to suggest they already
believe that validity is not a belonging of the measure, but
instead refers to the reliability of the conclusions which
are drawn from the measure.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) were adapted in order to meet the
requirement of specifying the measurement model and
1020
identifying the indicator measure for each construct. Both
of them have similar functions but the scope of
measurement framework is different. EFA framework is to
delete the suggested items and place where the item
should be added. In contrast, CFA framework is used to
test and examine the extent to which the data set can fit
the measurement structure.
Statistical Analysis: In this research, the data collection
from the final survey instrument was analysed using two
statistical software packages (SPSS version 20.0 and SEM
AMOS version 20.0).
Via SPSS version 20.0, the researcher had utilised it to
make smarter decisions, solve problem and improve
outcome in the form of frequency, percentages,
cumulative frequency and cumulative percentages in an
attempt to describe the characteristics of the sample with
respect to the demographic variables. In addition, to
verify the validity and reliability of the instruments, EFA
and reliability analysis had been performed using the
SPSS software as well.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach
involves the construction of a structural model. A
structural model demonstrates both the predictive
relationship and the associative relationships between
the concepts and other potential indicators. In this
research, AMOS version 20.0 had been selected to
perform the SEM analysis. AMOS uses the basic overall
goodness-of-fit measures to assess the compatibility
of the purpose model according to six criteria: Chi-
square over degree of freedom (x2 /df), goodness of
Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI), Comparative Fit Indexes (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index
(TLI) and Root Mean Square Error Approximation
(RMSEA).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): EFA with varimax
rotation by 14 items from SP was done on random sample
(n=227) of Malaysian automotive industry to produce
basic details of each SP namely: EN, EC and CSR
performance. KMO measurement showed the sampling
adequacy as 0.92 which was greater than 0.70, signifying
that the current data was suitable for principal component
analysis. Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant at (p <0.001), indicating sufficient correlation
among items to proceed for analysis as described in
Table 3.
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
Fig. 1: Modified SP model: the output path diagram with three factors
Table 3: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for SP Measures
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Table 4: Results of Total Variance Explained for SP Items
Factors Number of items
SP
EN 5
EC 4
CSR 5
As shown in Table 4, these factors in initial solution
had larger Eigen values from unity. The three factors
taken into account were accounted as 75.03% of the total
variance. This shows that three latent influences are
associated. The last column of cumulative percentage
indicated that the variance explained by extraction
solution was also 75.03%.
Relating to the building of SP, 14 items were fitted in
three factors as recommended. A varimax rotation was
also done. The EN, EC and CSR items were incorporated
into the expected structuring as originally designed.
The load factor was higher than 0.40 to the factors and no
item were suggested to be removed.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):
Measurement model test is the test whereby SP
measures are tested using the first order confirmatory
model and confirmed for evaluating construct validity by
using the maximum likelihood method with multiple
factors.
1021
0.916
Approx. Chi-Square 2283.385
df 91
Sig. .000
First Eigen value Percentage of variance explained
1.357 75.033
SP Measures with Three Factors: The first order
confirmatory with multiple factors tested was SP with
three steps consisting of EN, EC and CSR performance.
The diagram is presented in Figure 1.
The CFA result demonstrated a good fit. Statistics of
x2 was 134.88 (degree of freedom = 74, p < 0.001); with a
ratio of x2/df, the value was 1.82 which was less than 3.0
thus exhibiting a good fit. GFI was 0.92 and AGFI was
0.89. CFI was 0.97, TLI was 0.97. The score was very close
to 1.0, signifying perfect fit. RMSEA was 0.06 and less
than 0.08 and reflected good fit. RC indicated a value of
less 1.00, implying that discriminant validity was
acceptable. Therefore, it confirms the ability of the three
factors to measure the SP.
Through the measurement model of SP measures,
three factors of model analysis as measurement model for
SP measures demonstrated good fit and proved that this
model is valid and reliable for Malaysian automotive
industry. Finally, SP is represented by three variables
namely, environmental, economic and CSR.
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, by using the SEM technique, three
success factors for SP measures were developed and
verified. The significant items were maintained to create
an instrument of latent constructs and measurement items
after conducting the validity and reliability tests. For this
purpose, it helps academicians and practitioners in order
to increase their knowledge and comprehension of SP
implementation which can assist the automotive supplier
to improve SP. Agenda for future research, the authors are
interested to study the structural relationship between
sustainable manufacturing practices, sustaining lean
improvement and sustainable performance in Malaysian
automotive industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researches would like to acknowledge the
Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) for the financial
funding of this research thought Fundamental Research
Grant Scheme (FRGS) and Research Management Centre
(RMC), UPSI for Research University Grant (RUG).
REFERENCES
1. Sandrock, J. and P.K.J. Tobin, 2007. Critical Success
Factors for Communities of Practice in a Global
Mining Company. In the Proceedings of the Eighth
European Conference on Knowledge Management
(ECKM), Consorci Escola Industrial de Barcelona
(CEIB), 2: 851-858.
2. Habidin, N.F., 2012. Structural Analysis and Tool of
Lean Six Sigma, Strategic Control Systems and
Organizational Performance. Thesis (PHD). Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
3. Soyka, P.A., 2011. Creating a Sustainable
Organization: Approaches for Enhancing Corporate
Value through Sustainability. USA: FT Press.
4. Malaysian Automotive Institutes., 2012. MAI
Analysis: The Global Automotive Trends and
Challenges Report 2012 Quarter 3. http://
www.mai.org.my/
5. PROTON Annual Report., 2011. PROTON Annual
Report. http://ir.chartnexus.com/
6. Longenecker, C.O. and S.S. Ariss, 2005. Why Service
Organizations Fail to Get Desired Results: The Front
Line Managers’ Perspective. International Journal of
Effective Management, 2(1): 6-16.
1022
7. Haskin, D., 2010. Teaching Special Decisions in a
Lean Accounting Environment. American Journal of
Business Education, 3: 91-96.
8. Castellano, J.F. and R. Burrows, 2011. Relevance
Lost: The Practice Classroom Gap. Management
Accounting Quarterly, 12(2): 41-48.
9. Bartelmus, P., 2010. Use and Usefulness of
Sustainability Economics. Ecological Economics,
69(11): 2053-2055.
10. Schumacker, R.E. and R.G. Lomax, 1996. A Beginner’s
Guide to SEM. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwan, NJ.
11. Singh, R.K., H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Dikshit,
2012. An Overview of Sustainability Assessment
Methodologies. Ecological Indicator, 15(1): 189-212.
12. Moldan, B., S. Janouskova and T. Hak, 2012. How to
Understand and Measure Environmental
Sustainability: Indicators and Targets. Ecological
Indicators, 17: 4-13.
13. Searcy, C., S. Karapetrovic and D. McCartney, 2008.
Application of a Systems Approach to Sustainable
Development Performance Measurement.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 57(2): 182-197.
14. Isik, Z., 2009. A Conceptual Performance
Measurement Framework for Construction Industry.
https://notendur.hi.is/
15. Malaysian-German Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (MGCC)., 2012. Market Watch 2012, the
Malaysian Automotive and Supplier Industry.
http://www.malaysia.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_malaysia
/Market
16. Barnes, J. and R. Kaplinsky, 2000. Globalization and
the Death of the Local Firm: The Automobile
Components Sector in South Africa. Regional
Studies, 34(9): 797-812.
17. Humphrey, J., 2003. Globalization and Supply Chain
Networks: The Auto Industry in Brazil and India.
Global Networks, 3(2): 121-41.
18. Wad, P. and V.G.R.C. Govindaraju, 2011. Automotive
Industry in Malaysia: An Assessment of Its
Development. International Journal Automotive
Technology and Management, 11(2): 152-171.
19. Zhi-Feng, L. and D. Park, 2004. The Impact of AFTA
on Intra-ASEAN Trade: An Industry-Level Empirical
Analysis. Paper for the 16th MEA Convention and
29th Conference of the Federation of ASEAN
Economic Associations (FAEA).
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
20. Rahimifard, S., Y. Seow and T. Childs, 2010.
Minimizing Embodied Product Energy to Support
Energy Efficient Manufacturing. CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology, 59(1): 25-28.
21. Habidin, N.F., A.F.M. Zubir, J. Conding,
N.A.S.L. Jaya and S. Hashim, 2013. Sustainable
Manufacturing Practices, Sustaining Lean
Improvement and Sustainable Performance in
Malaysian Automotive Industry. World Review of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 9(4): 444-459.
22. Ghosh, S., 2014. Measuring Sustainability
Performance of Local Food Production in Home
Gardens. Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 19(1): 33-55.
23. Gadenne, D., L. Mia, J. Sands, L. Winata and G. Hooi,
2012. The Influence of Sustainability Performance
Management Practices on Organisational
Sustainability Performance. Journal of Accounting
and Organizational Change, 8(2): 210-235.
24. Zeng, S.X., H.C. Liua, C.M. Tamb and Y.K. Shaoa,
2008. Cluster Analysis for Studying Industrial
Sustainability: An Empirical Study in Shanghai.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(10): 1090-1097.
25. Tan, A.R., D. Matzen, TC. McAlone and S. Evans,
2010. Strategies for Designing and Developing
Services for Manufacturing Firms. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 3(2): 90-97.
26. Fuzi, N.M., N.F. Habidin, A.F.N.C. Desa,
S.N. Hibadullah and F.I.M. Zamri, 2012. Corporate
Social Responsibility Practices (CSR) and CSR
Performance in Malaysian Automotive Industry.
International Journal of Accounting and Financial
Reporting, 2(2): 268-277.
27. Fuzi, N.M., N.F. Habidin, S.N. Hibadullah,
F.I.M. Zamri and A.F.N.C. Desa, 2015. Critical
Success Factors of Corporate Social
Responsibility Practices for the Malaysian
Automotive Industry. International Journal of Critical
Accounting, 7(2): 142-156.
28. Zubir, A.F.M., N.F. Habidin, J. Conding,
N.A.S.L. Jaya and S. Hashim, 2012. The Development
of Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and
Sustainable Performance in Malaysian Automotive
Industry. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 3(7): 130-138.
29. Hibadullah, S.N., N.F. Habidin, F.I.M. Zamri,
N.M. Fuzi and A.F.N.C. Desa, 2013. The Integrated
Between Lean Manufacturing Practices and ISO
14001 Efforts in Malaysian Automotive Industry.
Journal of Applied Science and Research, 1(1): 17-27.
1023
30. Hoppe, T. and F. Coenen, 2011. Creating An
Analytical Framework For Local Sustainability
Performance: A Dutch Case Study. Local
Environment: The International Journal of Justice and
Sustainability, 16(3): 229-250.
31. Ullah, A.M.M.S., H. Hashimoto, A. Kabo and
J. Tamali, 2013. Sustainability Analysis of Rapid
Prototyping: Material/Resource and Process
Perspectives. International Journal of Sustainable
Manufacturing, 3(1): 20-36.
32. Doane, D. and A. MacGillivray, 2001. Economic
Sustainability The Business of Staying in Business.
New Economics Foundation. The Sigma Project.
33. Rennings, K., A. Ziegler, K. Ankele and E. Hoffmann,
2006. The Influence of Different Characteristics of the
EU Environmental Management and Auditing
Scheme on Technical Environmental Innovations
and Economic Performance. Ecological Economics,
57(1): 45-59.
34. Kumar, V. and J.W. Sutherland, 2009. Development
and Assessment of Strategies to Ensure Economic
Sustainability of the U.S. Automotive Recovery
Infrastructure. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 53: 470-477.
35. Hutchins, M.J. and J.W. Sutherland, 2008. An
Exploration of Masures of Social Sustainability and
Their Application to Supply Chain Decisions. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 16(15): 1688-1698.
36. Parast, M.M. and S.G. Adams, 2011. Corporate Social
Responsibility, Benchmarking and Organizational
Performance in the Petroleum Industry: A Quality
Management Perspective. International Journal
Production Economics, 139(2): 447-458.
37. Habidin, N.F., N.M. Fuzi, A.F.N.C. Desa,
S.N. Hibadullah and F.I.M. Zamri, 2014. ISO 26000
Efforts and Corporate Social Responsibility
Performance in Malaysian Automotive Industry.
International Journal of Business Excellence,
7(4): 515-529.
38. Flack, O. and S. Heblich, 2007. Corporate Social
Responsibility: Doing Well by Doing Well. Business
Horizons, pp: 247-254.
39. Fuzi, N.M., N.F. Habidin, A.F.N.C. Desa, F.I.M. Zamri
and S.N. Hibadullah, 2013. Corporate Social
Responsibility Practices, ISO 26000 Efforts and CSR
Performance in Malaysian Automotive Industry.
International Journal of Managerial and Financial
Accounting, 5(3): 277-293.
 World Appl. Sci. J., 33 (6): 1017-1024, 2015
40. Rusinko, C.A., 2007. Green Manufacturing: An
Evaluation of Environmentally Sustainable
Manufacturing Practices and Their Impact on
Competitive Outcomes. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 54(3): 445-454.
41. Chiou, T.Y., H.K. Chan, L. Fiona and S.H. Chung,
2011. The Influence of Greening The Suppliers and
Green Innovation on Environmental Performance and
Competitive Advantage in Taiwan. Transportation
Research Part, 47: 822-836.
42. Habidin, N.F. and S.M. Yusof, 2012. Relationship
Between Lean Six Sigma, Environmental Management
System and Organizational Performance in Malaysian
Automotive Industry. International Journal of
Automotive Technology, 13(7): 1119-1125.
43. Jabbour, C.J.C., E.M. Silva, E.L. Paiva and
F.C.A. Santos, 2012. Environmental Management in
Brazil: Is it a Completely Competitive Priority?.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 21(1): 11-22.
44. Zhu, Q., Y. Geng, T. Fujita and S. Hashimoto, 2010.
Green Supply Chain Management in Leading
Manufacturers. Management Research Review,
33(4): 1-11.
45. Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis and K. Lai, 2008. Confirmation of a
measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation. International
Journal of Production Economics, 111(2): 261-273.
46. Green Jr., K.W., J.P. Zelbst, J. Meacham and
V.S. Bhadauria, 2012. Green Supply Chain
Management Practices: Impact on Performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
17(3): 1-44.
47. Nordin, N., B.M. Deros and D.A. Wahab, 2010.
Relationship Between Organizational Change and
Lean Manufacturing Implementation in Malaysian
Automotive Industry. The 11th Asia Pacific Industrial
Engineering and Management Systems Conference
and the 14th Asia Pacific Regional Meeting of
International Foundation for Production Research.
1024
View publication stats
48. Zadek, S., M. Forstater and K. Yu, 2012. Corporate
Responsibility and Sustainable Economic
Development in China: Applications for Business.
National Chamber Foundation.
49. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel, 2001. Corporate
Social Responsibility: A Theory of The Firm
Perspective. The Academic of Management Review,
26(1): 117-127.
50. Salam, M.A., 2007. Social Responsibility in
Purchasing: The Case of Thailand. International
Journal Procurement Management, 1(½): 97-116.
51. Baskaran, V., S. Nachiappan and S. Rahman, 2011.
Supplier Assessment Based on Corporate Social
Responsibility Criteria in Indian Automotive and
Textile Industry Sectors. International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering, 4(4): 359-369.
52. Allahyari, A. and M. Ramazani, 2011. Studying The
Factors Which Delay Management Accounting
Changes - Case Study of Iranian Manufacturing
Firms. International Journal of Accounting and
Finance Reporting, 1(1): 176-188.
53. Ihantola, E. and L. Kihn, 2011. Threats to Validity and
Reliability in Mixed Methods Accounting Research.
Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, 8(1): 39-58.
54. Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the
Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika,
16(3): 297-334.
55. Allen, M.J. and W.M. Yen, 1979. Introduction to
Measurement Theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
56. Anastasi, A. and S. Urbina, 1996. Psychological
Testing. New York: Prentice Hall.
57. Aiken, L.R., 2002. Psychological Testing and
Assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
58. Ryan, B., R.W. Scapens and M. Theobald, 2002.
Research Method and Methodology in Finance and
Accounting. London: Thomson.
59. Buckley, J.W., M.H. Buckley and H. Chiang, 1976.
Research Methodology and Business Decisions.
New York: NAA.