Contents AJSTD 31(2) 2014

 

Embed or link this publication

Description

ASEAN Journal on Science & technology for Development

Popular Pages


p. 1

Vol. 31, No. 2, 2014 ISSN 0217-5460 J STd A Journal of the ASEAN Committee on Science & Technology V ASEAN Journal on Science & Technology for Development

[close]

p. 2

ABOUT THE ASEAN JOURNAL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT The ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development is a refereed Journal of the ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology (ASEAN COST). It reports on science and technology policies and programmes, and research activities undertaken by COST in support of social and economic development of the ASEAN member countries. The coverage is focused but not limited to, the main areas of activity of ASEAN COST, namely, Biotechnology, Non-Conventional Energy Research, Materials Science and Technology, Marine Sciences, Meteorology and Geophysics, Food Science and Technology, Microelectronics and Information Technology, Space Applications, and Science and Technology Policy, Infrastructure and Resources Development. ABOUT THE ASEAN COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology was established to strengthen and enhance the capability of ASEAN in science and technology so that it can promote economic development and help achieve a high quality of life for its people. Its terms and reference are: ●● To generate and promote development of scientific and technological expertise and manpower in the ASEAN region; ●● To facilite and accelerate the transfer of scientific and technological development among ASEAN countries and from more advanced regions of the world to the ASEAN region; ●● To provide support and assistance in the development and application of research discoveries and technological practices of endogenous origin for the common good, and in the more effective use of natural resources available in the ASEAN region and in general; and ●● To provide scientific and technological support towards the implementation of existing and future ASEAN projects. Information on the activities of ASEAN COST can be obtained at its website http://www.asnet.org DISCLAIMER While every effort is made to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appears in the Journal, articles and advertisements in the Journal are the sole responsibility of the contributor or advertiser concerned. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Editors, the Editorial Board nor the Editorial Advisory Committee. The Editors, the Editorial Board and the Editorial Advisory Committee and their respective employees, officers and agents accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the consequences of any inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement. © Copyright 2013: ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form of by any means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.

[close]

p. 3

Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief School of Chemical Sciences and Food Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Prof Emeritus Dr Md Ikram Mohd Said Editorial Board Members Malaysia Dr Ahmad Ibrahim Assoc. Prof Tan Tin Wee Academy of Sciences Malaysia Prof Abdul Halim Shaari Prof Thong Kwai Lin Department of Biochemistry, National University of Singapore Thailand Prof Narongrit Sombatsompop Faculty of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia Institute of Biological Science, Faculty of Science/UMBIO Cluster, Institute of Graduate Studies, University of Malaya Brunei Darussalam Rosita Abdullah School of Energy, Environment and Materials, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi Prof Prida Wibulswas Cambodia Pal Des President, Shinawatra University Senior Special Duties Officer, Ministry of Development Assoc. Prof Zohrah Sulaiman Vice-Rector, Royal University of Phnom Penh Indonesia Dr Warsito Purwo Taruno Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Universiti Brunei Darussalam Myanmar Dr Zaw Min Aung Minister, Special Advisor for Research and Cooperation Lao PDR Kongsaysy Phommaxay Director General, Department of Technical and Vocational Education, Ministry of Science and Technology Philippines Dr Carol M. Yorobe Acting Director General, Cabinet Office of the Ministry of Science and Technology Keonakhone Saysuliane Undersecretary for Regional Operations, Department of Science and Technology Singapore Assoc. Prof Ong Sim Heng Acting Director General, Department of Information Technology Vietnam Dr Mai Ha Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore Director General, Ministry of Science and Technology

[close]

p. 4

Editorial Advisory Panel Brunei Darussalam Eddie Sunny Lao PDR Dr Maydom Chanthanasinh Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Development Myanmar Dr Ko Ko Oo Deputy Minister, Ministry of Science and Technology, National COST Chairman Singapore Prof Low Teck Seng National COST Chairman, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Science and Technology Cambodia Dr Om Romny National COST Chairman, Managing Director, Agency for Science, Technology and Research Thailand Assoc. Prof Weerapong Pairsuwan Director, Institute of Technology of Cambodia Philippines Dr Graciano P. Yumul Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology Malaysia Dr Noorul Ainur Mohd Nur Undersecretary for R&D, Department of Science and Technology Indonesia Prof Syamsa Ardisasmita, DEA National COST Chairman, Secretary General, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Vietnam Dr Le Dinh Tien Deputy Minister for Science and Technology Network, National COST Chairman Deputy Minister for Science and Technology, National COST Chairman Editor/Technical Editor Ex-Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy of Sciences Malaysia Amirul Ikhzan Amin Zaki Kanesan Solomalai Production Manager Universiti Putra Malaysia Kamariah Mohd Saidin Publisher Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

[close]

p. 5

Contents ASEAN J. Sc. Technol. Dev. Volume 31(2), 2014 Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia S-P. Loke, K. Khalizani, S. Rohati and A. Sayaka Generalized Fuzzy Filters in Ordered Ternary Semigroups M. J. Khan, A. Khan and N. H. Sarmin Effects of Oil Palm (Elais guineensis) Fruit Extracts on Glucose Uptake Activity of Muscle, Adipose and Liver Cells S. Faez, H. Muhajir, I. Amin and A. Zainah Biodiesel Production from Castor Oil and Its Application in Diesel Engine S. Ismail, S. A. Abu, R. Rezaur and H. Sinin Development of Suspended Particulate Matter Empirical Equation for Tropics Estuary from Landsat ETM+ Data Z. Razak, A. Zuhairi, S. Shahbudin and Y. Rosnan 49 62 83 90 101

[close]

p. 6



[close]

p. 7

ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Dev.,  31(2): 49 – 61 Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia S-P. LOKE *, K. KHALIZANI , S. ROHATI AND A. SAYAKA 1 2 1 3 The changes of global environmental conditions have placed great challenges to governments and societies. While it is not easy for the companies to go green, we need a renewed concern for our environment in order to revive the nation’s economic growth, social cohesion and ecological balances. This article identifies the drivers and barriers for the business industry to adopt green practices. A total of 571 business companies from the Perak State participated in this study. Four variables: (1) Regulations (β=0.159, p<0.05); (2) Social responsibility (β=0.201, p<0.05); (3) Pro-environmental organizational culture (β=0.389, p<0.01); and (4) Organizational supports (β=0.369, p<0.01) were found to significantly affect the company’s green initiatives. The results indicated that the main internal barriers were: it lacked of financial resources (66.2%) and skilled staff (63.9%); whereas the main external barriers were: the penalty imposed were not severe enough for making any extra efforts (64.8%) and the penalty was light for violation of environmental regulations (63.2%). This research had implications for the academics, practitioners and policy makers. It provided greater insights into the green practices in Malaysian firms. The research findings also urged the local governments to greatly enhance regulatory scrutiny on the production and manufacturing industries. Key words: Green practices; going green; environmental strategy; regulations; social responsibility; barriers; industries Today, all nations — regardless of whether they are developed economies or emerging economies — are challenged with highly visible ecological problems (Hart 2000). Pollution and climate changes have impacted not only the physical environment, but also the terrestrial and marine ecosystem as well as the society at large. While rapid economic development and population growth are some of the root causes, business organizations are often blamed mainly for these environmental problems. Malaysia has become a more polluted country as reported by the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2014. This CCPI generally measures the climate protection performance of 61 countries aiming to enhance transparency in international climate politics. Malaysia together with countries like China and Singapore, appeared in the bottom-ranked group of newly industrialised countries for being one of the largest carbon dioxide emitters (Figure 1). Although Malaysia has climbed from 55th position in 2013 to 51st this year, among the ASEAN member countries including India, China, Japan and Korean Republic, it has scored the lowest position based on the score of CCPI (Figure 2). Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Campus, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 36210 Bota, Perak 2 Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Kedah Campus, 08400 Merbok, Kedah 3 Institute Darul Rizduan, B-1-9, Greentown Suria, Jalan Dato’ Seri Ahmad Said, 30450 Ipoh, Perak * Corresponding author (e-mail: lokesp@gmail.com; loke4529@perak.uitm.edu.my) 1

[close]

p. 8

ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 31(2), 2014 Figure 1. Climate Changes Performance Index for Newly Industrialized Countries (CCPI 2014). Figure 2. Climate Changes Performance Index for ASEAN countries including India, China, Japan and Korean (CCPI 2014). According to Perry and Singh (2001), the environmental problems of Malaysia are concentrated in the main centres of economic activity such as Kuala Lumpur, Klang Valley, Penang and Johor. A study conducted almost two decades ago on 3889 Malaysian manufacturing industries revealed that industries with foreign investment 50 dominant in electronics and chemicals had higher compliance rate under the respective regulations (Perry & Singh 2001). Although as early as in 1974, the regulation framework was already in place to mitigate the industrial pollution problems, the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were found to be limited.

[close]

p. 9

S-P Loke et al.: Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia Chen, Shih, Shyur, and Wu (2012) argued that the increased public attention of sustainability and environmental issues and those regulations such as Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment and Eco-design Requirement for Energy Using Product were established. Undoubtedly, the proliferation of research on renewable energy and environmental protection is largely due to the impacts of climate change and declining fossil fuel reserves. Hong, Roh and Rawski (2012) added that there is an urgency for firms to be responsive towards ecological or natural environment in order to sustain and preserve the wealth of natural resources for our next generations. LITERATURE REVIEW Businesses have increasingly embraced green concept in their marketing efforts (Raska & Shaw 2012). David (2012) added that consumers today are attracted to businesses that preserve nature’s ecological balance and foster a clean and healthy environment. Thus, any green initiative should be sufficiently visible for gaining attention from the customers as there is an increased demand in green practices from them (Andic, Yurt & Baltacioglu 2012). For example, ElTayeb, Zailani and Jayaraman (2010) found that customer pressure is one of the drivers for green purchasing in Malaysia. The triple focus on green productivity — environment, quality, and profitability — is aimed to ensure long-term survival of the firms (Diabat & Govidan 2011). More interestingly, smart companies could actually use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantages. The business world has created numerous opportunities of innovation which firms have become the leading of sustainability movement in many ways. Environmental leaders see their business through an environmental lens, finding 51 opportunities to cut costs, reduce risk, drive revenues, and enhance intangible value. They build deeper connections with customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Their strategies reveal a new kind of sustained competitive advantages that we call Eco-Advantage (Esty & Winston 2009, p.14). As highlighted by the authors of Green to Gold, the eco-advantage mindset is a powerful motivator to help companies to face challenges and find new ways to seize advantages. In fact, the Green Wave has swept across the business world forcing the companies to react and these trends and forces will continue to evolve. Being eco-efficient is one of the crucial determinants to survive in a cost-conscious world. Such restructured landscape requires a new refined business strategy. Some companies and sectors have responded faster than others. Companies must be creative to break out of the pack. This is because those that do not will struggle to remain competitive in the marketplace. The sustainability and sustainable development defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Loucks, Martens & Cho, 2010). Similarly, Kleindorfer, Singhal, and Wassenhove (2005) stated that sustainability is the co-ordination of resources in meeting people’s wants for a satisfying life, besides the necessity to respect the bottom line of three “Ps”, which are planet, people and profit. Environmental sustainability is related to the proper and efficient use of natural resources over time whereas the firm sustainability refers to its ability to gain long-term returns. These two concepts are closely related because environmental principles and guidelines can generate green innovations which are in fact, reducing cost, rising up the productivity and increasing the companies’ competitive

[close]

p. 10

ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 31(2), 2014 capabilities. Therefore, many different theories and empirical research have been dedicated to explore on the implementation and effects of green practices such as eco-design, cleaner production practices and waste management, environmental purchasing, and green/ reverse logistics. In Malaysia, new controls on hazardous waste have been added to the Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 1996 (Perry & Singh (2001). Sani (1999) stated that this amendment has included substantial increases to penalties for a range of environmental offenses as to exert compliance pressure on the industry. Similarly, the Malaysian government has demonstrated an increased willingness to accept outside influence on environmental performance. For example, the international criticisms on domestic forestry have resulted in the establishment of the National Timber Certification Centre with the industry partners in order to create the Malaysian Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. Perry and Singh (2001) added that the growing public awareness and media coverage have placed increased emphasis on these environmental issues in the Seventh Malaysia Five-Year Plan. Indeed, we must stabilize and reduce the environmental burdens in order to achieve sustainability. Under the New Economic Model, the Malaysian government has embarked on the green initiatives as one of the nation’s new economic drivers and transforming the country to become a high income nation by year 2020. While driving Malaysia towards greater economic development, these initiatives provide a valuable framework on conservation and protection of the nation’s heritage and natural environment. Meanwhile, the National Green Technology Policy was successfully launched by the Prime Minister of Malaysia on 24 July 2009. The National Green Technology Policy is built on 52 four pillars — Energy, Environment, Economy and Social. Green Technology is aimed to be the key driver in accelerating the national economy and promoting sustainable development in Malaysia. The Malaysia Green Technology Corporation or known as GreenTech Malaysia has been striking not only to develop green technology roadmap and standards, but also to promote an environmental friendly living culture at large. We know anecdotally better environment management strategy enhances the competitiveness of a firm. The environmental mismanaging, however, can damage the brand reputation, destroy its competitiveness and sometimes can knock off the value of the company overnight. As such, a more positive attitude towards environmental issues, e.g. the adoption of green manufacturing would institutionalize the companies’ awareness on environmental concerns which could bring indirect benefits through better quality of their manufacturing operations. Businesses face challenges in implementation of environmental initiatives especially when striking the balance of profitability and corporate social responsibility. Pressures came from various sources so that their products are environmental friendly (ElTayeb et al. 2010). According to Orsato (2006), the difficult aspect of environmental initiatives is the basic reasoning on environmental protection because such a move is strongly known as a public good. Although literature demonstrates that effective environmental management generate eco-advantages for the companies, Esty and Winston (2009) argued that capturing these advantages require expertise and capabilities to master the whole range of related issues. Often, the company has struggled to push for green effort due to private costs of prevention and clean up which lead to higher operational costs and thus reduces its industrial competitiveness (Porter & Van Der Linde 2000).

[close]

p. 11

S-P Loke et al.: Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia The environmental effort does not always produce superior results. They may fail because of poor planning, an absence of commitment and not having the right people in the key roles. Some of the business strategies did not work well due to focusing on the wrong issues, marketplace is misunderstood, the customer responses towards green products are interpreted wrongly and therefore the implementation on the environmental thinking in the business was not successful. Nevertheless, the consciousness of issues on environmental sustainability and the need to comply with the standards are critical to drive companies to embark on greater environmental commitment. However, there is a clear lack of empirical research in emerging economies. We need a greater understanding on the awareness of business industry’s environmental management strategy particularly within the Malaysia setting. Based on this notion, the objective of this study was two-fold: (1) To examine the factors influencing the business firms’ attitude towards environmental commitment, and (2) To identify the barriers that inhibit them to go green. Understanding the fundamental factors for business practitioners to go green is indeed crucial because these identified key factors can serve as a springboard to better promote the firm’s commitment to go green. It is hoped that the research findings on sustainable development practices can shed lights for the nation especially for the State Governments to better manage the balance between economic growth and ecological sustainability. METHODOLOGY Research Design and Sampling The study was designed to test a structural model whether these variables namely Regulations, Social Resposbility, Customer Pressure, Pro-Environmental Organizational Culture and Organizational Supports would lead to a greater level of company’s commitment to 53 venture into green initiatives. These variables were identified through a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. The research instrument was adapted from previous studies. A focus group was conducted with six industry panels to validate the questionnaire before data collection. In this study, managers and executives from the manufacturing firms located within the state of Perak were targeted. The firms were selected from the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers Directory 2013. Manufacturing firms were chosen because operations of these industrial companies are frequently and directly related to the environment — from pollution control to the most innovative green initiatives. Questionnaires were personally handdelivered to a sample of 1000 randomly selected companies located in the state of Perak. The researchers also contacted SME Corp. (Perak office) and Federal of Manufacturing Malaysia (FMM) (Perak Branch) to seek for their members’ participation in this study. Data collection was carried out from August to October 2013. Based on these 1000 questionnaires originally distributed, a total of 571 of them were found completed and usable, yielding a response rate of 57.1%. Profiling of the Participating Firms There were a total of 571 companies (FMM directory and SMEs in Perak) which participated in this research: 561 manufacturer and 10 services companies. Majority of the participating companies were from the electrical, machinery and apparatus industries (31.2 per cent) followed by the food products and beverage industries (24.5 per cent) (Figure 3). The participating companies mostly concentrated their businesses on both local and international markets with 63.8%. The

[close]

p. 12

ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 31(2), 2014 40 30 Percent 20 10 4.0 Food products and beverages Wood products, cork, plating material 6.5 Paper and paper products 4.6 Energy and fuel 7.4 5.1 Rubber and plastic products 7.7 4.2 Electrical machinery and apparatus Basic metal, machinery and equipment Communication equipment and apparatus 0.7 Motor vehicles, trailers and semi trailers 1.2 Furniture 0.2 Recycling 2.8 Pharmaceuticals 24.5 31.2 0 Figure 3. Industrial category of the participating firms. participating companies were Malaysian-owned firms (78.6%) whereas the foreign-owned firms accounted for approximately 20 percent, and joint ventures accounted for less than 1 percent. Also, we found that most of these companies fell into the category of having workers between 21 to 100 employees and between 101 to 200 employees with 28.7% and 27.8%, respectively. In addition, when the responding companies were asked to indicate their certification of ISO for quality and environmental management, it was found that adoption for quality was much greater as compared to environmental management such as ISO 14001 (Environmental Management System (Specifications with guidance for use). 54 Chemical and chemical products Data Analysis Before conducting the analysis for structural modelling, the validity and the relability of the survey instrument were generated. Data used for final data analysis was 562 after the data with outliners were eliminated. As shown in Table 1, the results indicated that all values for the validity and reliability tests were within the acceptable range. Except for item RG6, all factor loadings for each indicator were >0.5 indicating a high convergent validity. All cronbach alpha values were >0.70 demostrating a high consistency of the items used to measure each variable (i.e. regulations, social responsibility, customer pressure, pro-environmental organizational cultures,

[close]

p. 13

S-P Loke et al.: Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia Table 1. Results for validity and reliability test (n=562). Variables and items Regulations Indicators RG1 RG2 RG3 RG4 RG5 RG6 SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 SR6 SR7 CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 PE1 PE2 PE3 PE4 PE5 PE6 PE7 OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4 OS5 OS6 OS7 GRI1 GRI2 GRI3 GRI4 GRI5 Factor loadings 0.69 0.78 0.71 0.66 0.52 0.49 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.70 0.59 0.53 0.63 0.61 0.70 0.67 0.61 0.58 0.52 0.65 0.66 0.72 0.73 0.51 0.57 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.64 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.59 0.63 0.59 Total items 6 Cronbach Alpha 0.807 Social responsibility 7 0.811 Customer Pressure 6 0.801 Pro-environmental organizational cultures 7 0.814 Organizational support 7 0.800 Green responsive initiatives (GRI) 5 0.782 Note: GRI measures the company’s willingness and current efforts to go green. 55

[close]

p. 14

ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 31(2), 2014 organizational supports and green responsive initiative. Thus, it was concluded that the survey instrument for measuring the variables were valid and reliable. Structural Model Evaluation Using the SPSS AMOS, the structural model was generated to examine these critical factors: regulations, social responsibility, pro-environmental organizational culture, organizational support and customer pressure on the company’s proactiveness in environmental commitment. In this study, multiple fit indices were used: (1) chi-square (χ2); statistics to the degree of freedom (df); (2) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI); and (3) RMSEA (Root Mean Square error of approximation) as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). The goodness of fit index measures if the model was adequately fit. Figure 4. The path diagram for structural model (n=562). 56

[close]

p. 15

S-P Loke et al.: Drivers and Barriers for Going Green: Perceptions from the Business Practitioners in Malaysia The χ2 statistics to df should be less than 3; goodness of fit indexes such as GFI, CFI and NFI should be as close to 1.00. The error indexes such as RMSEA and RMR should be as minimum as possible and values ranging 0.05 to 0.08 were deemed accepted. As shown in Figure 4, the results of the structural model analysis was deemed to have a reasonable good fit for the data collected [chi-square (χ2) = 1872.222; degree of freedom (df) = 6338; chi-square (χ 2 )/ df = 2.934; CFI = 0.835; RMSEA = 0.059]. Drivers for Business to Go Green The results have revealed that that only four variables: (1) Regulations (β=0.159, p<0.05); (2) Social responsibility (β=0.201, p<0.05); (3) Pro-environmental organizational culture (β=0.389, p<0.01); and (4) Organizational support (β=0.369, p<0.01) had significantly impacted the company’s Green responsive initiative (GRI). However, customer pressure was not the driver that motivated the business industries in Perak to adopt go green initiatives. Barriers for Business to Go Green As illustrated in Table 2, a total of 18 barriers that determining the low commitments towards the environmental protection were identified. These 18 factors were then divided into both internal and external barriers. The internal barriers were grouped into three categories: (1) Resources, (2) Implementation, and (3) Attitudes and company cultures. In this study, both human and financial resources were Table 2. Internal and external barriers to go green. Resources Internal Barriers ●● Excessive financial constraints. ●● Lack of management commitment and/or supports. ●● Lack of engagement/ commitment from staff. ●● Lack of time and resources to focus on environmental issues. ●● Insufficient training regarding the importance of proenvironmental behaviour. ●● Lack of availability of skilled staff. External Barriers Implementation ●● Unclear leadership strategy and goals towards environmental issues. ●● Unclear responsibility regarding who is in charge of environmental policy/ practice. ●● Lack of clarity among line managers regarding whether they are responsible for environmental issues. Attitudes and company culture ●● Focuses on cost savings. ●● Prioritizes on commercial needs above environmental concerns. ●● Complies with minimum criteria set by the relevant authority in order to lower the overall costs. ●● Low awareness on environmental issues. ●● All pro-environmental efforts were way too expensive to carry out. ●● Lack of organizational concern for environmental sustainability. ●● Insufficient incentives in place to encourage environmental behavior. ●● Penalty for violation of government environmental legislations was light. ●● Penalty for violation of government environmental legislations was not severe enough for making any extra efforts. 57

[close]

Comments

no comments yet