In this study, we collected data related to the four organizations, which are MOI, Etihad Airways, AECOM and ADEC. To examine the business sustainability in the organizations, we retrieve quantitative data from a total 40 questionnaires done in the four companies. Our questionnaires address macro level of issues on economic efficiency, social equity and environment accountability which are used in measuring the business sustainability performances.
In addition to the three main aspects (i.e. social responsibility, environmental performance and economic performance), we further derive five other aspects (i.e. management practices, risk management, customer management, supplier management and operational performance) from these three main directions. In consist with the literature done by Labuschagne, Brent, and van Erck (2005), the questions regarding to “management practices”, “social responsibility”, “customer management” are categorized under social responsibility aspect of corporate sustainability. According to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), it defines the economic sustainability as “an organization’s impacts on the economic circumstances of its stakeholders and on economic systems at the local, national and global levels” (Willis, 2003). GRI also defines that “social responsibility” is described when businesses pay its attention on social dimension of sustainability development such as stakeholder participation, macro social performance and internal human resources (Labuschagne et al., 2005). When regarding the environmental sustainability of a company, it will assess the company’s contribution to the air, water, land, mineral and energy resources.
Data Collection and Analysis
In this study, we collected data from the four organizations, which are MOI, Etihad Airways, AECOM and ADEC. To examine the business sustainability in the organizations, we retrieve quantitative data from 40 questionnaires done in the four companies. Questionnaires are constructed in Likert questions, which can help us to ascertain how strongly our respondents are agreed to a particular statement. It also helped us to assess how participants feel toward certain issue or service. The outputs contain five kinds of answers, strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. We collected each answer from the participants, summarized the total number of each answer and further analyzed the most selected response from the participants. The data we collected are used to measuring the variables and verifying our hypotheses or question them. We further categorized our 40 questionnaires according to its management level, number of employees and number of organizations. Management level is grouped into two groups. Level 2 is considered as a higher management level, and level one is considered as an employee. The number of employees is categorized into three groups, with the lowest level 1 to the highest level 3. 40 questionnaires were then categorized into 4 groups with regards to its number of organizations. Level 1 to 4 stands for each of the four organizations (i.e. MOI, Etihad Airways, AECOM, ADEC). This method was tested among the five chosen questions, Q6, Q25, Q29, Q31 and Q36. Single Anova test was used to test that whether or not there is significance differences among different level of groups. If the P-value is significant differences among the groups, it indicates the differences among the groups.
According to our analysis survey two, when question 6 was grouped by it management levels, it shows that there is no significant differences between higher level of management and lower level of management groups and with a consistency agreement (average 4.07 in level 2 and average 3.91 in level 1) on the question “senior and middle managers are committed towards sustainable supply chain practices” regarding the management practices. However, when the Q. 25 was grouped regarding to the number of employees, it shows a significant differences among the groups. It shows that when asked with question “sustainable practices improve organizational compliance to environmental standards”, level 3 group with a higher number of organizational employees is mostly neutral on this topic (with average 3.56), middle level of employees group is agreed on this issue (with average 4.12) and a lower number of organizational employees group is mostly somewhat disagree on this topic (with average 2.5). With such significant differences among the groups, the hypothesis on Q.25 can be easily rejected.
Anderson, D. R., & Anderson, K. E. (2009). Sustainability Risk Management. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 12(1), 25–38. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6296.2009.01152.x
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007
Willis, A. (2003). The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237. doi:10.1023/A:1022958618391