Management DecisionExamining stakeholders’ influence on environmental responsibility of micro, small andmedium-sized enterprises and its outcomesMehran Nejati Azlan Amran Noor Hazlina Ahmad

Article information:To cite this document:Mehran Nejati Azlan Amran Noor Hazlina Ahmad , (2014),"Examining stakeholders’ influence onenvironmental responsibility of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and its outcomes", ManagementDecision, Vol. 52 Iss 10 pp. 2021 - 2043Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2014-0109

Downloaded on: 27 June 2015, At: 20:57 (PT)References: this document contains references to 135 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 341 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Grigoris Giannarakis, George Konteos, Nikolaos Sariannidis, (2014),"Financial, governance andenvironmental determinants of corporate social responsible disclosure", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss10 pp. 1928-1951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0296Sait Gürbüz, Faruk #ahin, Onur Köksal, (2014),"Revisiting of Theory X and Y: A multilevel analysis of theeffects of leaders’ managerial assumptions on followers’ attitudes", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 10pp. 1888-1906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2013-0357Xiao Duan, Zhan-ming Jin, (2014),"Positioning decisions within strategic groups: The influences of strategicdistance, diversification and media visibility", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 10 pp. 1858-1887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2013-0415

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:231834 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Examining stakeholders’influence on environmental

responsibility of micro, smalland medium-sized enterprises

and its outcomesMehran Nejati and Azlan Amran

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang,Malaysia, and

Noor Hazlina AhmadSchool of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),

Penang, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – Given the uprising interest in the environmental responsibility issues among smallbusinesses, the purpose of this paper is to design to probe into the relationship between stakeholders’influence and environmental responsibility of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs),and its consequent outcomes in an emerging economy.Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 110 MSME owners participated in this study. Datawere collected by means of questionnaire designed to measure the 12 constructs of focus. In order totest the hypotheses and examine the relationships proposed in the research framework, structuralequation modelling was performed using SmartPLS.Findings – This study revealed that among the primary stakeholders, only employees and customerssignificantly influenced environmental responsibility practices of MSMEs. Besides, it was found thatenvironmental responsibility results in financial improvements and better relations with employeesand customers.Research limitations/implications – This study is limited to MSMEs in Malaysia. Despite therelatively low response rate, which is common in MSME research, the geographic and sectordistribution of samples provides a basis for generalizability of the results.Practical implications – Since many MSME owners/managers are sceptical about the benefits ofenvironmental practices, the findings of this study provided empirical support from an emergingeconomy about the positive outcomes of environmental practices.Social implications – By examining the key determinants that foster environmental practices inMSMEs, the current study provides important insights for policy makers to encourage MSMEs toinitiate such responsible practices, which can lead to environmental preservation.Originality/value – Other than enriching a systems-based view of firms’ environmental behaviour,this study empirically tests a research framework on role of stakeholders in determiningenvironmental responsibility of small firms and their outcomes on firms’ performance.

Keywords Malaysia, Social responsibility, Small firms, Environmental responsibility,Stakeholders’ influence, Micro, Small and medium-sized enterprises

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Management DecisionVol. 52 No. 10, 2014

pp. 2021-2043r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747DOI 10.1108/MD-02-2014-0109

Dr Mehran Nejati is a recipient of Post-Doctoral Fellowship from Universiti Sains Malaysia(USM).

2021

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

IntroductionThe surge of global interest pertaining to the environmental agenda has profoundlychanged the way businesses operate, be it small or large. Although previous studiesshow that many small business owners believe that their firms have little impact on theenvironment (Rowe and Hollingsworth, 1996; Lee, 2000), the aggregate environmentalimpacts of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) cannot be ignored.Apart from their significant contributions to the world economy, MSMEs are thoughtto be responsible for around 60 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions and 70 per centof all pollution (Parker et al., 2009). This calls for serious effort to look into the factorsthat fosters environmental practices in MSMEs. Most of the current literature hasconcentrated on the roles of competitiveness, legitimation and individual concern(Bansal and Roth, 2000) as the main determinants of environmental responsiveness.Yet, despite the close relationship between MSMEs and their stakeholders (Graaflandand Smid, 2004; Perrini, 2006; Fisher et al., 2009), the role of stakeholders’ influence infostering environmental practices of small firms has been underestimated. Indeed,MSMEs are highly dependent on their key stakeholders for survival and they meaneverything to small businesses (Fuller and Lewis, 2002).

Previous studies have mainly investigated the impact of barriers (Taylor et al., 2003;Cote et al., 2006), perceived costs and benefits of implementation (Ilomaki and Melanen,2001; European Commission, 2002), regulations (Hillary, 2004; Williamson et al., 2006;Masurel, 2007), education (Cloquell-Ballester et al., 2008) and financial incentives(Clement and Hansen, 2003) on MSME’s environmental practices and despite fewattempts (e.g. Gerrans and Hutchinson, 2000; Gadenne et al., 2009), the potential role ofstakeholders on environmental responsibility of small firms has been ignored inliterature. Additionally, previous scholars argue that MSMEs need more convincingbusiness cases in order to ensure that improved environmental responsibility leads toimproved performance of the firm (Roberts et al., 2006; Revell and Blackburn, 2007).Hence, understanding how SMEs perceive and practice social responsibility is vitaleven for large corporations, which rationalizes the study of social responsibility amongSMEs in every country (Coppa and Sriramesh, 2013).

While empirical tests have shown a correlation between the environmental effort ofthe managers of SMEs and organizational operating efficiency, profit and businessimage (Naffziger et al., 2003), some researchers argue that MSMEs apply informal CSRpolicies (Perrini et al., 2007; Russo and Tencati, 2009), also known as “silent CSR”(Jenkins, 2004), with little tendency to report their practices to stakeholders that mightneutralize the expected positive outcomes of such practices. The current researchaims at providing insights into the relationship between stakeholders’ influence andenvironmental responsibility of MSMEs, and its consequent outcomes from an emergingeconomy, namely, Malaysia. More specifically, we intend to answer the following researchquestions:

RQ1. How do stakeholders influence MSMEs’ environmental responsibility?

RQ2. What are the outcomes of practicing environmental responsibility byMSMEs?

The theoretical foundation of this study is based on Wood’s (1991) corporate socialperformance (CSP) model, which is a revision of Carroll’s (1991) CSR Hierarchy.The current study also uses stakeholder theory to explain its findings. Overall, this

2022

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

paper makes four important contributions. First, we enrich a systems-based viewof firms’ environmental behaviour by examining the relationship between keystakeholder groups and environmental practices of MSMEs. Second, we empiricallytest and validate Wood’s (1991) CSP model in the context of MSMEs. Third, we improveWood’s CSP model by addressing one of the main critiques addressed to it (Waddock,2004) through considering the significance of stakeholder impacts. Finally, byempirically investigating MSMEs from Malaysia, which is a relatively underexploredcountry, we extend the geographic reach of empirical research on emergingeconomies.

Literature reviewThe rise in the awareness of the triple bottom line demands organizations worldwide tomull over not only economic objectives, but also social, and environmental sustainability.Businesses should be cognizant of the fact that past economic success is no longer aguarantee of future success and that social and environmental motives are now being putin the business spotlight. Due to the growing global concerns about the depletion ofnatural resources and reductions in biodiversity (e.g. Hawken et al., 1999; Wilson, 2002;Keijzers, 2005), both academics and practitioners are showing more interest to seek thebest ways of engaging firms in environmental initiatives (Elkington, 1997; Holliday et al.,2002; Laszlo, 2003; Dunphy et al., 2007). Notwithstanding this extensive interest, only afew studies have applied inferential statistics and large random samples of firms(including MSMEs) to test hypotheses on their environmental behaviours (e.g. Russo andFouts, 1997; Perrini et al., 2007; Gadenne et al., 2009) and researchers argue that most ofthe empirical studies to date have focused on large businesses (Van Marrewijk, 2003;Valor, 2005; Nejati and Amran, 2009). While there is a lack of significant study on theenvironmental responsibility at the micro-level firms, some previous studies (e.g.Groundwork, 1995, 1998) show that despite the large savings that could be obtainedthrough embarking on environmental improvements and practices, many small businessowners doubted that investment in environmental improvements would result in benefitsto their business. This indicates the difficulty of engaging MSMEs in corporateresponsibility issues (Roberts et al., 2006). Besides, there are limited empirical studieswhich investigate some of the assumptions as why some companies pay attention to theenvironment whereas others do not (Jamali et al., 2008; Gadenne et al., 2009).

Empirical studies have found that there is a lack of commitment by many smallbusiness owner-managers to reduce their firms’ negative environmental impact (Revelland Rutherfoord, 2003). Many MSME owner-managers find no reason for their firm toengage in environmental improvement since they perceive its impact on the environmentto be minimal (Tilley, 1999; Hillary, 2000; Drake et al., 2004; Pimenova and van der Vorst,2004; Revell and Blackburn, 2007; Bradford and Fraser, 2008). Besides, often MSMEowner-managers consider national and local government to be in charge of leadingenvironmental issues (Revell and Rutherfoord, 2003) and argue them to be moreimportant for larger firms (Drake et al., 2004). Additionally, some research studies showthat many small businesses consider the environment to be a “peripheral” rather thancore business issue (Peters and Turner, 2004; Redmond et al., 2008). Some scholarsalso argue that MSMEs are uncertain about the business benefits of environmentalimprovement and hence only make these improvements if there is a reduction in theirbusiness costs (Hillary, 2000; Revell and Blackburn, 2007). The relationship betweensmall business and social responsibility should be nuance and depending on the numbersof conditions which are characterized by issues of social responsibility, personality of the

2023

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

owner, organizational capabilities and resources and contextual factors (Lepoutre andHeene, 2006).

As for the Malaysian context, despite the growing interest among researcherson CSR issues and growing publications in CSR-SME context (e.g. Siwar and Harizan,2008; Nejati and Amran, 2009; Rachagan and Satkunasingam, 2009), socialresponsibility is argued to be at infancy level in Malaysia (Ahmad and Rahim, 2003;Ramasamy and Ting, 2004) and no significant prior study has investigated the role ofstakeholders in fostering environmental practices of Malaysian MSMEs. A study byElijido-Ten (2008) that attempted to understand the stakeholders’ influences andenvironmental disclosure preference revealed that stakeholders’ pressure is temperedby the level of significance placed on certain environmental issues. Nonetheless, theimportance of MSMEs in Malaysia can never be understated as they account for about99 per cent of total business establishments in Malaysia, 31 per cent of the nation’sgross domestic product, 56 per cent of the total employment, and 19 per cent of exports(Bank Negara Malaysia, 2006; SME Corp, 2010).

Theoretical framework and hypotheses developmentUnderstanding the environmental behaviour of MSMEs is very important given thatenvironment is one of the three pillars which underpins the “business contribution”to sustainable development (i.e. environment, economy and society). Despite a fewattempts to articulate the determinants of environmental responsibility in smallbusinesses (e.g. Williamson et al., 2006; Gadenne et al., 2009), there is a general lackof existing work on the causal drivers of small firms’ environmental behaviour. Thisstudy focuses on the prediction of environmental practices of MSMEs which can resultin identifying the key determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship, defined as“leading the firm in making balanced choices between profit, people and planet”(Masurel, 2007, p. 191). This study applied Wood’s (1991) CSP model as the basis of theresearch framework. The model is an extension of Carroll’s (1991) CSR Hierarchywhich examines the principles for motivating responsible behaviours as the product ofa business firm’s particular configuration of principles of social responsibility,processes of social responsiveness, as well as observable outcomes as they relate to thefirm’s societal relationships (Jamali, 2008). Besides, stakeholder theory has been usedto explain the relationship among the variables in the proposed framework, due toseveral reasons. As discussed by Jenkins (2006), there is evidence that stakeholdertheory may provide a framework in which SMEs and CSR can be better understood.In addition, considering the nature of MSMEs which are closely linked with theirstakeholders due to smaller size, the stakeholder perspective encourages a harmoniouscommercial and social relationship with different stakeholders, which is an essentialasset to managers (Post et al., 2002). Moreover, the use of stakeholder theory has beenshown as a helpful theoretical framework within which SMEs themselves are able tomake sense of their activities (Murillo and Lozano, 2006).

Stakeholders’ influence on environmental responsibilityStakeholder theory is a systems-based view of the organization and its environmentwhich assumes that all stakeholders have an intrinsic worth that should be consideredduring managerial decision making. Stakeholder theory provides a basis forunderstanding why organizations practice environmental responsibility as a result ofstakeholders’ influences and demands. While legislation requires some small firmsto institute formal programmes to mitigate their environmental impacts, stakeholders

2024

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

can also encourage or put pressure on MSMEs to practice environmental responsibility.Given the growing environmental problems throughout the world and increasedenvironmental awareness among stakeholders, it is expected that key stakeholders forMSMEs would be more concerned about the environmental behaviour of firms, hencefavouring environmentally responsible firms. A scrutiny of the available Malaysianstudies has proved that there is pressure from stakeholders as majority of thecompanies admitted that environmental reporting is basically driven by the stakeholders’concerns (Sumiani et al., 2007).

In line with the context of MSMEs in Malaysia which rely heavily on stakeholders toearn their legitimacy, obtain the license to operate, and ensure their survival, thisresearch hypothesizes that:

H1. Stakeholders’ influence significantly impacts MSMEs’ environmentalresponsibility.

This study considered primary stakeholders in its investigation, which is defined asthose stakeholders who are crucial to the survival and well-being of an organization(Clarkson, 1995) which include employees, customers, community, suppliers andshareholders. Noting that stakeholders’ concern is important given the findings thatverified the possession of “power to influence” among the stakeholders (Elijido-Ten,2008; Sumiani et al., 2007), it could be conjectured that companies will embracepractices that are of concern to their key stakeholders.

Employees are considered one of the primary stakeholders which hold significantpower to influence the way businesses operate (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1983). Thereis empirical evidence that demonstrate the highest disclosure on the employeeinformation among Malaysian companies which provides a strong evidence of theirinfluence on the way companies operate (Yusri and Amran, 2012). Thus, the followingsub-hypothesis is developed:

H1a. Employees’ influence positively impacts MSMEs’ environmental responsibility.

The advancement of media and technology has allowed information to reach a widerange of customers quickly and easily (Tang et al., 2013). In addition, the emergence ofthe social media has become an enabler for customers to communicate freely withoutbeing recognized. Customer now holds the power to influence a wider range ofcommunity via social media, hence environmentally cautious customers couldpropagate for boycotting of companies that do not adhere to environmental practices.As such we conjectured that:

H1b. Customers’ influence positively impacts MSMEs’ environmental responsibility.

In the context of MSMEs, community hold significant influence as this type ofbusinesses often operate within close proximity with the community (Nejati andAmran, 2009). Any inappropriate firm’s behaviour that goes against the environmentalagenda may affect their licence to operate. Media involvement has also becomeprevalent in highlighting the environmental issues that eventually attracts thegovernment to act upon it. Hence, it is predicted that:

H1c. Community’s influence positively impacts MSMEs’ environmentalresponsibility.

2025

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Suppliers have great direct impact on the firm’s operation. If the MSME do not conformto the environmental responsibility practices, the supplier may stop their supply inorder to avoid risk of being associated to the firm which subsequently may affect theirreputation and image (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999). In line with this argument, thefollowing sub-hypothesis is developed:

H1d. Suppliers’ influence positively impacts MSMEs’ environmental responsibility.

In most instances especially in the context of MSME, the shareholders are the ownersof the firms who actively manage the businesses. According to the Upper EchelonTheory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), the owners (shareholders in this context) are theones who shape their firms in which their actions or inactions will directly impactthe firms’ directions. Thus, shareholders can have a significant impact on the firm’sresponsible practices. Nonetheless, the link between shareholders’ influence andenvironmental responsibility is not necessarily positive as shareholders might nothave similar societal interests as other stakeholder groups and according to someresearchers many small business owners believe that they have little impact on theenvironment (Lee, 2000; Rowe and Hollingsworth, 1996). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H1e. Shareholders’ influence significantly impacts MSMEs’ environmentalresponsibility (Figure 1).

Stakeholders possess various levels of powers and have different (and at timesconflicting) interests. As part of stakeholder analysis, Rosso et al. (2014) explainedevaluating and grouping stakeholders in the power/interest matrix based on theirlevels of power and interest over the issue at hand. This provides a basis for ourresearch model and suggests that the relative significance of investigated stakeholdergroups for encouraging environmental practices of small firms is different based ontheir power and interest. Employees, customers and community are more closelyinfluenced by responsible or irresponsible environmental practices of the firm, andthus have greater interest in environmental responsibility of MSMEs. On the contrary,shareholders and suppliers might have lower interest in environmental practices asthey often intend to maximize profit in the short-term and environmental practicesrequire investment at times, lowering firm’s profitability in short term. In terms ofpower, employees, community and customers appear to have the largest power amongstakeholder groups for MSMEs, as evidenced by previous scholars (e.g. Fitjar, 2011;

Employees’ Influence

Customers’ Influence

Community’s Influence

Suppliers’ Influence

Shareholders’ Influence

EnvironmentalResponsibility

Figure 1.Stakeholders influenceon environmentalresponsibility

2026

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Irawati et al., 2012; Russo and Tencati, 2009; Spence, 1999; Zappala and Cronin, 2002).Thus, referring to the stakeholders’ power/interest matrix we assume that employeesand community will have the most significant influence over environmental practicesof MSMEs, as their aggregate importance (power � interest level) is greater than othergroups.

Moreover, based on the stakeholder mapping used by Olander and Landin (2005),firms must give priority to the stakeholder groups which have both high level ofinterest and power, while keeping the ones with high power and low interest satisfied.Additionally, for stakeholder groups with high level of interest yet low power, thecompany should only provide information about its practices, while putting minimalefforts for stakeholders with low interest and low power. Applying these principles tothe research model of the current study and based on discussions above, we assumethat the key players with the highest level of influence for the environmental practicesof MSMEs would include employees, community and customers.

Environmental responsibility outcomesInvestigation of environmental responsibility outcomes in the context of MSMEs isvery crucial as many small business managers consider environmental responsibilityas having an adverse impact on their financial cost (Simpson et al., 2004). Gerrans andHutchinson’s (2000) study of 210 Western Australian businesses revealed that majorityof respondents did not view an environmental programme as important to customers,a potential source of competitive advantage, a marketing issue, or a factor whenpurchasing from suppliers.

The relationship between CSR and financial performance of the firm has beenexamined in numerous studies. The link has been empirically investigated by onehundred twenty-seven published studies between 1972 and 2002 which applied avariety of measurement methods (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). The first of these studiesgoes back to the study by Bragdon and Marlin (1972) and Moskowitz (1972), followedby 17 publication during 1970s, 30 during 1980s, 68 during 1990s, and finally tenstudies published between the year 2000 and 2003. In most of these studies (109 outof 127), CSR has been treated as a predictor of financial performance and the resultsmainly indicated a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance(54 studies), with only seven studies indicating a negative relationship and a numberof 28 studies showing non-significant relationships. Interestingly, 20 of the studies alsoreported a mixed set of findings.

Previous studies indicate that involvement in responsible initiatives enablescorporations to gain competitive advantage in terms of reputation and ability to attractquality employees (Weiss, 2003). Literature also supports the positive effect ofpracticing social responsibility on employees by improving their level of satisfactionand creating a sense of belonging for them to the firm (Murillo and Lozano, 2006). Thiscan result in improved efficiency of firm operations and quality of products/services,which in the long run lead to customer satisfaction as well as both financial and non-financial performance improvement. Previous studies also indicate environmentalsustainable programmes as the key drive of innovation (Burke and Logsdon, 1996;Porter and Kramer, 2006; Husted and Allen, 2007; Laszlo, 2008; Nidumolu et al., 2009;Lam, 2010), which can consequently result in increased market share of the businessand financial improvements. According to Dzansi and Pretorius (2009), businesssocial responsibility is a firm’s commitment to operating in an economically andenvironmentally sustainable manner by meeting the interest of its stakeholders.

2027

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Hence, environmental practices of companies will influence key concerned stakeholdergroups and improve firm’s relations with them.

Social responsibility is a function of ongoing terms of general agreement betweenbusiness and society which assumes that corporations are no longer responsible totheir stockholders only, but also to a variety of groups in the society who have stakesin the firm. If corporations neglect their emerging environmental responsibility, theywill have to pay a high price in terms of increased regulatory compliance, fines, lostbusiness and corporate image in the long term, which eventually might result in thereduction of a substantial part of their power and influence on the society (Quazi, 2003).Due to the nature of MSMEs which operate in a smaller community, their activities anddecisions can easily be identified and tracked by the local community, and as a resultfirms which practice environmental responsibility might be able to gain trust withinthe community and develop a better relationship with their stakeholders. Hence, it ishypothesized that:

H2. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ performance.

Since the current study measures performance in the six categories, namely financialimprovement, image, control of the firm, employees’ relation, customers’ relation, andsuppliers’ relation, we develop six sub-hypotheses.

The impact of environmental responsibility has been tested by many studies in thepast (see e.g. Quazi and Richardson, 2012). Conceptually, there is a strong argument forbusinesses that adhere to environmental responsibility to enhance their financialperformance. In addition, embracing environmental responsibility practices will resultin efficient use of firms’ resources and enable firms to avoid unnecessary legal risk(Blackburn, 2008). Based on this line of reasoning, the following sub-hypothesis isdeveloped:

H2a. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ financial improvement.

It has been reported that the main motivation for Malaysian companies to disclose CSRpractices is to create good image (Zulkifli and Amran, 2006). In the context of MSMEs,we hypothesize that due to their close proximity with the stakeholder, performingenvironmental responsibility practices will help develop trust and eventually increasebusiness image. Hence, it is predicted that:

H2b. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ image.

Weiss (2003) argued that performing the well-accepted responsibility will enable firmto gain competitive advantage, trust, enhance image and avoid risk which have linearrelationships with financial performance. By performing the environmentalresponsibility practices, firms will be able to manage their stakeholders better. Assuch, this enables MSMEs to have full control of their business. Thus, the followingsub-hypothesis is developed:

H2c. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ control of the firm.

Satisfied and motivated employees are important for firm’s growth. It has beenreported that CSR practices within firm will create positive employees’ relation which

2028

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

subsequently affect their productivity (Murillo and Lozano, 2006). Hence, it isconjectured that such noble act will improve employees’ relation within MSMEs:

H2d. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ employees’ relation.

Customer has the power to stop purchasing and organize boycott (Blackburn, 2008).The expectation of customer for green practices is reflected through their willingnessto pay at higher price for organic and green product (Shariff et al., 2012). Therefore, it isassumed that by embracing environmental friendly act, customers’ relation will also beimproved:

H2e. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ customers’ relation.

Suppliers have the power to determine the way in which MSMEs operate. It is crucialto have good relation among MSME and their supplier to ensure continuous flow ofsupply. By performing the environmental responsibility firm would be able to establishthe good image among suppliers who have the ability to affect the firms’ overalloperations. Thus, we hypothesized that the relationship as follows:

H2f. Environmental responsibility positively influences MSMEs’ suppliers’ relation.

Overall, this study seeks to examine the research framework shown in Figure 2.According to the notion of stakeholder theory, firms consider the needs of their variousstakeholders to obtain approval for their operations and minimize their risk. Thus, theresearch model of the current study has investigated the role of stakeholders’ influencein fostering environmental practices of small firms. However, as noted by Fassin(2012), stakeholder theory also has a reciprocity side which has often been ignored.Accordingly to Fehr and Gachter (2000) and Bosse et al. (2009), humans tend toreciprocate in response to friendly actions. In other words, socially responsiblebehaviours and morally correct management decisions cause trust and commitmentamong stakeholders (Hosmer and Kiewitz, 2005). In order to empirically examine thisclaim, the model of the current study also investigates the role of firm environmentalresponsibility on stakeholders’ relations as a potential outcome of the morally correctmanagement practices. Therefore, in the shadow of stakeholder theory, this study notonly examines the stakeholders’ influence as a key antecedent of environmental

Employees’ Influence

Financial Improvement

Image

Control of the Firm

Employees’ Relations

Customers Relations

Suppliers’ Relations

Customers’ Influence

Community’s Influence

Suppliers’ Influence

Shareholders’ Influence

Processes of CSRPrinciples of CSR Outcomes of Corporate Behaviour

EnvironmentalResponsibility

Figure 2.Research framework

2029

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

responsibility, but also explores stakeholders’ relations along with firm image andfinancial improvement as the potential outcomes of CSR. The proposed frameworkin the study is in fact consistent with Wood’s (1991) CSP model and enhances asystems-based view of MSMEs’ environmental behaviour.

As suggested by Mattingly and Greening (2002), a firm’s responses to stakeholders’demands create social pressures for the stakeholder to reciprocate in their subsequentinteractions with the firm. Hence, the framework of the current study sums up thisstakeholder reciprocity by examining the nexus of stakeholders’ influence, firmresponse (environmental responsibility), and stakeholders’ response (relations withfirm). To ensure the sequence of phenomenon and minimize the effect of other factorswhich might influence stakeholders’ relations, respondents were asked to evaluatetheir environmentally responsible practices within the past three years, while theperformance indicators were evaluated as a comparison to previous years.

MethodMeasures and data collectionThe required data for this study were collected using questionnaire comprising of 12constructs which were measured using five-point Likert-type scales ranging fromstrongly disagree to strongly agree. The items required for this study were adaptedfrom validated instruments from literature. This study applied self-assessment byMSME’s owners-managers to measure firm’s performance. While this reduces theobjectivity of the research, it is required due to the lack of sufficient secondary data inour context. The use of self-diagnostic and self-assessing CSR questionnaire is acommon practice in studies of SMEs (see Coppa and Sriramesh, 2013; Maas andReniers, 2014; Murillo and Lozano, 2006). Previous studies have also shown that ingeneral, managerial assessment of firm performance is quite consistent with objectiveperformance data (Dess and Robinson, 1984; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986).Besides, given the nature of small business, one or two persons (i.e. managers) make allthe critical management decisions of the firm (e.g. accounting, purchasing, processingor servicing, marketing) (Wiltshire Committee, 1971) and hence managers of SMEsare assumed to have the most comprehensive knowledge about the firm practicesand strategies. Table I summarizes the sources for the items used to measure eachconstruct.

Earlier empirical studies on CSR and SMEs have used different yet overlappingdefinitions of SMEs (e.g. Demuijnck and Ngnodjom, 2013; Perrini et al., 2007; Sen andCowley, 2013). This study used the definition of SMEs given by SME Corp (2012),which defines SMEs as firms with o150 employees in manufacturing sector and o50employees in the service sector. This definition overlaps with other definitions of SMEsin other contexts. For example, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)(2002) SMEs refer to companies with less than 200 employees (ABS, 2002). Additionally,European Union regarded SMEs as firms with o250 employees (European Commission,2003).

Instrument Source

Stakeholder influence Gadenne et al. (2009)Environmental responsibility Spiller (2000)Performance Ahmad and Seet (2009)

Table I.List of instruments

2030

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Since Malaysian SME owners/managers might not have a good command of Englishknowledge, the questionnaire was translated into their native language (BahasaMalaysia (BM)) to ensure that they fully understand questionnaire items.The questionnaire was first designed in English and then translated into BM by anexpert in the field of management who is familiar with terms applied in this study.In order to ensure accuracy of the translation, we sought assistance from another localexpert to check the translation and provide comments. The comments by the secondexpert were then sent to the initial translator for his follow up comments and revisions.After repeating this cycle for five times, both experts came to an agreement thatthe translated questionnaire accurately represented the English version. Hence, thefinalized translated version of questionnaire was used for data collection.

Pilot studyA web-based survey deployed via Google Documents was administered to MSMEmanagers from various geographic region of Malaysia, sampled purposively. A total of200 emails were sent out to obtain 40 responses. This number is considered sufficientas a pilot test is merely a “dress rehearsal of the instrument with a small sample”(Lewis et al., 2005, p. 392) and the collected sample adequately represented the wholestudy population. The number of samples used for the pilot study is also within therecommended rage by earlier researchers (Julious, 2005; Hertzog, 2008). Reliability ofall of the scales was assessed using SPSS. Items with an item-scale correlationof o0.20 and items that reduced the Cronbach’s a value of their scale were excluded.This resulted in discarding eight of the initial 40 item. The Cronbach’s coefficient a forthe finalized constructs ranged from 0.71 to 0.96, which confirms internal reliability ofconstructs and indicates adequate contribution of items to the overall scale (Nunnallyand Bernstein, 1994).

Main studyThe list of population for this study was accessed through the online SME BusinessDirectory of SMEinfo, which is administered by SME Corporation Malaysia (SMECorp). Small firms listed in the SMEinfo directory were randomly selected andcontacted to take part in the research. The solicitation e-mail sent to sample firmsincluded a cover letter explaining the objectives of the research and the required time tocomplete the survey. We also emphasized in the cover letter that participation in thesurvey is voluntary and the collected data will treated anonymously and will only beused only for research purposes. A total of 3,983 emails were sent out during June andJuly 2011. The SMEs were also reminded two months after the initial communicationthrough sending a follow up e-mail. Overall, 150 usable responses were collected, out ofwhich 110 were received prior to sending reminder (wave 1), and 40 after the reminder(wave 2). Since results of independent samples t-test indicate a significant difference inseveral of the constructs between wave 1 and 2, which might be caused by the biascaused by the reminder affecting responses, only samples from wave 1 which form themajority of responses were retained and used in this analysis.

Data analysis techniquesThe model in the current study consists of multiple variables whose relationshipsare not well-defined and form various inner models. Besides, in the current study’smeasurement model, there may be random error (e.g. caused by respondent fatigue)and systematic error caused by variance attributable to the measurement method

2031

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

(e.g. common method bias). Hence, analysis of the collected data was performed usingstructural equation modelling (SEM) to facilitate running model as a whole unitand accounting for possible errors. According to Gefen et al. (2000), “SEM is a secondgeneration data analysis technique that enables researchers to answer interrelatedresearch questions in a single, systematic and comprehensive analysis by modellingthe relationships among multiple independent and dependent constructssimultaneously” (pp. 3-4).

To determine the significance of the paths in the model, a bootstrapping approachwas applied in the SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2005) software. Chin (2003, 2010) suggestthat the number of bootstrap samples 200-1000 tend to provide reasonable standarderror estimates. Bootstrapping allows researchers to simulate a larger sample size byredrawing records already in the sample, and in this case in particular, place the drawnrecord back into the sampling pool to potentially be picked again. Convergent validity,discriminant validity and reliability of the constructs were assessed and confirmed(Table II). The square root of the average variance extracted of each of the reflectiveconstructs was much larger than its correlation with all the other constructs, thusconfirming evidence of discriminant validity. Besides, the t-statistics of all the itemsloading on their respective factors were significant at least at 10 per cent level ofsignificance, hence showing high degree of convergent validity (Gefen and Straub,2005). Additionally, composite reliability indices of all the constructs exceeded 0.8(Nunnally, 1978) and Cronbach’s a coefficients for all of the scales, except environmentalresponsibility, was higher than the recommended value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2009) indicatingsatisfactory reliability. The lower Cronbach’s a for environmental responsibility is due toits limited number of items (i.e. 2).

Findings and discussionThe results of the PLS path model at 500 bootstrapped samples indicate that amongthe five key primary stakeholder groups, only employees and customers significantlyinfluence environmental responsibility of MSMEs, supporting H1a and H1b. Thismight be due to the closer link of MSMEs with employees and customers and theirhigher reliance on these two groups (Marlow and Patton, 2001; Fitjar, 2011). Employeesconstitute one of the most important assets of MSMEs and the owners/managers oftenhave very close contact with most or all of their employees (Fitjar, 2011), causing a blurin the separating employers and employees, with managers frequently taking the roleof co-workers (Marlow and Patton, 2001). Employee as the most important internalstakeholder in MSMEs normally has good understanding about the internal mattersand this implies that there are better chances for MSME to change to become anenvironmentally responsible business.

In the context of MSMEs, which have limited human capital, most of theinteractions with customers, suppliers and community are made by employees ofthe firm and employees are the forefront of the company, and connect the firm to itsexternal stakeholders. Employees are often considered as the major stakeholder groupfor CSR and community involvement practices (Zappala and Cronin, 2002). Being partof the same local community, employees care for the well-being of their community.Besides, due to the high dependence of small firms to their employees, they seem tohave a relatively higher power and salience level. Hence, employees were expectedto have a relatively higher salience in the context of MSMEs compared to otherstakeholder groups. Thus, employees were found to have the most significantinfluence in fostering MSME’s responsible business behaviours towards the primary

2032

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Con

stru

ctC

omp

osit

ere

liab

ilit

yC

ron

bac

h’s

aA

VE

Mea

n(S

D)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1)C

I0.

950.

930.

823.

40(0

.85)

0.9

12)

CM

I0.

920.

830.

853.

72(0

.75)

0.56

0.9

23)

CT

R0.

910.

820.

833.

85(0

.77)

0.15

0.16

0.9

14)

CU

R0.

940.

870.

894.

06(0

.53)

0.30

0.42

0.26

0.9

45)

EI

0.90

0.79

0.82

3.55

(0.6

5)0.

490.

450.

090.

370.9

16)

EM

R0.

930.

890.

813.

77(0

.72)

0.16

0.39

0.32

0.56

0.48

0.9

07)

EN

V0.

830.

620.

713.

79(0

.73)

0.41

0.30

0.17

0.35

0.37

0.22

0.8

48)

FIM

0.96

0.91

0.92

3.88

(0.8

2)�

0.01

0.13

0.14

0.47

0.21

0.59

0.22

0.9

69)

IMG

0.95

0.91

0.91

4.07

(0.5

9)0.

210.

290.

320.

520.

320.

500.

170.

340.9

510

)S

HI

0.94

0.92

0.81

3.51

(0.6

9)0.

490.

500.

000.

250.

320.

150.

350.

240.

080.9

011

)S

I0.

960.

920.

923.

21(0

.83)

0.54

0.46

0.10

0.12

0.33

0.15

0.34

0.01

0.01

0.59

0.9

612

)S

PR

0.89

0.82

0.73

3.89

(0.5

4)0.

330.

410.

310.

610.

380.

660.

240.

420.

570.

310.

310.8

5

Note

:n¼

110 Table II.

Descriptive statistics,reliability, and

discriminant validityof the constructs

2033

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

stakeholders. Likewise, the study by Kotler and Keller (2006) considers employeesas the major group who span the boundaries between the firm and its externalstakeholders.

This study revealed that customers’ influence significantly impacts firm’sresponsibility towards environment. This could be due to the criterion set by manyof the business customers who supply from MSMEs and require them to providegreener products/services, and ensure environmental-friendly processing of materials.Managers of small firms often tend to deal personally with customers (Spence, 1999),and thus need to maintain good relations with them. The fact that customer is found tobe significant also lends support that MSME are now sensing the importance of greenpractices. This finding is also supported by the study of Baden et al. (2009) whofound that including social and environmental requirements as preconditions to supplywould increase the motivation of MSMEs to engage in environmental responsibility.Additionally, given the growing governmental initiatives through media about thealarming environmental problems and importance of environmental preservation at alllevels, customers are developing a growing concern towards environment and seem tofavour MSMEs which show responsible practises towards environment (Table III).

Besides, this study showed that environmental responsibility can result in financialimprovement as well as enhanced relations with employees and customers. Thesefindings are consistent with previous studies which indicate the positive role of socialresponsibility practices on performance (Christmann, 2000; Graves and Waddock,2000; Bragdon and Karash, 2002; Epstein and Schnietz, 2002), employees’ relations(Murillo and Lozano, 2006), and customers’ relations (Quazi, 2003). Previous studiesindicate that participation in social and environmental practices can improve thereputation of the firm in the eyes of others in the community (Ostrom, 1998; Ostromet al., 1999; Besser and Miller, 2001; Harris, 2007).

Findings of this study confirmed the notion of stakeholder reciprocity (Fassin, 2012)by showing that those stakeholder groups which influenced firm’s environmentalresponsibility practices turned out to develop better relations with the firm (reciprocate).These findings also suggest that by responding to the demands of key stakeholders(employees and customers in case of MSMEs), firms not only enhance their financialperformance, but can also create collaborative partnership with the stakeholders, which

Hypothesis Path Path coefficient t-statistics p-value Decision

H1a EI-ENV 0.199 1.825 0.070*** SupportedH1b CI-ENV 0.217 1.839 0.068*** SupportedH1c CMI-ENV �0.021 0.110 0.913 Not supportedH1d SI-ENV 0.073 0.686 0.494 Not supportedH1e SHI-ENV 0.150 1.001 0.318 Not supportedH2a ENV-FIM 0.220 2.009 0.046* SupportedH2b ENV-IMG 0.173 1.512 0.133 Not supportedH2c ENV-CTR 0.166 1.448 0.150 Not supportedH2d ENV-EMR 0.224 1.683 0.094*** SupportedH2e ENV-CUR 0.351 3.145 0.002** SupportedH2f ENV-SPR 0.239 1.529 0.128 Not supported

Notes: * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.10Table III.Results of path analysis

2034

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

refers to establishing a high-trust relation with the stakeholder (Frenkel and Scott,2002, pp. 33-34).

This study showed that environmental responsibility not only improves firms’relations with two of its most important primary stakeholders, namely, employeesand customers, but also results in financial improvements for the firm. In contrast tothe study by Naffziger et al. (2003), improved business image was not found to be asignificant outcome of environmental practices by MSMEs. This could be due to lack ofsufficient reporting by small firms, which often practice their social and environmentalresponsibility silently (Jenkins, 2004). Overall, the R2 of the endogenous variablesmeasured in this study ranged from 0.03 to 0.23. The lowest R2 belonged to suppliers’relations and firm control with only 0.03, while the highest R2 belonged toenvironmental responsibility with over 23 per cent of its variation explained by thelatent variables.

ConclusionIn probing for examining how primary stakeholders foster environmental practices ofMSMEs, despite the close connection between MSMEs and all the five investigatedstakeholder groups, we found that only employees and customers significantlyinfluenced environmental responsibility practices of MSMEs. This study offers severaltheoretical and practical implications. The current research was a response for the callby previous studies which argued that small firms need more convincing businesscases in order to ensure that improved social responsibility leads to improvedperformance of the firm (Roberts et al., 2006; Revell and Blackburn, 2007). Throughexpanding the understanding about the relationship between stakeholders andenvironmental responsibility and shedding light on the outcomes of such practices, thisstudy suggests that employees and customers can be used as the medium forencouraging environmental practices of MSMEs. Policy makers and organizationsdealing with MSMEs can encourage them to initiate environmental practices throughthe channel of their employees and customers. To facilitate this process, administratorsand policy makers can educate employees and customers to increasing their awarenessand salience level.

Despite the significant environmental impact of SMEs, efforts to encourage SMEs toengage in environmental improvement have encountered considerable resistance andscepticism (Parker et al., 2009). Besides, many SMEs are not aware of any benefitswhich can be obtained through participating (or costs from not participation) in socialresponsibility practices (Carr et al., 2009). However, this research provided an indicationthat MSME owners’/managers’ do realize the need to be more environmentallyresponsible. Furthermore, findings of this study provided empirical support for thepositive outcomes of environmental responsibility on MSME’s performance, which canbe applied to encourage MSME owners/managers to initiate such responsible practices.

Environmental measures for energy efficiency and resource conservation can leadto lower costs and better profit margins for small businesses in the long run. Theseenvironmental initiatives do not only guarantee firm’s survival, but also give it acompetitive advantage through green innovation opportunities which includes designinggreener products, improving process efficiency in terms of energy consumption,minimizing waste, and applying other sources of cleaner energy.

This study is not without its limitation. Despite the relatively low response rate,which is common in MSME research, the geographic and sector distribution of samplesprovides a basis for generalizability of the results. Another limitation of this study

2035

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

pertains to considering the effect of stakeholders’ influence individually. Apartfrom direct influence of stakeholders, their advocacy level can be enhanced throughgrouping or representation by unions and associations. When two or more of theseassociations representing different stakeholders find common interest and collaboratein demanding environmental practices from MSMEs, their aggregate influence couldbe larger as echoed through their increased power and influence. Future studies mayempirically examine this phenomenon and explore the role of grouped stakeholders’influence on social and environmental responsibility of firms. Lastly, this study islimited by subjective measures used to assess outcomes of environmental practices.Due to lack of sufficient secondary performance data in the context of MSMEs, thistype of measure was deemed appropriate. Moreover, limitation aside, the findings ofthis study are important in that primary stakeholders, specifically employees andcustomers, have been proven to play significant roles in encouraging environmentalpractices of MSMEs. This finding confirms arguments by Parker et al. (2009) thatrelying merely on voluntary environmental agreements or regulation and legislationto engage SMEs in environmental improvement is naive and a holistic interventionstrategy is required to encourage such practices. This strategy can entail stakeholders’salience and influences from employees and customers. Besides, the proven positiveoutcomes of environmental responsibility by MSMEs indicate that good deeds arerewarded, regardless of the size of the participating firm.

As a conclusion, in line with the findings of the study, several suggestions for futureresearch are worth highlighted. First, given the non-significant findings in severalaspects of the study, an interesting research question is to examine the variations in theoutcome should the sample be divided into two sectors, namely, small and medium-sized enterprises. It is predicted that differences could be unearthed given that mediumsized firms in the context of Malaysia are more advanced and are closely connected tothe various agencies that expose them to the environmental responsibility practices.Second, future research could look into the impact of employees and customers asvariables moderating the relationship between MSME’s environmental responsibilityand performance given the significant role of both stakeholders in enhancing firms’environmental agenda. Also, this research can be expanded to observe the variationsin the effect of environmental practices in sector-specific contexts. It is well noted thatsome sectors or industries are more directly affected by the environmental practices ascompared to others (King and Lenox, 2000), hence, poses an important researchquestion to be dwelled into in the context of a developing country.

References

Ahmad, N.N. and Rahim, N.L.A. (2003), “Awareness of the concept of corporate socialresponsibility among Malaysian managers in selected public listed companies”, paperpresented at The Seventh International Conference on Global Business and EconomicDevelopment, Bangkok, 20-23 April.

Ahmad, N.H. and Seet, P.-S. (2009), “Understanding business success through the lens of SMEfounder-owners in Australia and Malaysia”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialVenturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 72-87.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2002), Generosity of Australian Businesses, AGPS,Canberra.

Baden, D.A., Harwood, I.A. and Woodward, D.G. (2009), “The effect of buyer pressure onsuppliers in SMEs to demonstrate CSR practices: an added incentive or counterproductive?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 429-441.

2036

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Bank Negara Malaysia (2006), “Small and medium enterprise (SME) annual report 2005: statusand performance of SMEs”, available at: www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch¼ 8&pg¼14&ac¼ 1279&print¼ 1 (accessed 20 June 2010).

Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-748.

Besser, T.L. and Miller, N. (2001), “Is the good corporation dead? The community socialresponsibility of small business operators”, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 221-241.

Blackburn, W.R (2008), The Sustainability Handbook, Environmental Law Institute,Washington, DC.

Bosse, D., Phillips, R. and Harrison, J. (2009), “Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 447-456.

Bradford, J. and Fraser, E.D.G. (2008), “Local authorities, climate change and small and mediumenterprises: identifying effective policy instruments to reduce energy use and carbonemissions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 156-172.

Bragdon, J.H. Jr and Marlin, J.A.T. (1972), “Is pollution profitable?”, Risk Management, Vol. 19No. 4, pp. 9-18.

Bragdon, J.H. Jr and Karash, R. (2002), “Living-asset stewardship: how organizational learningleads to exceptional market returns”, Reflections, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 55-65.

Burke, L. and Logsdon, J. (1996), “How corporate social responsibility pays off”, Long RangePlanning, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 495-502.

Carr, R., Graham, M., Mason, C. and Parker, C. (2009), “Encouraging SMEs to participate in themanagement of common pool resources”, Proceedings of the 23rd ANZAM Conference2009, ANZAM 2009, Promaco Conventions, Canning Bridge, WA, 1-4 December 2009.

Carroll, A. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral managementof organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.

Chin, W.W. (2003), PLS Graph 3.0, Soft Modeling Inc., Houston.

Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Vinzi, V.E. and et al. (Eds),Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin,pp. 655-690.

Christmann, P. (2000), “Effects of ‘best practices’ of environmental management on costadvantage: the role of complementary assets”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43No. 4, pp. 663-680.

Clarkson, M.B.E (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate socialperformance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-118.

Clement, K. and Hansen, M. (2003), “Financial incentives to improve environmental performance:a review of Nordic public sector support for SMEs”, European Environment, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 34-47.

Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A., Monterde-Diaz, R., Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A. and Torres-Sibille, A.C.(2008), “Environmental education for small- and medium-sized enterprises: methodologyand e-learning experience in the Valencian region”, Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 507-520.

Coppa, M. and Sriramesh, K. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility among SMEs in Italy”,Public Relations Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 30-39.

Cote, R., Booth, A. and Louis, B. (2006), “Eco-efficiency and SMEs in Nova Scotia, Canada”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 6/7, pp. 542-550.

Demuijnck, G. and Ngnodjom, H. (2013), “Responsibility and informal CSR in formalcameroonian SMEs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 653-665.

2037

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Dess, G. and Robinson, R. (1984), “Measuring organizational performance in the absence ofobjective measures: the case of the privately-held firms and conglomerate business unit”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-273.

Drake, F., Purvis, M. and Hunt, J. (2004), “Meeting the environmental challenge: a case of win-winor lose-win? A study of the UK baking and refrigeration industries”, Business Strategy andthe Environment, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 172-186.

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2007), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability;A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, 2nd ed., Routledge, London andNew York, NY.

Dzansi, D.Y. and Pretorius, M. (2009), “Addressing and measuring small business socialresponsibility in the African context: a stakeholder framework”, Social ResponsibilityJournal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 245-256.

Elijido-Ten, E. (2008), “The case for reporting pro-active environmental initiatives: a Malaysianexperiment on stakeholder influence strategies”, Issues in Social and EnvironmentalAccounting, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 36-60.

Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,Capstone, Oxford.

Epstein, M.J. and Schnietz, K.E. (2002), “Measuring the cost of environmental and labor proteststo globalization: an event study of the failed 1999 Seattle WTO talks”, International TradeJournal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 129-160.

European Commission (2002), Observatory of European SMEs 2002/No 4: European SMEs andSocial and Environmental Responsibility, European Communities, Belgium.

European Commission (2003), Smes in Europe 2003, Enterprise Publications, Luxembourg.

Fassin, Y. (2012), “Stakeholder management, reciprocity and stakeholder responsibility”, Journalof Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 83-96.

Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (2000), “Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity”, Journal ofEconomic Perspectives, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 159-181.

Fisher, K., Geenen, J., Jurcevic, M., McClintock, K. and Davis, G. (2009), “Applying asset-basedcommunity development as a strategy for CSR: a Canadian perspective on a win-winfor stakeholders and SMEs”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 66-82.

Fitjar, R.D. (2011), “Little big firms? Corporate social responsibility in small businesses that donot compete against big ones”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 30-44.

Frenkel, S.J. and Scott, D. (2002), “Compliance, collaboration, and codes of labor practice:the Adidas connection”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 29-49.

Freeman, R. (1983), “Strategic management: a stakeholder approach”, in Lamb, R. (Ed.),Advances in Strategic Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 31-60.

Fuller, T. and Lewis, J. (2002), “Relationships mean everything”, British Journal of Management,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 317-336.

Gadenne, D.L., Kennedy, J. and McKeiver, C. (2009), “An empirical study of environmentalawareness and practices in SMEs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 45-63.

Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2005), “A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: tutorialand annotated example”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 91-109.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), “Structural equation modeling and regression:guidelines for research practice”, Communications of the Association for InformationSystems, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 7.

2038

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Gerrans, P.A. and Hutchinson, W.E. (2000), “Sustainable development and small and medium-sized enterprises: a long way to go”, in Hillary, R. (Ed.), Small and Medium-SizedEnterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield,pp. 75-81.

Graafland, J.J. and Smid, H. (2004), “Reputation, corporate social responsibility and marketregulation”, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 271-308.

Graves, S.B. and Waddock, S.A. (2000), “Beyond built to last y Stakeholder relations in ‘built-to-last’ companies”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 393-418.

Groundwork (1995), “Small firms and the environment”, A Groundwork Status Report, Groundwork,Birmingham.

Groundwork (1998), “Small firms and the environment”, A Groundwork Status Report,Groundwork, Birmingham.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2009), Multivariate DataAnalysis, 6th ed Person, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its topmanagers”, Academy of management review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.

Harris, P.G. (2007), “Collective action on climate change: the logic of regime failure”, NaturalResources Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 195-224.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Hunter Lovins, L. (1999), Natural Capitalism: Creating the NextIndustrial Revolution, Little Brown, Boston, MA.

Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1999), “The relationship between environmental commitment andmanagerial perceptions of stakeholder importance”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 87-99.

Hertzog, M.A. (2008), “Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies”, Res NursHealth, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 180-191.

Hillary, R. (2000), Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment, GreenleafPublishing, Sheffield.

Hillary, R. (2004), “Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise”, Journal ofCleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 561-569.

Holliday, C.O., Schmidheiny, S. and Watts, P. (2002), Walking the Talk: The Business Case forSustainable Development, Greenleaf, Sheffield.

Hosmer, L.T. and Kiewitz, C. (2005), “Organizational justice: a behavioral science concept withcritical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory”, Business Ethics Quarterly,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 67-91.

Husted, B. and Allen, D. (2007), “Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creationthrough large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40No. 6, pp. 594-610.

Ilomaki, M. and Melanen, M. (2001), “Waste minimisation in small and medium-sized enterprises– do environmental management systems help?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 209-217.

Irawati, D., Nejati, M., Amran, A. and Shafaei, A. (2012), “Investigating Malaysian SMEs in CSRAgenda: perspective from developing region in ASEAN”, Regional Studies AssociationEuropean Conference, University of Technology, Delft, 13-16 May 2012.

Jamali, D. (2008), “A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspectiveinto theory and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 213-231.

Jamali, D., Zanhour, M. and Keshinian, T. (2008), “Peculiar strengths and relationalattributes of SMEs in the context of CSR”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 3,pp. 355-377.

2039

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Jenkins, H. (2006), “Small business champions for corporate social responsibility”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 241-256.

Jenkins, H.M. (2004), “A critique of conventional CSR theory: an SME perspective”, Journal ofGeneral Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 37-57.

Julious, S.A. (2005), “Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study”, PharmaceuticalStatistics, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 287-291.

Keijzers, G. (2005), Business, Government and Sustainable Development, Routledge, Milton Park.

King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2000), “Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemicalindustry’s responsible care program”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4,pp. 698-716.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, Pearson, Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Lam, M.L.L. (2010), “Managing corporate social responsibility as an innovation in China”, inAl-Hakim, L. and Jin, C. (Eds), Innovation in Business and Enterprise: Technologies andFrameworks, IGI Global Publications, Hershey, PA, pp. 224-238.

Laszlo, C. (2003), The Sustainable Company: How to Create Lasting Value through Social andEnvironmental Performance, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Laszlo, C. (2008), Sustainable Value: How the World’s Leading Companies are Doing Well by DoingGood, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Lee, K. (2000), “Strategic corporate change towards sustainable enterprise in the environmentera”, Proceedings of the Business Strategy and Environment Conference, EuropeanResearch Press, Shipley, pp. 271-278.

Lepoutre, J. and Heene, A. (2006), “Investigating the impact of firm size on small business socialresponsibility: a critical review”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 257-273.

Lewis, B.R., Templeton, G.F. and Byrd, T.A. (2005), “A methodology for construct development inMIS research”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 388-400.

Maas, S. and Reniers, G. (2014), “Development of a CSR model for practice: connecting fiveinherent areas of sustainable business”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 64 pp. 104-114.

Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), “Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives bybusiness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 268-305.

Marlow, S. and Patton, D. (2001), “Minding the gap between employers and employees: thechallenge for owner-managers of smaller manufacturing firms”, Employee Relations,Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 523-539.

Masurel, E. (2007), “Why SMEs invest in environmental measures: sustainability evidence fromsmall and medium-sized printing firms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16No. 3, pp. 190-201.

Mattingly, J. and Greening, D. (2002), “Public-interest groups as stakeholders: a ‘stakeholdersalience’ explanation of activism”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and SutherlandRahman, S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking, Greenleaf , Sheffield, pp. 267-289.

Moskowitz, M. (1972), “Choosing socially responsible stocks”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 71-75.

Murillo, D. and Lozano, J.M. (2006), “SMEs and CSR: an approach to CSR in their own words”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 227-240.

Naffziger, D.W., Ahmed, N.U. and Montagno, R.V. (2003), “Perceptions of environmentalconsciousness in US small businesses: an empirical study”, S.A.M. Advanced ManagementJournal, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 23-32.

Nejati, M. and Amran, A. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility and SMEs: exploratory study onmotivations from Malaysian perspective”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 259-265.

2040

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009), “Why sustainability is now the keydriver of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 87 No. 9, pp. 57-64.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Olander, S. and Landin, A. (2005), “Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementationof construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 321-328.

Ostrom, E. (1998), “A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action,presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997”, American PoliticalScience Review, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B. and Policansky, D. (1999), “Revisiting thecommons: local lessons, global challenges”, Science, Vol. 284 No. 5412, pp. 278-282.

Parker, C., Redmond, J. and Simpson, M. (2009), “A review of interventions to encourage SMEs tomake environmental improvements”, Environment and Planning C: Government andPolicy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 279-301.

Perrini, F. (2006), “SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 305-316.

Perrini, F., Russo, A. and Tencati, A. (2007), “CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidencefrom Italy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 285-300.

Peters, M. and Turner, K. (2004), “SME environmental attitudes and participation in local-scalevoluntary initiatives: some practical applications”, Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 449-473.

Pimenova, P. and van der Vorst, R. (2004), “The role of support programmes and policies inimproving SMEs environmental performance in developed and transition economies”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 549-559.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “The link between competitive advantage and corporatesocial responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.

Post, E., Preston, E. and Sachs, S. (2002), “Managing the extended enterprise: the newStakeholder view”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 6-28.

Quazi, A. and Richardson, A. (2012), “Sources of variation in linking corporate social responsibilityand financial performance”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 242-256.

Quazi, A.M. (2003), “Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived socialobligations”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 822-831.

Rachagan, S. and Satkunasingam, E. (2009), “Improving corporate governance of SMEs inemerging economies: a Malaysian experience”, Journal of Enterprise InformationManagement, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 468-484.

Ramasamy, B. and Ting, H.W. (2004), “A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibilityawareness: Malaysian and Singaporean firms”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship,Vol. 13, pp. 109-123.

Redmond, J., Walker, E.A. and Wang, C. (2008), “Issues for small businesses with waste management:resources or attitude?”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 275-285.

Revell, A. and Blackburn, R.A. (2007), “The business case for sustainability? An examination ofsmall firms in the UK’s construction and restaurant sectors”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 404-420.

Revell, A. and Rutherfoord, R. (2003), “UK environmental policy and the small firm: Broadeningthe focus”, Business Strategy and Environment, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 26-35.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, S. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg, available at:www.smartpls.de

2041

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Roberts, S., Lawson, R. and Nicholls, J. (2006), “Generating regional-scale improvements in SMEcorporate responsibility performance: lessons from responsibility Northwest”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 275-286.

Rosso, M., Bottero, M., Pomarico, S., La Ferlita, S. and Comino, E. (2014), “Integratingmulticriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects”,Energy Policy, Vol. 67, pp. 870-881.

Rowe, J. and Hollingsworth, D. (1996), “Improving environmental performance of SMEs”, Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 97-107.

Russo, A. and Tencati, A. (2009), “Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: evidence from Italianmicro, small, medium-sized, and large firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2,pp. 339-353.

Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A. (1997), “A resource-based perspective on corporate environmentalmanagement and profitability”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,pp. 534-559.

Sen, S. and Cowley, J. (2013), “The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in thecontext of CSR in SMEs: an Australian perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118No. 2, pp. 413-427.

Simpson, M., Taylor, N. and Barker, K. (2004), “Environmental responsibility in SMEs: does itdeliver competitive advantage?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 156-171.

Shariff, AH.M., Amran, A. and Goh, Y.N. (2012), “Determinants of behavioural intention onsustainable food consumption among consumers’ of low income group: empirical evidencefrom Malaysia”, Journal of WEI Business and Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 29-38.

Siwar, C. and Harizan, S.H.Md. (2008), “A study on corporate social responsibility practicesamongst business organisations in Malaysia”, Environment and Development (LESTARI),Universiti Kebangsaan, Bangi, Selangor.

SME Corp (2010), “SME annual report 2009/10”, available at: www.smecorp.gov.my/v4/node/245(accessed 28 March 2012).

SME Corp (2012), “Definition of SMEs”, available at: www.smecorp.gov.my/v4/node/14 (accessed28 March 2012).

Spence, L.J. (1999), “Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics”, BusinessEthics: A European Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 163-174.

Spiller, R. (2000), “Ethical business and investment: a model for business and society”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 149-160.

Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y. and Lehman, G. (2007), “Environmental reporting in a developingcountry: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 895-901.

Tang, Y.H., Azlan, A. and Goh, Y.N. (2013), “Environmental management practices for hotelsin Malaysia: stakeholder perspective”, International Journal of Tourism Research,doi:10.1002/jtr.1952.

Taylor, N., Barker, K. and Simpson, M. (2003), “Achieving ‘sustainable business’: a study ofperceptions of environmental best practices by SMEs in South Yorkshire”, Environmentand Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 89-105.

Tilley, F. (1999), “The gap between the environmental attitudes and the environmentalbehaviour of small firms”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4,pp. 238-248.

Valor, C. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: towards corporateaccountability”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 191-212.

2042

MD52,10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003), “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:between agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2/3, pp. 95-105.

Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategyresearch: a comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,pp. 801-814.

Waddock, S. (2004), “Parallel universes: companies, academics and the progress of corporatecitizenship”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 5-42.

Weiss, J.W. (2003), Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach, ThomsonSouth-Western, Mason, OH.

Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G. and Ramsay, J. (2006), “Drivers of environmental behaviour inmanufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67No. 3, pp. 317-330.

Wilson, E.O. (2002), The Future of Life, Knopf, New York, NY.

Wiltshire Committee (1971), Report of the Committee on Small Business, The Government Printerof Australia, Canberra.

Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.

Yusri, Y. and Amran, A. (2012), “Stakeholder identification and employee perception ofworkplace reporting and disclosure – a research proposal”, in Zaidi, M.D., Ong, T.S. andHisham Osman, M.N. (Eds), Research in Contemporary Accounting, UPM, Serdang,Selangor, pp. 166-200.

Zappala, G. and Cronin, C. (2002), “The employee dimensions of corporate communityinvolvement in Australia: trends and prospects”, paper presented at the 6th ANZTSRConference, UNITEC, Auckland, 27-29 November.

Zulkifli, N. and Amran, A. (2006), “Realising corporate social responsibility in Malaysia”, Journalof Corporate Citizenship, No. 24, pp. 101-114.

Further reading

Ullmann, A. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationship amongsocial performance, social disclosure and economic performance”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 540-577.

About the authors

Dr Mehran Nejati is currently a recipient of Post-Doctoral Fellowship from the Universiti SainsMalaysia (USM). He holds a PhD in corporate social responsibility and is a Certified Six SigmaGreen Belt by American Society for Quality (ASQ). He is also the author of numerous papers inInternational peer-reviewed journals and serves as the editorial board member of several journals.He became a Certified Sustainability Reporting Specialist (CSRS) in 2012. Dr Mehran Nejati is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: mehran@usm.my

Dr Azlan Amran is currently an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Business,Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research interests are related to corporate social reporting,corporate social responsibility and sustainability issues.

Dr Noor Hazlina Ahmad is an Associate Professor at the School of Management, USM. She joinedthe university after completing her PhD at the University of Adelaide, Australia. Her research worklies in the inter-disciplinary intersection between entrepreneurship and organizational, which lookedinto accumulating ground-breaking evidence of cultural constraints on entrepreneurial behaviour.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

2043

Stakeholders’influence on

environmentalresponsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Han Lin, Saixing Zeng, Hanyang Ma, Hongquan Chen. 2015. Does commitment to environmental self-regulation matter? An empirical examination from China. Management Decision 53:5, 932-956. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Sai

ns M

alay

sia

At 2

0:57

27

June

201

5 (P

T)