The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8394.htm

Motives for participation in halal Motives for

participation
food standard implementation: an
empirical study in Malaysian halal
food industry
Irwandi Jaswir Received 4 July 2021
Revised 1 December 2021
International Institute for Halal Research and Training (INHART), International 5 October 2022
Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Faculty of Pharmacy, 5 January 2023
Accepted 5 January 2023
Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia and Faculty of Economy and
Business, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Dian Permata Sari
International Institute for Halal Research and Training (INHART),
International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohd Radzi bin Haji Che Daud
Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Raditya Sukmana
Department of Islamic Economics, Faculty of Economic and Business,
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to identify the factor that could be able to motivate the food industry to take part
in the standardization process and analyse which motive is the most influential one. This study also examines
the relationship between the motive and the implementation itself.
Design/methodology/approach – As one of Malaysian Standard, MS1500 is focused on halal food
matters. This standard was established by the Malaysian Government to realize their dream of becoming the
leader in the global halal market. However, there are still many food and beverage small and medium-sized
entterprises owned by Indigenous Muslims in Malaysia who still take it for granted by claiming that their
products are halal without ever signing up for the halal certificate or implementing MS1500.
Findings – The findings of this study can be used as an input for the Malaysian Government, so they will be
able to plan any suitable programme that can promote the implementation of this standard.
Practical implications – The halal food industry has grown significantly around the world. By category
of spending, the halal food and beverages industry holds the biggest share, with a value of about US$1,303bn
in 2017 and is expected to reach US$1,863bn by 2023. These big opportunities have been captured by several
countries in the world, including Malaysia. As a Moslem country, Malaysia aspires to be the halal hub and has
aggressively worked towards becoming the key player in delivering halal food products. By understanding
the motives behind the implementation of the halal standard by the food industry, we can develop strategies
to expand the growth of the halal industry itself.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind that has been
conducted to explore the motives behind the implementation of halal food standards by the food industry,
especially in Malaysia. From the review of the current literature, it is found that studies on halal food International Journal of Islamic
and Middle Eastern Finance and
certification and halal logo mainly focused on the consumer side instead of the industry side. On top of that, it Management
is also found that previous studies mostly adopted two notable theories, namely, theory of reasoned action © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8394
and theory of planned behaviour. To elaborate on and use plenty of other theories in performing a halal DOI 10.1108/IMEFM-07-2021-0264
IMEFM standard research, the three isomorphism pressure from institutional theory of DiMaggio and Powell has been
chosen as a pertinent theory in this study. As a result, the theoretical gap and the uneven scope of halal food
standard and certification research, with particular attention on the industry or manufacturer side, are
expected to be bridged. This theory is also used to identify the most dominant motive. Moreover, this study
examined the relationship between the motive behind standardization and the standardization itself.
Keywords Halal food standard, MS1500, Motive, Implementation, Food industry
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The halal food industry has grown significantly around the world. The State Global Islamic
Economic (SGIE) Report 2018/2019 mentioned that by category of spending, the halal food
and beverages industry holds the biggest share with a value of about US$1,303bn in 2017.
This value is expected to reach US$1,863bn by 2023. Previously, this value was about US
$1,240bn, while in 2015, it was about US$1,128bn.
Those big opportunities have been captured by several countries in the world, including
Malaysia. The SGIE, 2019/2020 reported that Malaysia has maintained its position as the
leading country in terms of the overall Islamic economic ecosystem for six consecutive
years. One of Malaysian Government initiatives to maintain their position as a leader in
global halal industry and to make Malaysia as the benchmark for halal certification is by
introducing a halal food standard (HFS), MS1500. This standard was launched in 2000 and
has been revised three times: in 2004, 2009 and 2019.
Even though the implementation of MS1500 is voluntary basis, this halal standard has
been recognized by the United Nations. It is because the concepts and requirements in this
HFS are comprehensive and cover the whole food production process. Obtaining this
standard can guarantee the quality and halal-ness of the food. By implementing
this standard before getting a halal certificate and halal logo, the industry could solve the
doubt of Muslim consumers who need to buy halal food (Samori et al., 2014). In the
meantime, it is also able to serve as quality assurance for non-Muslim consumers.
Accordingly, much hope was put forward by Malaysian Government to see the successful
implementation of this standard. The high rate of implementation of MS1500 is expected to
be able to promote Malaysian halal food products in the global arena as well as increase the
country’s income.
However, most food companies in Malaysia still lack awareness about the importance of
halal certification and halal standardization (Din and Daud, 2014; Talib et al., 2016). Most
food small and medium-sized entterprises (SMEs) assumed that the implementation of
MS1500 requirements was not easy, involved many challenges and was typically associated
with high costs (Nawai et al., 2007; Sunarya et al., 2015). Additionally, there are still many
food SMEs owned by Indigenous Muslims in Malaysia who claim that their products are
halal without ever signing up for the official halal certificate or implementing HFS.
From the literature review, it is found that most of the literature talk about ISO Standard,
but very limited about halal standard, especially HFS. It is also found that most of the
previous studies on halal food certification mainly focused on the consumer side and
adopted two notable theories, namely, theory of reasoned action (TRA) and theory of
planned behaviour (TPB). Accordingly, there are largely unexplored and inconclusive
findings in the area of research related to the halal certificate, which is closely related to
implementation of the HFS.
There are plenty of other theories that might be suitable to use in halal food and halal
standard research. By promoting the usage of three isomorphism pressure from institutional
theory of DiMaggio and Powell, this study will fill in the lack of theoretical understanding of Motives for
the motives behind the implementation of HFS by the food industry in Malaysia. participation
Additionally, by giving more attention to the industry or manufacturer side, this research
will bridge the uneven scope in the body of knowledge of HFS and certification research.
The result of this study could be used as an input for the Malaysian Government or
related regulatory halal agency such as the Department of Standard Malaysia (DSM) and
Halal Development Corporation (HDC). It is hoped that they will be able to improve and plan
any suitable programme that can promote the implementation of MS1500. Consequently,
even though it is still on a voluntary basis, the rate of implementation of this MS will
increase significantly.

Literature review
Global halal food market and halal food industry
The halal food market is considered as an emerging and one of the most profitable market
arenas in the world food business today. This market is structurally affected by Islamic
values-driven consumer lifestyle and business practices (Shikoh, 2015). Moreover, Shikoh
(2015) mentioned that in 2013, Muslim consumer spending was about $2,001bn (12% of total
global market size), where food spending contributed to about $1,292bn (about 17.7% of
total global food market size). Meanwhile, the Global Halal Food and Beverage Market
Growth, Trends and Forecast 2018–2023 (2018) has stated that global halal food and
beverage market in 2016 was valued at US$670m.
According to the State of the Islamic Economic Report (2018/2019), the top five countries
with Muslim consumer food consumption in 2018 were Indonesia (US$170bn), Turkey (US
$127bn), Pakistan (US$118bn), Egypt (US$86bn) and Bangladesh (US$76bn). Besides from
being consumers, Muslim countries are also producers. They are competing to become the
key player in the global halal food (GHF) market. In the meantime, the GHF market is also
contested by non-Muslim countries, such as Brazil, Australia and New Zealand (Thomson
Reuter and Dinar Standard, 2016).

Halal market and halal food industry in Malaysia

Nowadays, Malaysia is one of the largest and fastest-growing players in the halal market.
Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) reported that in 2014 the
total Malaysian halal export revenue was RM 37.8bn and 41.1% of it (RM 15.5bn) was
derived from the food and beverages (F&B) cluster. Meanwhile, in 2015, Malaysia’s halal
export revenue was RM39.4bn, with RM13bn of it coming from halal F&B products (Willy,
2016).
With 10% year on year increase, in 2016, Malaysia halal export reached RM 42.2bn.
Moreover, in 2017, the halal industry contributed approximately 7.5% to Malaysia’s gross
domestic product, with the annual export value of halal products worth RM43.4bn (Awang,
2018). In 2018, Malaysia’s halal exports declined by 8% from the previous year. Because of
the pandemic situation, Malaysia’s halal export for 2020 is about RM 30.5bn. It is
approximately RM 10bn declined from RM 40.2bn in 2019. However, halal food and
beverages continue to be the main contributor to the Malaysian halal economy, with
RM17.40bn in total value [Halal Development Corporation (HDC), 2021].

Halal certificate and halal logo in Malaysia

Riaz and Chaudry (2003, p. 170) defined halal certificate as “a document issued by an Islamic
organization certifying that the products listed on it meet Islamic dietary guidelines”. Halal
certificate is an authentic certificate with a unique logo showcased on product packaging or
IMEFM business premises. Meanwhile, halal certification is a type of food safety, which indicated
that the certified company had been thoroughly investigated and found to conform to the
Islamic Sharia Laws, so their product is suitable for use by Moslem consumers (Latif et al.,
2014).
Up until now, halal certification in Malaysia is still voluntary, and it is fully handled by
JAKIM. JAKIM’s halal certificate plays a crucial role because it is defined as the examination
of particular product processes and the fulfilment of hygienic, sanitation and safety
requirements (Brandt, 2015). A product with JAKIM halal certification can use the registered
trademark halal logo, so it will become the first choice for Muslim consumers, either
nationally or globally.
Accordingly, Hughes and Malik (2017) considered JAKIM’s halal certification as a key
enabler for the successful development of the global halal industry. A company with a halal
certificate will get many advantages, especially if they wish to penetrate the Muslim
community in many countries. However, practically, the halal certification process still faces
a few problems. The first problem comes from the company’s lack of knowledge regarding
the true purpose of securing halal certification (Talib et al., 2015; Othman et al., 2009). The
second problem is because of fraudulent and dubious certification. Malaysian halal
authorities have uncovered numerous cases of fake halal logos and the use of suspect
ingredients (Rezai et al., 2012). Additionally, Sunarya et al. (2015) found that most
Bumiputera entrepreneurs still assumed that halal certification is typically associated with
high costs.

Implementation of Malaysian halal food standard MS1500

According to DSM, Malaysian standard (MS) is a consensus document developed by the
Standards Development Committee within the Malaysian Standards Development System.
MS is developed in accordance with the principles laid out by international standards such
as World Trade Organization and International Standard Organization. Approval from the
Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation is needed before the MS is launched.
“Standardization” is defined as the implementation and use of a standard to interact with
a communication partner (Weitzel et al., 2006). According to Jungmittag et al. (2011) and Jais
(2019), standardization is typically voluntary, with very few exceptional cases. It is up to the
individual or company to decide whether they want to adopt the standard or not. A standard
can be made mandatory when it has a direct effect on consumer safety, environmental
impact and also poses health issues.
As of 28 February 2018, of the 5,338 MS that have been developed, there are only 23 MS
on halal. MS on halal are developed based on the requirements and needs of Malaysia as the
country, which has about 60% Moslem population (Jais, 2019). Up until now, MS1500 has
been the most popular halal MS.
Because it focused on halal food matters and was always used by JAKIM as a basic
reference in issuing the halal certificate and halal logo, MS1500 was developed out of the
necessity to have a specific standard that could cater for halal food in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, the contribution and participation of the food industry, especially the food
SMEs, are still small. Many SMEs still believe that the implementation of a voluntary
standard will only incur extra costs (Sunarya et al., 2015). Additionally, the situation is also
related to limited resources regarding standards and lack of awareness about the halal
certification process and its requirements (Talib et al., 2016). Therefore, up until now, there
are many F&B SMEs owned by Indigenous Muslims in Malaysia, who still take it for
granted by claiming that their products are halal without ever signing up for the official
halal certificate or implementing the halal standard.
 Since most of the standardizations are voluntary, each respective company and organization Motives for
has a different level of awareness in implementation of standards and different perception of the participation
benefits that can be derived from them. Each company might have different motives behind the
implementation of a standard. Standardizations are deemed by a few organizations as directly
linked to their core business strategy and will have a clear impact on their performance. In the
meantime, others may use standards from a narrower perspective, for specific purposes or
activities only. Even so, there are a few firms that consider standards as a burden as they only
result in additional costs, so they are reluctant to implement them (Blind, 2013).

Theoretical framework to analyse the motives behind the implementation of MS1500

According to Glazer and Rubinstein (1998), motives are the basic building blocks of decision
makers’ preferences. Within a society, people often observe uniformity in the motives that drive
its members, although the weights assigned to the different motives may not be uniform
(Glazer and Rubinstein, 1998). On the other hand, motivation has been defined as the process
whereby goal-directed activities are initiated and sustained (Cook and Artino, 2016). Theories
of motivation are often separated into content theories and process theories. Content theories
usually explain what motivation is, and process theories describe how motivation occurs.
At the institutional level, motivation is important for the achievement of organizational
goals and objectives (Badubi, 2017). However, organizational mission statements are difficult to
interpret because an organization’s goals are not a simple aggregation of individual interests.
To solve this problem, researchers frequently use individual-level surveys to measure and
differentiate various dimensions of motivations (Dulaimi et al., 2003).
The summary of the three isomorphic mechanisms of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) can be
found below, and the chart can be seen in Figure 1.
1) Coercive isomorphism refers to the pressure from outside the organization, either from
governmental mandates or political influence; some are derived from contract law or even
from financial reporting requirements. It is a result of both formal and informal pressure.
Such pressure may be felt as force, persuasion or invitation.
2) Mimetic isomorphism refers to the tendency of an organization to imitate another
organization’s structure because of the belief that the structure of the other organization is
beneficial. It is an act of survival at uncertain conditions. The organization may model itself
to other similar organizations that are older or perceived to be more legitimate or successful.
3) Normative isomorphism is associated with professionalization, which relates to the
collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of
their work to control the production of producers and to establish a cognitive base and
legitimation for their occupational autonomy.

Figure 1.
Institutional
isomorphism
mechanisms/
pressures of
DiMaggio and Powell
IMEFM The implementation of HFS is based on the concept of “Halalan Toyyiban”, which should
undergo several revisions to meet the quality certification requirements (Othman et al.,
2016). HFS is a type of food safety certification, which in line with established standards
such as GMP and HACCP. HFS can be considered as a food manufacturer’s strategic
resource to remain competitive within the industry. As a Malaysian HFS, MS1500 is a basic
reference that is always used by JAKIM in the halal certification and halal logo processes.
Implementing MS1500 will have many advantages for the food firm. However, the motives
behind a standardization or certification process may vary from one company to another.
Leung et al. (1999) found that there is a relationship between the company’s initial
motivation for certification and its perception of the received benefits. In line with that, Jones
(2000) found that companies that obtain the certification for external motives (reaction,
political reasons and marketing) get fewer benefits than companies that obtain the
certification for internal motives (quality improvement and company image).
Institutional theory of DiMaggio and Powell is one of the theories that was used by
many researchers (Othman et al., 2009; Talib et al., 2015; Zailani et al., 2015; Talib et al.,
2016) on reviewing the motive of an organization or firm in halal food certification
(see Figure 2). Because there is a strong connection between Malaysian halal
certification and the Malaysian halal food standard (MS1500), this theory is considered
suitable to use as a theoretical framework for the study of the implementation of
MS1500. By using this theory, the motives of firms to implement a HFS are expected to
be explained thoroughly.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) stated that in the case of coercive isomorphism,
organizations are directly or indirectly pressured by government organizations. Several
previous research found that governmental factor was a significant motivator to
implement food standards. For example, as the main authoritative body on halal issues
in Malaysia, JAKIM will recall the product that breaches the halal compliance
requirements. A product recall could damage the company’s financial performance and

Figure 2.
Theoretical
framework for motive
of halal food
certification
image. Therefore, firms are coerced to implement certification as a means to avoid Motives for
incurring more costs because of penalties for nonconformity (Fikru, 2014; Talib et al., participation
2016). Additionally, avoiding the procedural barrier in export policy and increasing the
ability to meet the overseas halal market standard could be the other coercive reason for
the food firm to implement MS1500.
Today’s highly competitive markets require business organizations to generate a
competitive advantage (Zailani et al., 2015). Enlarging the market share is one of the main
motivations for implementing certification and standardization, especially for small food
enterprises. Therefore, implementation of MS1500 is believed to be able to facilitate
international market expansion.
Lastly, the normative pressure for the firm to implement HFS is usually associated with
the need to comply with the demand of Muslim consumers for uncompromised halal food
(Talib et al., 2016). Conforming to customer pressures and ensuring customer satisfaction
are essential because they enable firms to attract new customers, retain existing ones and
create loyalty. By implementing a standard, the customer complaints arising out of
production defects, and the rate of rejection and rework, can be minimized.

Theoretical framework to analyse the implementation of MS1500

Lately, the implementation science (IS) has seen wider recognition of the need to establish
the theoretical bases of implementation and strategies to facilitate implementation and to
provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or
fails. IS was created to get a clearer understanding of the factors that affect the effectiveness
of implementation and, as a result, formulate strategies for improving it (Powell et al., 2019).
IS, recently, has widened its range and adopted theories from several other disciplines.
These disciplines include psychology, sociology and organizational theory and its
corresponding theories, models and frameworks.
On the other hand, Padian et al. (2011) in Dunn et al. (2012) explained that an
implementation research (IR) is the scientific study of methods to promote the integration of
research findings and evidence-based interventions into a specific policy and practice.
Ideally, the results of a successful IR should be able to benefit both practitioners and
policymakers. Practitioners should be guided on the ways to optimally run effective
programs, while policymakers should be able to improve the current policies based on the
research.
Previously, Fixsen et al. (2005) classified the core activities in an implementation into six
core activities:
(1) staff selection;
(2) pre-service and in-service training;
(3) ongoing consultation and coaching;
(4) staff and programme evaluation;
(5) facilitative administrative support; and
(6) systems interventions.

Fixsen et al. (2005) also mentioned that there are many barriers that a firm should face while
implementing a program. Accordingly, the desirable outcomes of an implementation are
achieved only when all the barriers can be solved. The indicator related to the barrier in the
implementation on this study is developed referring to four barriers/limitations in an
IMEFM implementation strategy that was proposed by Kalaskar (2017). The diagram of the whole
aspects in an IR can be seen in Figure 3.

Logical framework approach for implementation research

There are many frameworks for conducting an IR. However, the World Health Organisation
(WHO) (2014) mentioned that the logical framework approach (LFA) is the most suitable
one. LFA has the power to communicate the essential elements of a complex project clearly
and concisely throughout the project cycle. LFA is usually used to develop the overall
design of a project, from the bottom-up to improve the project implementation monitoring
and to strengthen periodic project evaluation.
LFA illustrates a programme (implementation)-level understanding of the change
process. LFA shows just the pathway that your programme deals with and presents the
intervention in a “logical”, sequential way. Therefore, LFA is visually neater, cleaner and
tidier compared with theory of change, where “X leads to Y”. According to Morariu and
Emery (2014), in LFA, all “activities” lead to “outputs”. These “outputs” eventually lead to
“outcomes” which will produce a “goal”. It is a one-way process, and there are no cycles or
feedback loops. The details of the LFA for the implementation of MS1500 can be found in
Figure 4.

Model development
Based on the theoretical framework in Figures 2 and 3, the proposed model for this study is
illustrated in Figure 5. The proposed model for this study consists of two major parts:
(1) the motive; and
(2) the implementation.

The first part refers to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and the second part refers to Peters et al.
(2013), Fixsen et al. (2005) and Kalaskar (2017).

Hypothesis development
Motives are the basic building blocks of decision makers’ preferences (Glazer and
Rubinstein, 1998). Meanwhile, motivation has been defined as the process whereby goal-

Figure 3.
Theoretical
framework for
implementation
research
 Motives for
participation

Figure 4.
LFA for
implementation of
MS1500

Figure 5.
Proposed research
model

directed activities are initiated and sustained (Cook and Artino, 2016). Several previous
research found that the decision-making processes are determined by the motivation of the
decision makers (Cooper et al., 2007; Rahim et al., 2010; Ticu, 2013). Because motive plays a
significant role in the decision-making process, therefore, it can be hypothesized that:

H0. Motives behind the implementation of MS1500:2009 do not have a

significantly positive influence on the implementation itself.
HA (H1). Motives behind the implementation of MS1500:2009 have a significantly
positive influence on the implementation itself.

Methodology
The positivist research paradigm and philosophy is chosen to be used in this study with a
cross-sectional design where the details are presented in the form of LFA (see Figure 4). The
nature of the investigation in this study is non-experimental study. The method used in
performing this study is a quantitative method.
Because MS1500 is a basic reference used by JAKIM in issuing halal certificate, it is
assumed that all halal food industries that already have halal certificate have automatically
IMEFM implemented this MS. As of 25th August 2018, there were 5,329 food and beverages
companies in Malaysia that had obtained a halal certificate. It means that the number of the
target population for this research is 5,329.

Data collection method and time frame

The data were collected through a survey using a structured questionnaire that was
delivered and collected directly by the researcher. The distributed questionnaire had been
reviewed through the seven steps of the questionnaire development process described by
Churchill (1979). Because there has yet to be a standardized theory for the implementation of
a halal standard, the questionnaire for this study was designed based on several different
studies regarding the implementation of a general standard (Fixsen et al., 2005; Manders,
2015; Talib et al., 2015).
The companies that participated in the survey were selected based on their accessibility
and the companies that attended the halal or food exhibition in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.
Meanwhile, the criteria for survey participants are those who are currently employed and
involved with service delivery at the halal food industry. Accordingly, this sampling method
can be classified as convenience sampling with a criterion strategy.
Data collection time frame for this study is from September 2018 until September 2019.
Meanwhile, the area coverage for the company and survey participant is 12 out of 13 states
in Malaysia, with Perlis being the omission. This study also covered two out of three federal
territories in Malaysia, with Putrajaya being the exception.

Steps of data analysis

The flow chart of the research analysis process in this study can be seen in Figure 6.
This study started with descriptive statistic analysis of the main research attributes in the
questionnaire. Based on the proposed conceptual framework in Figure 5, the main research
attributes are divided into two main latent variables (MLVs):
(1) motive that consists of three sub-latent variables (SLVs); and
(2) implementation that consists of three SLVs.

Figure 6.
Flow chart of the
research analysis
process
Each SLV of motive consists of six observed variables (OVs) and each SLV of Motives for
implementation consists of seven OVs. Therefore, the main research attributes consisted of 2 participation
MLVs, 6 SLVs and 39 OVs.
The next step is exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which is conducted to check whether
the predefined factor is correct and suitable to be used as a factor or not. The naming of
predefined factors is conducted based on the chosen pertinent theory or similar research
finding. Before proceeding with the EFA, the measures of sampling adequacy indicators,
which consist of Bartlett’s test of sphericity, KMO test and anti-image correlation test, are
checked. The principal component analysis method was chosen to extract the data and
varimax rotation method to rotate the factor matrix. Furthermore, to test the internal
consistency of the EFA result, Cronbach’s a test is performed as the reliability test.
The next step of analysis is covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM),
which consists of CFA and structural model analysis. The objective of CFA is to test
whether the data fit a hypothesized measurement model (Preedy and Watson, 2009). Before
starting the CFA, the design of the path diagram based on the reliable result of the EFA is
needed. Because each of these two MLVs (implementation and impact) consists of several
SLVs, all of the path diagrams of measurement models are considered as “second-order
measurement model”. Consequently, each model of CFA started with the first-order initial
model and ended with the second-order final model.
Moreover, the pooled CFA method is chosen because it runs all the latent variables
simultaneously, which is time-saving (Awang, 2018; Hair et al., 2017). The whole CFA
process will only stop when the goodness of fit (GOF) criterion is fulfilled and the proper
model is reached (see Table 1). However, a good model fit only indicates that the model is
credible but there is no guarantee that the content and construct validity have automatically
been achieved (Schermelleh et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important to perform the validity
test.
Because the validity analysis is performed by using CB-SEM with AMOS, the
discriminant validity is measured by using the Fornell and Larcker criterion or sometimes
called the traditional maximum shared squared variance (MSV). To make sure that there is
no convergent validity issue in the instrument, it is expected that the critical ratio (CR) value
is higher than average variance extracted (AVE) and AVE value is higher than 0.5.
Meanwhile, to reach a good discriminant validity, MSV and average shared square variance
(ASV) must be lower than AVE.

Measures Threshold values

Absolute fit level
RMSEA Less than 0.08
GFI 0.90 and Above
Incremental fit level
AGFI 0.90 and above
CFI 0.90 and above
TLI 0.90 and above
NFI 0.90 and above
Parsimonious fit level
CMIN/df Less than 5.0
Table 1.
SMC (R2) The higher, the better Recommendation
values of goodness of
Source: Hair et al. (2010) fit criteria
IMEFM This final structural model is considered to be fit with the research data very well and ready
to be used for hypotheses testing, which enables measurement of the relationship between
latent variables. According to Byrne (2016), to make sure whether the hypotheses in the
model need to be supported or rejected, the recommended CR and p values need to be
considered. The value of CR should be greater than the value from the t-table (Hair et al.,
2017). Therefore, for p < 0.05, the CR should be more than 1.96, while for p < 0.01, the CR
should be more than 2.58.

Data analysis and findings

From 225 distributed questionnaires, there were 215 questionnaires returned (95.55%),
where three of them were incomplete. Therefore, there are 212 completed questionnaires
(94.22%) ready to be used for data analysis process. This sample size is slightly above 200,
while the sample requirement for a CB-SEM analysis is 100–400 (Bentler and Chou, 1987;
Hair et al., 2010).

Descriptive statistic analysis

The overall descriptive statistics analysis for this research was generated using SPSS 23
software. The first part of the descriptive analysis is conducted to obtain the respondents’
background (see Table 2). The second part is about the company (see Table 3). Meanwhile,
the last part is about the main research framework (see Table 4).

Exploratory factor analysis and reliability test

EFA is conducted to check whether the predefined factor is correct and suitable to use as a
factor or not. The naming of predefined factors is conducted based on the chosen pertinent
theory (see Table 5). There are six predefined factors that had been analysed and consist of
the following:
(1) Motive A (normative motive);
(2) Motive B (mimetic motives);
(3) Motive C (coercive motive);
(4) Implementation A [perception on implementation (POI)];
(5) Implementation B (core activities in implementation); and
(6) Implementation C (limitation of implementation).

From Table 5, it is found that for all the pre-defined factors on motive, there is only one EV
bigger than one. It is indicated that there is only one factor formed from all predefined
factors on motives. Consequently, there was no need to do the rotation. All those formed
factors had been given the same name as the predefined factor’s name. On the other hand,
for the predefined factors on implementation, there are two formed factors. Consequently, it
is important to do the rotation with the varimax and Kaiser normalization.
After rerunning the EFA with only six remaining OVs, it was found that only one factor
formed, called as “perception on implementation”. Consequently, the EFA turned the three
predefined factors on implementation (perception, core activity and limitation) into five
formed factors, namely, POI, pre-service and in-service activity (PIA), halal control system
activity (HCSA), owner, management and employee limitation (OMEL) and finance and
regulation limitation (FRL).
All of those newly formed factors on implementation have met the minimum requirement
of having at least three OVs. Moreover, from the internal consistency test, it is found that all
 Motives for
Research sample (n = 212)
Demographic description No. of respondents %
participation
Age
20–29 80 37.74
30–39 83 39.15
40–49 28 13.21
50 and above 21 9.91
Gender
Male 110 51.89
Female 102 48.11
Education
No formal education 1 0.47
Secondary school 13 6.13
Foundation 4 1.89
Diploma 55 25.94
Bachelor’s degree 123 58.02
Master’s degree 14 6.60
Doctorate degree (PhD) 2 0.94
Religion
Buddhist 22 10.38
Christian 3 1.42
Hindu 2 0.94
Muslim 184 86.79
Shinto 1 0.47
Ethnicity
Chinese 24 11.32
Dayak 5 2.36
Foreigner 2 0.94
Indian 2 0.94
Malay 179 84.43
Job tittle or position
Halal executive 55 25.94
Halal department manager 5 2.36
Internal halal committee member 11 5.19
Production manager 33 15.57
Owner 50 23.58
Sales and marketing executive 15 7.08
Job title or position
QA/QC executive 7 3.30
Marketing manager 13 6.13
HR/others executive 4 1.89
Business development manager 4 1.89
Director/high management 15 7.08
Career length
0–3 years 111 52.36
4–6 years 40 18.87
7–9 years 27 12.74
10–12 years 16 7.55
13–15 years 3 1.42
15 years and above 15 7.08 Table 2.
(continued) Respondents’ profile
IMEFM
Research sample (n = 212)
Demographic description No. of respondents %

Source of halal knowledge

Formal education 40 18.87
Halal training or halal course 121 57.08
Self-learning 51 24.06
States of origin
Japan 1 0.47
Johor 15 7.08
Kedah 11 5.19
Kelantan 10 4.72
Kuala Lumpur 24 11.32
Melaka 10 4.72
N. Sembilan 16 7.55
Pahang 8 3.77
Penang 12 5.66
Perak 22 10.38
Sabah 5 2.36
Sarawak 10 4.72
Selangor 58 27.36
Terenganu 8 3.77
Table 2. WP. Labuan 2 0.94

of the Cronbach’s a values of the eight formed factors are above 0.8 (see Table 6). This result
indicated that all formed factors from EFA have a good internal consistency.

Path diagram analysis

Before proceeding with CFA, a path diagram is prepared to show the causal relationship
between all variables involved in the measurement model that are developed based on
selected theories or hypotheses. From Figure 7, it is found that all the measurement models
in this study are the “second-order measurement model”. Therefore, each model started with
the first-order initial model and ended with the second-order final model (see Figures 8
and 9).

Confirmatory factor analysis

The CFA is conducted based on the results of the EFA, to test whether the data fit a
hypothesized measurement model or not. It has been decided to use the “pooled method” in
running the CFA, so all of the latent variables run simultaneously. The detail and
completeness of the first-order CFA can be found in Figure 8, while those of the second-order
CFA can be seen in Figure 9.
In Figure 8, it is seen that there are 8 SLVs, namely, NORM, MIME, COER, POI, PIA,
HCSA, OMEL and FRL, and 38 OVs in the beginning of the first-order model. After the
validity test (see Table 7), it is found that there are 7 SLVs and 32 OVs left.
The pooled second-order initial model that can be seen in Figure 9 is designed based on
the pooled first-order final model. Though, in this second-order model, SLV NORM, MIME
and COER are linked to MLV motive, SLV POI, HCSA, OMEL and FRL are linked to MLV
implementation. Furthermore, after the validity test towards the MLVs is performed, it is
found that there are no issues related to CR, AVE, MSV and ASV (see Table 8). These results
 Research sample (n = 212)
Motives for
Company profile No. of respondents % participation
Company operational location
Johor 13 6.13
Kedah 8 3.77
Kelantan 5 2.36
Kuala Lumpur 15 7.08
Melaka 14 6.60
N. Sembilan 13 6.13
Pahang 4 1.89
Penang 7 3.30
Perak 15 7.08
Sabah 2 0.94
Sarawak 8 3.77
Selangor 102 48.11
Terenganu 5 2.36
WP Labuan 1 0.47
Establishment year
Before 1960 7 3.30
1960–1970 6 2.83
1971–1980 9 4.25
1981–1990 17 8.02
1991–2000 28 13.21
2001–2010 58 27.36
2011–2020 87 41.04
Company sizes
Micro company 50 23.58
Small company 118 55.66
Medium company 17 8.02
Large local company (LLC) 17 8.02
Multinational company (MNC) 10 4.72
Legal status
Partnership 8 3.77
Private limited company 172 81.13
Public limited company 8 3.77
Sole proprietorship 24 11.32
Annual turnover
Less than RM 300,000 69 32.55
RM 300,000–RM 15m 102 48.11
RM 15–50m 20 9.43
More than RM 50m 21 9.91
Halal certificate renewal
Every 1 year 35 16.51
Every 2 years 150 70.75
Every 3 years 27 12.74
Year halal certificate implementation
1–3 years 110 51.89
4–6 years 40 18.87 Table 3.
7–9 years 62 29.25 Companies’ profile
IMEFM indicated that the pooled second-order initial model has achieved good convergent and
discriminant validity. Therefore, there is no need to perform any kind of modification or re-
examination on it.
However, the fitness index for the pooled second-order initial model in Figure 9 indicated
that this model is not fit or proper yet. Thus, it is important to perform three steps of
analysis of Byrne. From the figure of second-order final model in Figure 9, it is found that
there are 6 SLVs and 28 OVs left, which consisted of 3 SLVs and 17 OVs under MLV motive
and 3 SLVs and 11 OVs under MLV implementation. The summary of the CFA process in
this study can be seen in Table 9, while the alteration of OV’s name can be found in Table 10.

Structural model analysis

Figure 10 presents the “baseline structural model”, which is designed based on the final
result of the CFA that has been tested for its validity and reliability. The fitness index for
this model indicates that this model is not fit or proper yet. It is because all the values of
fitness indices have yet to fulfil the GOF’s recommendation values.
After conducting the three-step analysis as mentioned by Byrne, the “final structural
model” is established (see Figure 11). In this analysis, there was no item-deletion process
based on the value of factor loading. This analysis only indicates the detecting model
misspecification issue through modification indices (MI) and standardized residual
covariance; and examining the GOF. Therefore, the baseline structural model and the final
structural model have the same number of variables, which include 2 MLVs, 6 SLVs and 28
OVs.
As can be seen in Figure 11, all of the fitness index values on this final structural model
have been achieved. Therefore, it can be concluded that the construct validity for this model
is achieved and the model fits the research data (observed variable) very well. In other words,
this “final structural model” is ready for hypothesis testing.
On top of that, it is also seen that the number of OVs has reduced, from 39 during the
initial stages to 28 in the final stage. Based on these findings, a new compact and brief
questionnaire has been created with only 28 questions for the main research framework.

Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis testing is performed to examine the relationship between the motive behind
implementation of MS1500 and the implementation itself. From Table 11, it is seen that the
value of CR = 5.742, which is greater than 2.58, at p < 0.01. This value indicates that the
positive relationship between motive and implementation is 99% significant.
Additionally, it is also found that the value of the standard regression weight between
motive and implementation is 0.589. This value indicates that the motives behind
implementation of MS1500 have a significantly positive influence on the implementation
itself.

Sub-section questionnaire Mean SD

Normative motives (Mot A) 4.54 0.58

Table 4.
Mimetic motives (Mot B) 4.34 0.68
Main research Coercive motives (Mot C) 4.34 0.64
framework Perception through implementation (Imple-A) 4.34 0.68
descriptive statistics Core activities (Imple-B) 4.34 0.67
summary Limitation of implementation (Imple-C) 4.03 0.72
 Formed factor
Communalities No. of eigen- No. of factors
Pre-defined factor No. of variable KMO extraction values (EV) > 1 formed Factor 1 Factor 2

Motives A 6 0.855 >0.5 1 1 Normative (Var1 to Var6) None

Motives B 6 0.813 >0.5 1 1 Mimetic (Var1 to Var6) None
Motives C 6 0.822 >0.5 1 1 Coercive (Var1 to Var6) None
Implementation A 7 0.851 >0.5 2 2 POI (Var1–4, Var6–7) Take out (Var5)
Implementation B 7 0.775 >0.5 2 2 PIA (Var1 to Var4) HCSA (Var5 to Var7)
Implementation C 7 0.793 >0.5 2 2 OMEL (Var4 to Var7) FRL (Var1 to Var3)

Table 5.
Exploratory factor
participation
Motives for

summary
analysis (EFA)
IMEFM From Table 11, it is also seen that the structural paths between POI, HCSA and OMEL with
implementation and between normative, mimetic and coercive with motive are statistically
significant at p < 0.01. It is because all of their CR values are greater than 2.58. These values
showcase that all relationships in the final structural model are significant.

Discussion
Up until now, there has yet to be a standardized theory for the implementation of a
standard, even the general standard or the halal standard. Therefore, the questionnaire of
this research was designed based on several different studies regarding the
implementation of standards (Fixsen et al., 2005; Manders, 2015; Talib et al., 2015;
Kalaskar, 2017).
Descriptive analysis of the companies’ profiles found that the majority of the companies
(70.75%) prefer to renew their halal certificate every two years. This is because since 2014,
JAKIM has requested them to pay for the first two years during their first application
procedure. It was also found that most of the companies (51.89%) had only implemented
MS1500 for a fairly short period of time (one to three years). This result indicates that most
of the respondents’ companies are newcomers to halal food industry. Moreover, the removal
of OV “Imple-A5” (the holistic and continuous implementation of MS1500 will incur extra

Factor generated Cronbach’s alpha No. of constructs

Normative motive 0.882 6

Mimetic motive 0.876 6
Coercive motive 0.873 6
Perception of implementation (POI) 0.868 6
Pre-service and in-service activities (PIA) 0.826 4
Table 6. Halal control system activities (HCSA) 0.829 3
Reliability statistics Owner, management or employee limitation (OMEL) 0.828 3
(Cronbach’s alpha) Limitation on financial and regulation factor (FRL) 0.850 4
after EFA Total 0.85 38.00

Figure 7.
Path diagram of
motives and
implementation
measurement model
 Motives for
participation

Figure 8.
First-order CFA

Figure 9.
Second-order CFA
IMEFM cost) at the EFA stage is in contrast with several previous studies, such as the ones
conducted by Nawai et al. (2007) and Sunarya et al. (2015).
This study used the three isomorphism mechanisms from the institutional theory of
DiMaggio and Powell to explore the motive behind the implementation of MS1500 by the
halal food industry in Malaysia. This theory had been used by many researchers, especially
on reviewing the motive of an organization or a firm. This theory has also been used several
times in previous halal food research, such as the research conducted by Othman et al.
(2009), Talib et al. (2015), Zailani et al. (2015) and Talib et al. (2016).
Furthermore, from the start to the end of the CFA, all of SLV under motive remained
unchanged, except for one OV on SLV-Mimetic (MIME2), which was removed because it is
poorly correlated with SLV-Mimetic. This result indicated that the institutional theory of
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is an established theory, and all three isomorphic mechanisms on it
are suitable to be used as SLVs of motives on reviewing the motives of an organization or a firm.
For MLV implementation, SLV-FRL is removed because the factor loading obtained was
lower than the minimum criteria (FL = 0.44 < 0.6). The low factor loading of FRL indicated
that it has the lowest correlation with implementation. With the removal of the SLV-FRL,
the four OVs under FRL are consequently removed too. This result is in contrast with

Pooled validity test Re-examined pooled validity test

Construct CR AVE MSV ASV Construct CR AVE MSV ASV

NORM 0.885 0.562 0.399 0.225 NORM 0.885 0.562 0.399 0.218
MIME 0.877 0.545 0.549 0.215 MIME 0.867 0.568 0.514 0.215
COER 0.875 0.539 0.549 0.243 COER 0.875 0.539 0.514 0.254
POI 0.871 0.531 0.767 0.355 POI 0.865 0.562 0.52 0.272
PIA 0.83 0.549 0.767 0.331 PIA
Table 7. HCSA 0.833 0.628 0.511 0.231 HCSA 0.836 0.634 0.393 0.175
OMEL 0.839 0.638 0.534 0.317 OMEL 0.84 0.639 0.52 0.279
Validity test result
FRL 0.852 0.591 0.323 0.154 FRL 0.852 0.591 0.323 0.155
towards sub-latent
variable of motive Notes: CR = critical ratio; AVE = average variance explained; MSV = maximum shared squared variance;
and implementation ASV = average shared squared variance

Main latent variable validity test result

Main latent variables CR AVE MSV ASV
Table 8.
Validity test result of Motive 0.844 0.645 0.342 0.342
main latent variable Implementation 0.833 0.562 0.342 0.342

Main latent Initial first Validity Initial second Final second

variable order test order order Remark
Table 9. Motives 8 SLVs 7 SLVs 7 SLVs 6 SLVs Delete 2 SLVs and 10
Summary of CFA Implementation 38 OVs 32 OVs 32 OVs 28 OVs OVs þ covariance of
process with pooled several correlated
method error
 Motive Implementation
Motives for
INITIAL REVISION INITIAL REVISION participation
MIME1 MIME1 POI1 POI1
MIME2 POI2 POI2
MIME3 MIME2 POI3
MIME4 MIME3 POI4 POI3
MIME5 MIME4 POI5 POI4
MIME6 MIME5 POI6
PIA1
PIA2 POI5
Table 10.
Notes: INITIAL = the name of observed variable after EFA; REVISION = the name of observed variable Altering of observed
after CFA variable’s name

Figure 10.
Baseline structural
model

Figure 11.
Final structural
model
IMEFM several previous studies that noticed that financial constraints were the most important
limitation factor in food safety certification (Yapp and Fairman, 2006; Escanciano and
Santos-Vijande, 2014). It is also contradictory with previous studies, which have mentioned
that financial issues remain a persistent barrier to implementing halal food certification,
especially for small-sized food companies because of a lack of financial resources (Abdul
et al., 2008; Talib et al., 2015).
Moreover, from the final structural model in Figure 11, it is seen that 28.2% of OV has
decreased, from 39 during the initial stages of analysis to 28 in the final research model
stage. This deletion is performed to make sure that only good items are carried over in the
final research model (Arifin and Yusoff, 2016).
On top of that, from the FL value, it is found that coercive motive has the highest
correlation with MLV motive (FL = 0.84). It means that “coercive motive that is related to
pressure from government organizations is the most influential factor to motivate the
company to implement MS1500”. This finding is in line with several previous studies that
have pointed out that governmental factor is a significant motivator to the food industry to
implement the standards (Sampaio et al., 2009; Escanciano and Santos-Vijande, 2014;
Fernando et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015) and to certify their company (Yapp and Fairman,
2006; Celaya et al., 2007; Othman et al., 2009; Milios et al., 2013; Tomaševi!c et al., 2013; Talib
et al., 2016).
It is also found that OV-COER2 had the highest correlation with coercive motive (0.80). It
means that “the high cost because of penalties over violation towards halal standard
application is the most influential motive which is able to force the firm to fully implement
MS1500”. This result is in line with Fikru (2014) and Talib et al. (2016), who found that firms
are coerced to perform certification as a means to avoid incurring more costs because of
penalties for nonconformity.
Lastly, from hypothesis testing, it is found that the positive relationship between motive
and implementation of MS1500 is 99% significant. It is also found that the value of standard
regression weight of the relationship between motive and implementation is 0.589. It means
that every 1 unit increase in the motive behind implementation of MS1500 leads to a 0.589
unit increase in the implementation itself. This finding is coherent with classic behaviourist
theories, which defined “motivation” as an explanation as to why an individual performs
certain responses and behaviours in certain situations.

Research implication
The expected implication of this research is closely related to the purposes of this study.
Accordingly, the findings of this research are expected to be used as an input for the

Structural path SRW SE CR p

MOTIVE / IMPLEMENTATION 0.589 0.074 5.742 ***

OMEL / IMPLEMENTATION 0.834 0.148 7.656 ***
HCSA / IMPLEMENTATION 0.694 0.126 7.677 ***
POI / IMPLEMENTATION 0.925 0.115 7.656 ***
NORMATIVE / MOTIVE 0.766 0.110 7.223 ***
MIMETIC / MOTIVE 0.815 0.194 6.830 ***
Table 11.
COERCIVE / MOTIVE 0.843 0.175 7.223 ***
Structural path
coefficient for Notes: SRW = standard regression weight; SE = standard error; CR = critical ration; p = significance
hypothesis testing level; ***significance level: 0.01
Malaysian Government. Hence, they will be able to plan any suitable programme that would Motives for
promote the implementation of this standard. participation
Furthermore, by applying the three isomorphism pressure from institutional theory of
DiMaggio and Powell (1983), this study might fill in the lack of theoretical understanding of
the motives behind the intention of a firm to implement a halal certificate and halal standard
other than the TRA and TPB. By using that theory as a pertinent theory to explore the most
possible motivational factors that drive the firm to implement MS1500, it is expected to
bridge the theoretical gap and the uneven scope of research. On the other hand, by adding
the value of halal, the analysis about the implementation of MS1500 could enrich the body of
knowledge of standard IR.
Lastly, the new compact and precise questionnaire that is produced from this study is
able to be used as a research instrument for further research that is related to the
implementation of MS1500. Other than that, this questionnaire also can be adopted for other
Malaysian halal standard’s research by performing several required modifications.

Conclusion and recommendation

Conclusion
Malaysian Government has high hopes to see the flourishing accomplishments of its HFS
MS1500. However, most food companies in Malaysia still lack awareness about the
importance of HFS implementation. Most of them assumed that implementation of MS1500
requirements was not easy, involved many challenges and was typically associated with
high costs. Additionally, there is a fact that there are food SMEs owned by Indigenous
Muslims in Malaysia who still take it for granted by claiming that their products are halal
without ever signing up for the official halal certificate and implementing the halal standard.
Accordingly, this study is performed to observe the motives that drive the firm to implement
MS1500, what is the firm perception towards the implementation and what is the core
activity and the limitation on the implementation of MS1500.
This study has discovered that there is a significant relationship between the motive
behind the implementation of MS1500 and the implementation itself. The higher the motive
behind the implementation, the better the implementation itself. Every 1 unit increase in the
motive behind the implementation of MS1500 leads to a 0.589 unit increase in its
implementation.
Secondly, there is a possibility of bias in the responses received during this research.
This is a result of the fact that the respondents were all companies that participated in halal
or food exhibitions. Consequently, their opinions could be biased because of a certain
interest in stating that they are fully aware of and eager to implement MS1500. Therefore, it
would be better if other respondents (from outside the halal and food fairs) could be obtained
for this research.

Recommendation
The recommendations of this study are divided into three categories. The first
recommendation is for future study. An expanded sample size is recommended. It is also
recommend to combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Hence, after getting the
quantitative data from the distributed questionnaire, a focus group discussion that is
attended by a minimum of one respondent or representative from each company should be
conducted.
Secondly, based on this research’s “final structural model”, it is suggested for halal food
industry to have their own “internal halal control system” with their own “halal committee”
with high commitment and monitoring from the owner or management level.
IMEFM References
Abdul, M., Ismail, H., Hashim, H. and Johari, J. (2008), “SMEs and halal certification”, in Thrusting
Islam, Knowledge and Professionalism in ECER Development, ECER Regional Conference,
pp. 609-618.
Arifin, W.N. and Yusoff, M.S.B. (2016), “Confirmatory factor analysis of the university sains Malaysia
emotional quotient inventory among medical student in Malaysia”, SAGE Open, Vol. 6 No. 2,
p. 2158244016650240. doi: 10.1177/2158244016650240.
Awang, Z. (2018), “Malaysia forms global halal certification board”, The Malaysian Reserve, available
at: https://themalaysianreserve.com/2018/04/05/msia-forms-global-halal-certification-board/
Badubi, R.M. (2017), “Theories of motivation and their application in organizations: a risk analysis”,
International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 44-51.
Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.P. (1987), “Practical issues in structural modelling”, Sociological Methods and
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117. doi: 10.1177/0049124187016001004.
Blind, K. (2013), The Impact of Standardization and Standards on Innovation: Compendium of Evidence
on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention, Manchester Institute of Innovation
Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK.
Brandt, T. (2015), Potential and Challenges of Dairy Products in the Malaysian Market 2015; Market
Analysis with Focus on Import Regulation and Halal Certification in Malaysia, Malaysia-German
Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming (3rd ed.), Taylor and Francis, New York, NY.
Celaya, C., Zabala, S.M., P!erez, P., Medina, G., Mañas, J., Fouz, J., Alonso, R., Ant!on, A. and Agundo, N.
(2007), “The HACCP system implementation in small businesses of madrid’s community”, Food
Control, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 1314-1321.
Chen, E., Flint, S., Perry, P., Perry, M. and Lau, R. (2015), “Implementation of non-regulatory food safety
management schemes in New Zealand: a survey of the food and beverage industry”, Food
Control, Vol. 47, pp. 569-576.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Cook, D.A. and Artino, A.R. Jr (2016), “Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories”,
Medical Education, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 997-1014. doi: 10.1111/medu.13074.
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E. and Heward, W.L. (2007), Applied Behaviour Analysis, 2 Merrill Prentice Hall,
Columbus, OH.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-160.
Din, R.C. and Daud, S. (2014), “Critical success factors of MS 1500:2009 implementation”, Proceeding-
Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 121, pp. 96-103.
Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Bajracharya, A. (2003), “Organizational motivation and inter-
organizational interaction in construction innovation in Singapore”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 307-318.
Dunn, M., Glasgow, R., Handley, K., Kayondo, J.K., Kupfer, L., Khrisna, A., Sanchez, M., Smith, J., Tang,
S., Thran, N., Vydelingum, N. and Werder, E. (2012), Fundamentals of Implementation Research.
Measure Evaluation, US Agency for International Development, New York, NY.
Escanciano, C. and Santos-Vijande, M.L. (2014), “Implementation of ISO-22000 in Spain: obstacles and key
benefits”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 10, pp. 1581-1599. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2013-0034.
Fernando, Y., Ng, H.H. and Yusoff, Y. (2014), “Activities, motives and external factors influencing food
safety management system adoption in Malaysia”, Food Control, Vol. 41, pp. 69-75.
Fikru, M.G. (2014), “International certification in developing countries: the role of internal and external Motives for
institutional pressure”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 144, pp. 286-296.
participation
Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M. and Wallace, F. (2005), Implementation Research:
A Synthesis of Literature, National Implementation Research Network, North Carolina.
Glazer, J. and Rubinstein, A. (1998), “Motives and implementation: on the design of mechanisms to elicit
opinions”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 157-173.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective (7th ed.), Pearson Education, London.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2017), Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modelling, Sage.
Halal Development Corporation (HDC) (2021), Malaysia Halal Industry Report 2020, Ministry of
International Trade and Industry (MITI).
Hughes, R. and Malik, R. (2017), “The global halal industry: an overview”, Global Islamic Finance
Report, Vol. 13, pp. 140-158.
Jais, A.S. (2019), “Halal related Malaysian standards”, Halal Note Series-Halal Common, 1.
Jones, K. (2000), “No regrets about ISO certification”, Electrical Apparatus, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 35-37.
Jungmittag, A., Blind, K. and Mangelsdorf, A. (2011), The Economic Benefits of Standardization, DIN, Berlin.
Kalaskar, P.B. (2017), “Strategy implementation”, Slide Share, available at: www.slideshare.net/
kshipra007/unit-4-strategy-implementation
Latif, I.A., Mohamed, Z., Sharifuddin, J., Abdullah, A.M. and Ismail, M.M. (2014), “A comparative
analysis of global halal certification requirements”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 85-101.
Leung, H.K.N., Chan, K.C.C. and Lee, T.Y. (1999), “Costs and benefits of ISO 9000 series: a practical
study”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, p. 675.
doi: 10.1108/02656719910283362.
Manders, B. (2015), “Implementation and impact of ISO 9001”, Doctorate Thesis, Erasmus Research
Institute of Management (ERIM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherland.
Milios, K., Zoiopoulos, P.E., Pantouvakis, A., Mataragas, M. and Drosinos, E.H. (2013), “Techno-
Managerial factors related to food safety management system in food businesses”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 115 No. 9, pp. 1381-1399.
Morariu, J. and Emery, A. (2014), Do-It-Yourself Logic Models: Examples, Templates and Checklist,
Innovation Network, Richmond, British Columbia, available at: www.innonet.org/news-insights/
resources/do-it-yourself-logic-models-examples-templates-and-checklists/
Nawai, N., Nooh, M.N., Dali, N.R.S.M. and Mohammad, H. (2007), “An exploratory study on halal
branding among consumers in Malaysia: factor analysis technique”, Journal of Muamalat and
Islamic Finance Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Othman, R., Ahmad, Z.A. and Zailani, S. (2009), “The effect of institutional pressures in the malaysian
halal food industry”, International Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 80-84.
Othman, B., Shaarani, S.M. and Bahron, A. (2016), “The effect of halal requirement practices on
organization performance among food manufactures in Malaysia”, 23rd International Academic
Conference, Venice, ISBN 978-80-87927-23-6, IISES.
Peters, D.H., Tran, N.T. and Adam, T. (2013), Implementation Research in Health: A Practical Guide,
World Health Organization, Geneva.
Powell, B.J., Fernandez, M.E., Williams, N.J., Aarons, G.A., Beidas, R.S., Lewis, C.C., McHugh, S.M. and
Weiner, B.J. (2019), “Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research
agenda”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 7, p. 3, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003.
Preedy, V.R. and Watson, R.R. (2009), Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures, Springer,
Berlin.
IMEFM Rahim, M.M., Shanks, G. and Jagielska, I. (2010), “Organizational motivation for is adoption can serve
as a suitable theoretical lens to understand why different organizations implement is
differently”, Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PACIS) 2010 Proceeding, p. 192.
Rezai, G., Mohamed, Z. and Shamsudin, M.N. (2012), “Assessment of consumers’ confidence on halal
labelled manufactured food in Malaysia”, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanity,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Riaz, M.N. and Chaudry, M.M. (2003), Halal Food Production, CRC Press, Florida.
Samori, Z., Ishak, A.H. and Kassan, N.H. (2014), “Understanding the development of halal food
standard: suggestion for future research”, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,
Vol. 4 No. 6.
Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P. and Rodrigues, A.G. (2009), “ISO 9001 certification research: questions,
answers and approaches”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 38-58, doi: 10.1108/02656710910924161.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H. (2003), “Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit”, Measures Methods of Psychological
Research Online, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 23-74.
Shikoh, R. (2015), Halal Business: The New Global Market Paradigm, WIFE-AFF Roundtable,
Tokyo.
State of the Global Islamic Economy (SGIE) (2019), “Driving the islamic economy revolution 4.0”, The
7th Annual State of the Global Islamic Economy Report (2019/2020).
Sunarya, F.C.M., Busneti, I. and Adinugroho, T.P. (2015), Manfaat Ekonomi Standar, Badan
Standardisasi Nasional Publications, Jakarta.
Talib, M.S.A., Hamid, A.B.A. and Chin, T.A. (2015), “Motivation and limitation in implementing halal
certification: a pareto analysis”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117, pp. 2664-2705, doi: 10.1108/BFJ-
02-2015-005.
Talib, M.S.A., Sawari, S., Hamid, A.B.A. and Chin, T.A. (2016), “Emerging halal food market: an
institutional theory of halal certificate implementation”, Management Research Review, Vol. 39
No. 9, doi: 10.1108/MRR-06-2015-0147.
Thomson Reuter and Dinar Standard (2016), “State of the Global Islamic Economy Report 2015/16”,
SGIE Annual Report.
Ticu, D. (2013), “Theories of motivation in public policies process”, Social and Behavioural Sciences,
Vol. 92, pp. 925-929.
Tomaševi!c, I., Šmigi!c, N., D
- eki!c, I., Zari!c, V., Tomi!c, N. and Rajkovi!c, A. (2013), “Serbian meat industry:
a survey on food safety management systems implementation”, Food Control, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 25-30.
Weitzel, T., Beimborn, D. and Konig, W. (2006), “A unified economic model of standard diffusion: the
impact of standardization cost, network effects and network topology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30,
pp. 489-514.
Willy, A.M. (2016), “Malaysia seen as potential ‘Halal Industry champion”, The Edge Market
Newspaper, Kuala Lumpur.
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2014), “Implementation research toolkit: facilitator’s guide”,
Training in Tropical Disease of Poverty, WHO Library, Geneva.
Yapp, C. and Fairman, R. (2006), “Factors affecting food safety compliance within small and medium-
sized enterprises: implications for regulatory and enforcement strategies”, Food Control, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Zailani, S., Kanapathy, K., Iranmanesh, M. and Tieman, M. (2015), “Drivers of halal orientation strategy
among halal food firms”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 8, pp. 148-163. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-
2015-0027.
Further reading Motives for
Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. and Higgins, C.C. (2001), “Organizational research: determining appropriate participation
sample size in survey research”, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,
Vol. 19, pp. 43-50.
Bellina, N., Bullock, C., Duffy, P., Ferrero, M.L., Faughnan, L., Gallagher, S., McDonnell, F., Nolan, J.,
O’hAlmhain, L. and Paterson, E. (2002), Study into the Impact of Standardization: Final Report to
DG Enterprise, Impacts of Standards Users Group, Kuala Lumpur.
Department of Standards Malaysia (DSM) (2009), “Malaysian standard MS1500: 2009 halal food-
production, preparation, handling and storage-general guidelines (2nd revision)”.
Lawrence, T.B. and Shadnam, M. (2008), “Institutional theory”, The International Encyclopaedia of
Communication, in Donsbach, W. (Ed.), Blackwell Publishing Ltd., New Jersey, Vol. 5,
pp. 2288-2293.
Lorenzi, N.M. and Riley, R.T. (2000), “Managing change: an overview”, Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 116-124.
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) (2014), “MITI annual report”, available at: www.
miti.gov.my/miti/resources/MITI_Report_20141.pdf
Penrose, J.M. (2000), “The role of perception in crisis planning”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 155-171.
Richard, S.W. (2004), Institutional Theory in Encyclopaedia of Social Theory, Ritzer, G. (Ed.), Sage
Publication, Los Angeles.
Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) (2007), “SMEs – increasing contribution to the economy”,
Annual Report 2006/2007, SME Corporation.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2012), Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.), Person Education,
London.

Corresponding author
Irwandi Jaswir can be contacted at: irwandi@iium.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com