Content uploaded by Nurul SAHIDA Fauzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nurul SAHIDA Fauzi on Nov 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 Senior Lecturer at Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, Email: ochidsahidafauzi@gmail.com
PLANNING MALAYSIA:
Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners
VOLUME 19 ISSUE 3 (2021), Page 237 – 248
THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABILITY
IMPLEMENTATION FOR BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
Nurul Sahida Fauzi1, Noraini Johari2, Ashrof Zainuddin3, Nor Nazihah Chuweni4
1,2,3,4Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology,
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying,
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA, PERAK BRANCH
Abstract
Sustainability is the current trend adopted by major business corporations in
Malaysia. Abundant evidence reveals corporations are now recognizing that
aligning business operation with sustainable ways adds more value. Previous
literature shows sustainability has become a strategic imperative for all
businesses. Apart from that, having a sustainable building in their asset portfolio
contributes towards achieving the management strategic corporate goals.
Therefore, this research aims to discuss what are the corporate goals or corporate
expectations from going green. In conjunction with that, secondary data
collection was thoroughly reviewed from previous studies. Then, primary data
consolidates via questionnaire distribution on 117 persons directly involved in
green management. The data then analyzed via relative importance index (RII) to
identify the importance level for expected corporate goals. Derivation of deeper
conceptual findings uses the sustainable triple bottom line theory as a guide. The
result indicates four major goals of corporations including the environment,
maximization of economic value, and minimization of economic and social costs.
This research provides ample evidence for further research in green management.
Keywords: Corporate Goals; Corporate Sustainability; Triple Bottom Line
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 238
INTRODUCTION
The corporate movement towards sustainable buildings in efforts to implement
sustainable practice successfully, also simultaneously contribute to the success of
business operations. Sustainable involvement is considered as a new strategic
planning approach which is employed worldwide (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2011).
Abundant evidence reveals corporations are now recognizing that aligning
business operations with sustainable ways adds more value. Corporations believe
that owning sustainable buildings in the asset portfolio contributes to achieving
the management strategic corporate goals. This research aims to discuss on the
corporate goals or corporate expectations from sustainable adoption.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The main key for sustainable practice is to minimize environmental impact and
costs while maximizing occupant comfort and satisfaction. The need for
enhancing corporate and organizational image are also motivators for
management to go green (Fauzi et al., 2021; Rock et al., 2019). Hopkins et al.
(2017) acknowledge and divide the various benefits of sustainability into three
perspectives. These categories are to improve environmental performance, social
performance, and economic performance through revenue increase and cost
reduction. These are in line with the corporate sustainability concept that
integrates the environment, the economic, and the social aspects of triple-bottom
line to meet the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (Isaksson, 2019;
Masalskyte, Andelin, Sarasoja, & Ventovuori, 2014; Olawumi & Chan, 2019).
The following explains many more expectations from going sustainable
according to three major perspectives of sustainability namely environmental,
economic and social.
Environment Perspective
A sustainable environment seeks to improve human welfare by protecting the
sources of raw materials used for human needs and mitigating harm to humans
(Ajayi, Oyedele, & Jamiu, 2019; Ilhan & Banu Yobas, 2019; Razali, 2018; Zaid
& Zainon, 2019). The environment perspective or also known as the ecological
dimension is mostly illustrated as global warming prevention. Støre-Valen &
Buser (2019) concurrently find that the environment perspective aims to focus on
environmental sustainability particularly on lowering energy consumption and
reducing the carbon footprint. The findings echo Shurrab et al. (2019) where
environmental sustainability is beneficial in terms of improved air quality, higher
water quality, and reductions in energy and water consumption. Consistent with
Ohueri, Enegbuma, & Kenley (2018); and Shaikh et al. (2019), among the shared
benefits include minimizing adverse environmental effects, obliteration of the
risks of environmental disasters, contribution towards the development of natural
resources, reduction in the use of non-renewable materials, water, emissions,
PLANNING MALAYSIA
Journal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2021)
239 © 2021 by MIP
wastes, and pollutants. Conclusively, all the benefits discerned from previous
research relate to sustainable performance as per Lu & Taylor (2018) on the
environmental concerns normally related to the aims to achieve sustainability
performance.
Economic Perspective
In purely economic view, economics is defined as a target concept covering
performance targets, financial targets, and success targets (Glatte, 2012). These
parallels findings by Masalskyte, Andelin, Sarasoja, & Ventovuori (2014) that
corporations’ aims in green buildings include financial benefits, added value for
the customers, brand value, transparency, and trust. Hopkins et al. (2017; and
Robert (2010) reiterate that sustainability is able to increase revenue and reduce
cost. Cass (2018); Lamprinidi & Ringland (2006); Mansfield (2009) also find that
competent sustainable practices reduce cost. When relating to sustainable or
green CRE, corporations will experience significant economic impact towards
the market such as higher rent and lower vacancy rates. Subsequently, they enjoy
higher market price reflecting good long-term business opportunities (Rogerson,
2014). The veritable conclusion is that demand is increasing (Chang & Devine,
2019; Collins, Junghans, & Haugen, 2018; Hui, Yu, & Tse, 2016; Shurrab et al.,
2019). This is the scenario in Malaysia where the average green office rental
value is higher compared to non-green office buildings (Muniandy & Kasim,
2019). Razali (2018) adds that the sustainable building provides positive
incentives to the firms in the form of attractive rentals and high-profile tenants.
Ganda (2018) discovers that sustainable buildings generate increased financial
gains of up to 3.15 per cent and enjoying 0.76/m2 higher rent compared to
common buildings. Oyewole & Markson Opeyemi (2018) agree and further
discover increasing demand for sustainable offices in the market day by day.
Rameezdeen et al., (2019) concur that private buildings with green certification
have positive impact on investor decisions due to market demand and the
opportunity for branding. Not only that, Reichardt, Fuerst, Rottke, & Zietz (2012)
postulate that sustainable real estate contributes to positive economic
performance. They also exhibit higher returns on assets than their fewer green
counterparts that far outweigh the costs.
In addition, Bangwal & Tiwari (2018; Newsham et al. (2018) report
that sustainable buildings tend to have higher resale values and better market
values. Further, portfolio greenness was found to be positively related to
operating performance by Reichardt et al. (2012). Additionally, sustainable CRE
delivers value for marketing and branding purposes, innovations and creativity
improvements (Jylhä, Remøy, & Arkesteijn, 2019). This is a good sign for the
corporation. Prior research suggests that sustainable buildings improve
productivity (Christensen, Baldwin, & Ellis (2012); Cass (2018); Dwaikat & Ali,
2018; Jylhä et al. (2019). Meanwhile Hui et al. (2016) mention the benefits of
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 240
efficient building includes improving business image. Ledashcheva (2019);
Reichardt et al. (2012); Zaid & Zainon (2019) agree that the business gains and
improves its reputation and image through sustainable building. in concurrence,
Eichholtz et al. (2018) state that green commitment improves corporate
reputation and reflects more attractive employers than otherwise comparable
firms. If leasing green office space leads to a superior corporate reputation, this
may enable firms to attract investors more easily and at better market rates
(Eichholtz et al., 2018). Rameezdeen et al. (2019) discover tenants realize that
some sustainability features of the buildings are more cogent to their productivity
and hence are willing to pay more for these attributes. The overall life cycle of
the economic performance reflects optimization (Ohueri et al., 2018) like
increases in share prices (Ganda, 2018), and many more.
Recently, Fauzi et al. (2021) find several benefits of sustainable
practices associated with economics. These are minimizing costs, which include
reduced management, operational, renovation, and replacement costs. Cost
minimization is conceptually similar to cost effectiveness. Cost effectiveness
generally represents reasonable value for the money paid. In conjunction with
that, Lu & Taylor (2018) post that sustainable buildings establish cost
effectiveness for investment, construction, and operation costs. Oyewole &
Markson Opeyemi (2018) concur that the growing interest in green buildings is
due to its potential benefits in operating cost reduction, energy use reduction, and
savings in waste management costs. Meanwhile, Dwaikat & Ali (2018); Ohueri
et al. (2018); Shurrab et al. (2019); Zaid & Zainon (2019) address that being
sustainable reduces operation and maintenance costs.
Social Perspective
The next concern are social benefits. These are more concerned on the social
performance (Hopkins et al., 2017) and impacts on the organization including
labour practices, human rights and society (Ghazali, 2015). Masalskyte, Andelin,
Sarasoja, & Ventovuori (2014) recount that the social dimension of a sustainable
building includes a healthy and comfortable working environment, employee
engagement to sustainability-related activities, promotion of employee
satisfaction, and working efficiency. Other than that, most research reveals that
sustainable buildings manifest social benefits through improved safety and health
(Lu & Taylor, 2018) that directly enhance the quality of life (Ajayi et al., 2019)
and promotes a healthy life (Zhang, Kang, & Jin, 2018). Eichholtz & Kok (2018)
and Rogerson (2014) experience reduced number of employee sick leave days
and reduced staff turnover. Tenants report that employee skill intensity relates
positively to corporate use of green office space. Eichholtz et al. (2018) also
record one of the common social benefit aims by corporations is occupants’
healthy living. It has also been established that green buildings help in providing
important benefits to human health (Oyewole & Markson Opeyemi, 2018). These
PLANNING MALAYSIA
Journal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2021)
241 © 2021 by MIP
findings echo Zaid & Zainon (2019) results that sustainable buildings contribute
to occupant absenteeism minimization. Gou & Ma (2019) and Shurrab et al.
(2019) share the same thing that is community benefits that encompass health
enhancement, quality of life and wellbeing improvements, and occupant comfort.
Taylor (2013) also indicates occupant comfort and health are benefits of
sustainability.
Collins et al. (2019) view the benefit of sustainability in a different way
that is it promotes a sense of sustainable community. This is actually the root for
successful implementation of sustainable concern in the community. According
to Shaikh et al. (2019), sustainability contributes to increased awareness for
harmonization and also human health. Not only that, the role of sustainable
buildings is crucial to encourage technological innovation in society (Lu &
Taylor, 2018). In relation to the community, generally corporations embed
corporate social responsibility initiatives to ensure the community is able to gain
benefits from corporate sustainability. Ajayi et al. (2019) recap that sustainable
initiatives aim to support communities.
METHODOLOGY
The analysis of data uses the descriptive analysis method in order to compare the
level of agreement and the level of importance of each element from the most
important to the least important. The descriptive analysis method used is relative
important index analysis (RII). RII analysis allows identifying most of the
important criteria based on the participants' replies. It is an appropriate tool to
prioritize indicators rated on Likert-type scales (Mohd Adnan, Aman, Razali, &
Daud, 2017; Rooshdia, Majid, Sahamir, & Ismail, 2018). This research adopted
five (5) point likert scales for the questionnaire instruments that start from
strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree. According to
Akadiri (2011) in (Rooshdia et al., 2018), five important levels are transformed
from importance values. They commence with high (H) (0.8 ≤ RI ≤ 1), high
medium (H–M) (0.6 ≤ RI ≤ 0.8), medium (M) (0.4 ≤ RI ≤ 0.6), medium-low (M-
L) (0.2 ≤ RI ≤ 0.4) and low (L) (0 ≤ RI ≤ 0.2). The highest ranking refers to the
highest RI value. Waidyasekara & Silva (2016) also mention a low RII indicates
that the factor is less applicable and less relevant, whereas a high index indicates
higher applicability, agreement and relevance. The distribution of feedback
involves 117 respondents that directly involved in the sustainable management
of corporate companies certified with green building index certification in
Peninsular Malaysia. There are 39 building chosen whereby three respondents
are selected from each of the buildings. Then, 100 responses are accepted for the
final analysis. The total 100 data used in the study meets the required sample
suggestion by Raosoft (90 sample) and G Power (98 sample).
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 242
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
There are four main elements of the results. These are 1) environment, 2) social
3) economic (maximizing value) and 4) economic (minimizing cost).
Table 1: Corporations’ Sustainability Goals
Sustainability Goal
RII
Rank
Importance Level
Environment
0.881
1
High
Economic (Maximizing Value)
0.876
2
High
Social
0.815
3
High
Economic (Minimizing Cost)
0.808
4
High
Table 1 explains an overall ranking and important levels of sustainability goals.
In line with the results, environmental sustainability goal ranks first (RII=0.881),
economic sustainability goal (maximizing value) ranks second (RII=0.876),
social sustainability goal ranks third (RII = 0.815), and economic sustainability
goal (minimizing cost) was ranked the last (RII = 0.808). This revealed that the
main objective of the corporations involved in sustainability is to preserve the
environment as found in Rameezdeen et al. (2019), while at the same time
improving their economic sustainability and contributing to social sustainability.
Table 2: Environmental Sustainability Goals
Environment
Mean
RII
Rank
Importance Level
ENV_ HAZARDOUS
4.49
0.898
1
High
ENV_NATURAL_SOURCE
4.39
0.878
2
High
ENV_SUSTAINABILITY
4.38
0.876
3
High
ENV_INNOVATION
4.35
0.870
4
High
Table 2 shows that reducing hazardous gas emissions and pollution ranks first
(RII=0.898) while protecting, preserving, minimizing, and effective use of natural
resources ranks second (RII=0.878). These precede promoting sustainability in the
environment and attitude which ranks third (RII = 0.876). The least sustainability
goal ranking fourth is encouraging innovation to preserve and promote the
sustainable environment (RII = 0.870). It is evident that the corporations’ main goal
in environmental sustainability is to reduce pollution that contributes to the
environmental problems leading to environmental deterioration. This is line with
aim of most companies involved in sustainability as to reduce the co2 emission
(Razali & Hamid, 2018) and adverse impact on the environment (Shaikh et al.,
2019). Further the the aim of sustainability involvement includes of contributing to
the development of the natural resources (Shaikh et al., 2019). Then, Follows by
environment accountability demand (Rameezdeen et al., 2019).
PLANNING MALAYSIA
Journal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2021)
243 © 2021 by MIP
Table 3: Social Sustainability Goals
Social
Mean
RII
Rank
Importance Level
SOC_HEALTH
4.320
0.864
1
High
SOC_SATISFACTION
4.240
0.848
2
High
SOC_LIFE_QUALITY
4.120
0.824
3
High
SOC_SKILL
4.050
0.810
4
High
SOC_SAFETY
4.010
0.802
5
High
SOC_TURNOVER
3.720
0.744
6
High-Med
Table 3 illustrates the ranking of the elements involved in social sustainability
goals of corporations. It is apparent from the results that improved health
condition of the occupants (RII = 0.864), fulfil the satisfaction of employees,
occupants and customer (RII = 0.848), and improved life quality of the
employees, occupants, clients and the community (RII = 0.824), are the three top
rated elements. The three least rated elements by the persons directly managing
the green buildings are promote employees’ and occupants’ professional
development and skills (RII = 0.810), increased safety in the building towards
occupants, employees and customers (RII = 0.802), and reduced staff turnover
among the employees (RII = 0.744). It is clear that health, satisfaction and
improved life quality are the main aims for social sustainability by corporations.
This is in line with the current trend of employers and employees that paying
more attention to the quality of life. Employers also invest in workplace health
and employee satisfaction at the workplace to reduce stress. Most research has
revealed that sustainable buildings provide a social benefit towards health and
safety (Lu & Taylor, 2018), which directly enhances quality of life (Ajayi et al.,
2019). Further, satisfaction also the main concern involving with sustainable
building concept (Ghazali, 2015; Hopkins et al., 2017; Lamprinidi & Ringland,
2006).
Table 4: Economic Sustainability Goals (Maximizing Value)
Economic Maximizing Value
Mean
RII
Rank
Importance Level
ECO_IMAGE
4.720
0.944
1
High
ECO_MARKETING
4.520
0.904
2
High
ECO_RENTAL
4.490
0.898
3
High
ECO_VALUE
4.440
0.888
4
High
ECO_OCCUPANCY
4.280
0.856
6
High
ECO_SERVICE
4.280
0.856
6
High
ECO_PRODUCTIVITY
4.190
0.838
7
High
ECO_PROFIT
4.160
0.832
8
High
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 244
ECO_GOOD_GOVERNANCE
3.950
0.790
9
High-Med
Table 4 displays two elements that record RII values of more than 0.9. These are
the element increased image and reputation (RII=0.944), and the element
marketing strategies (RII=0.904). Six elements record RII exceeding 0.8 and rank
from 3 to 8 respectively. These elements comprise increased rental value and
attract tenants to rent (RII=0.898), increased value of the business operations and
increased building value (RII=0.888), enhanced occupancy rate (RII=0.856), and
improved service quality provided (RII=0.856). The ranking descends further
with the elements increased productivity of the whole business operation
(RII=0.838), and enriched profits of the business (RII=0.832). Good governance
is ranks last (RII=0.790) where the importance level is high-medium. Consistent
with what mentioned by Eichholtz and Kok (2018) the commitment with
sustainability able to improved corporate reputation and business image
(Ledashcheva, 2019; Reichardt et al., 2012; Zaid & Zainon, 2019). Further,
sustainability also cause the companies to become more attractive to employees
than other compareble companies (Zaid & Zainon, 2019). Rogerson (2014)
mentioned corporation will experience significant economic impacts towards the
overall market. Moreover, Chang & Devine (2019); Collins et al. (2018); Lu &
Taylor (2018); Newsham et al. (2018); Shurrab et al. (2019) the sustainability
contribute to higher sale price, higher rental, increased asset value and higher
market value.
Table 5: Economic Sustainability Goals (Minimizing Value)
Economic Minimizing Value
Mean
RII
Rank
Importance Level
ECO_OPERATIONAL_COST
4.28
0.856
1
H
ECO_MANAGEMANT_COST
4.11
0.822
2
H
ECO_REPLACEMENT
3.98
0.796
3
H-M
ECO_RENOVATION
3.78
0.756
4
H-M
Table 5 shows reduced operational and maintenance costs at first ranking
(RII=0.856), reduced management and disposal costs rank second (RII=0.822),
reduced replacement cost ranks third (RII = 0.876), and reduced construction and
renovation costs at the last ranking (RII = 0.870). This paper discovers that in
terms of economic sustainability goals, corporations are mainly motivated by
maximizing values as compared to reducing costs. This is because Malaysia is
still at a very early stage of green building concept development. As such,
developers and owners import various products, materials, fittings and equipment
involving substantial initial capitals. Subsequently, the factor of minimizing cost
in terms of payback period could not be realized in the short term period. In
contrast, corporations are most concerned about minimizing operational cost and
PLANNING MALAYSIA
Journal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2021)
245 © 2021 by MIP
management cost. In line with Tjenggoro & Khusnul Prasetyo (2018) that
mentioned lower operating costs is one of the top reasons some countries
triggering future green building activities.
CONCLUSION
There are many benefits of implementing sustainability in business corporations.
They include environmental benefits; economic benefits that are manifest in two
perspectives of maximizing value and minimizing cost, and the last are social
benefits. From these four benefits, environmental benefits are the most influential
concern for corporations to go green. This indicates benchmark for the country
to focus more on green initiatives. However, the economic concern still strongly
relates to the corporation as the economic maximizing value ranks as the next
important benefit followed by social concerns and economic minimizing cost.
Corporations perceive sustainability as significant in economic development
particularly in maximizing the value and optimizing the utilization of limited
resources. The maximization of value helps the management to provide and
deliver the management objectives without comprising on the social and
environmental aspects. By addressing the importance of sustainability
implementation, this study establishes the need for the stakeholders and policy
makers to promote environmental practices while contributing to the economic
and social development cores of business operations.
REFERENCES
Ajayi, S. O., Oyedele, L. O., & Jamiu A. Dauda. (2019). Dynamic relationship between
embodied and operational impacts of buildings: an evaluation of sustainable
design appraisal tools. World Journal of Science , Technology and Sustainable
Development Article Information. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2018-
0048
Bangwal, D., & Tiwari, P. (2018). Environmental design and awareness impact on
organization image. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2017-0029
Cass, N. (2018). Energy-related standards and UK speculative office development.
Building Research & Information, 46(6), 615–635.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1333351
Chang, Q., & Devine, A. (2019). Environmentally-certified space and retail revenues : A
study of US. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1586–1599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.266
Christensen, P., Baldwin, E., & Ellis, C. (2012). Key strategies of sustainable real estate
decision-making in the United States: A Delphi study of the stakeholders.
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, (December), 277. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287056962?accountid=41453
Collins, D., Haugen, T., Lindkvist, C., & Aamodt, C. (2019). Bridging the gap between
sustainable FM and sustainable buildings an exploratory study of six public
buildings in Norway. Facilities. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2018-0007
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 246
Collins, D., Junghans, A., & Haugen, T. (2018). Green leasing in commercial real estate:
the drivers and barriers for owners and tenants of sustainable office buildings.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 20(4), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-
01-2017-0003
Dwaikat, L. N., & Ali, K. N. (2018). The economic benefits of a green building : evidence
from Malaysia. Journal of Building Engineering, 18(May), 448–453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.04.017
Eichholtz, P. M. A., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2018). Ecological responsiveness and
corporate real estate. Business and Society, 1–31(March 2015).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575118
Fauzi, N. S., Johari, N., Chuweni, N. N., Ali, S. N. M., Arshad, H., &
NurulanisAhmad@Mohamed. (2021). The crossfire of corporate real estate
sustainable management with corporate sustainable objectives in Malaysia.
Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 19(2), 186–198.
Ganda, F. (2018). The effect of carbon performance on corporate financial performance
in a growing economy. Social Responsibility Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2016-0212
Ghazali, zahid zulkipli. (2015). Corporate sustainability practices among Malaysian
REITs and property listed companies. World Journal of Science , Technology and
Sustainable Development Article Information, 12(2), 100–118.
Glatte, T. (2012). The Importance of Corporate Real Estate Management in Overall
Corporate Strategies.
Gou, Z., & Ma, N. (2019). Human Factors in Green Building. Building, Special
Is(January 2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03897-567-0
Hopkins, E. A., Read, D. C., & Goss, R. C. (2017). Promoting sustainability in the United
States multifamily property management industry. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 32(2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-016-9516-3
Hui, E. C. M., Yu, K., & Tse, C. (2016). The impact of environmental management
awards and certifications in property management on property price. Facilities,
34(5/6), 314–338. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-04-2013-0029
Downloaded
Ilhan, B., & Banu Yobas. (2019). Measuring construction for social , economic and
environmental assessment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0112
Isaksson, R. (2019). Revisiting the triple bottom line. In WIT Transactions on Ecology
and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180381
Jylhä, T., Remøy, H., & Arkesteijn, M. (2019). Identification of changed paradigms in
CRE research – a systematic literature review. Journal of Corporate Real Estate,
21(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-07-2017-0020
Lamprinidi, S., & Ringland, L. (2006). A Snapshot of Sustainability Reporting in the
Construction and Real Estate Sector. GRI Research and Development Series
Publication (Vol. Third Gene).
Ledashcheva, T. (2019). Prospects of implementation of the practice of “green office” or
“sustainable office” in Russia. In Green Design and Sustainable Architecture.
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2018V/6.4/S10.091
Lu, L. W., & Taylor, M. E. (2018). A study of the relationships among environmental
PLANNING MALAYSIA
Journal of the Malaysia Institute of Planners (2021)
247 © 2021 by MIP
performance, environmental disclosure, and financial performance. Asian Review
of Accounting, 26(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-01-2016-0010
Mansfield, J. R. (2009). The valuation of sustainable freehold property: a CRE
perspective. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(2), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010910963133
Masalskyte, Rasita, Andelin, M., Sarasoja, A.-L., & Ventovuori, T. (2014). Modelling
sustainability maturity in corporate real estate management. Journal of Corporate
Real Estate, 16(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-09-2013-0023
Mohd Adnan, Y., Aman, N. U., Razali, M. N., & Daud, M. N. (2017). The
implementation of green lease practices for office buildings in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Property Management, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-12-2015-
0067
Muniandy, Y., & Kasim, R. (2019). Key green attributes affecting rental value of green
office buildings in klang valley, malaysia.
Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., & Hu, Y. V. (2018). Effect of green building certification
on organizational productivity metrics. Building Research & Information, 46(7),
755–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1358032
Ohueri, C. C., Enegbuma, W. I., & Kenley, R. (2018). Energy efficiency practices for
Malaysian green office building occupants. Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, 8(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-10-2017-0091
Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. M. (2019). An empirical survey of the perceived benefits
of executing BIM and sustainability practices in the built environment.
Contstruction Innovation, 10(May).
Oyewole, M. O., & Markson Opeyemi, K. (2018). Users ’ preference for green features
in office properties. Property Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-03-2017-
0016
Rameezdeen, R., Zuo, J., Paniagua, J. O., Wood, A., & Do, P. (2019). Ensuring
environmental performance in green leases: the role of facilities managers.
Facilities.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Badrulzaman, N., & Jaafar, M. (2011). City development
strategies (CDS) contribution toward sustainable urban development in
developing countries. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, IX, 1–18.
Razali, M. N. (2018). Assessing green property management implementation among
commercial buildings in Malaysia. In WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP170721
Reichardt, A., Fuerst, F., Rottke, N. B., & Zietz, J. (2012). Sustainable building
certification and the rent premium : a panel data approach. Journal of Real Estate
Research, 34(1), 99–126.
Robert T. Osgood, J. (2010). The Strategy Alignment Model : Defining Real Estate
Strategies in the Context of Organizational Outcomes. Site Selection Magazine,
(January 2002).
Rock, S., Hosseini, M. R., Nikmehr, B., Martek, I., Abrishami, S., & Durdyev, S. (2019).
Barriers to “ green operation ” of commercial office buildings perspectives of
Australian facilities managers. Facilities. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2018-0101
Rogerson, J. M. (2014). Green commercial property development in urban South Africa :
emerging trends, emerging geographies. Bulletin of GeoGraphy. Socio–Economic
Nurul Sahida Fauzi, Noraini Johari, Ashrof Zainuddin, Nor Nazihah Chuweni
The Importance of Sustainability Implementation for Business Corporations
© 2021 by MIP 248
SerieS, 26(26), 233–246.
Rooshdia, R. R. R. M., Majid, M. Z. A., Sahamir, S. R., & Ismail, N. A. A. (2018).
Relative importance index of sustainable design and constructionactivities criteria
for green highway. Chemical Engineering Transaction, 63(2007), 151–156.
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1863026
Shaikh, P. H., Shaikh, M. S., Kumar, M., Shaikh, F., Uqaili, M. A., & Bhatti, I. (2019).
Environmental assessment of green buildings, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-803581-8.10402-3
Shurrab, A., Hussain, M., & Mehmood Khan. (2019). Green and sustainable practices in
the construction industry : a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-
2018-0056
Støre-Valen, M., & Buser, M. (2019). Implementing sustainable facility management
challenges and barriers encountered by Scandinavian FM practicioners. Facilities.
https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2018-0013
Taylor, B. M. (2013). Sustainability and Performance Measurement: Corporate Real
Estate Perspectives. Performance Improvement, 52(6), 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21356
Tjenggoro, F. N., & Khusnul Prasetyo. (2018). The usage of green building concept to
reduce operating costs (study case of PT. Prodia Widyahusada). Journal of
Accounting Reaearch, 3(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-06-2018-0005
Waidyasekara, K. G. A. S., & Silva, L. De. (2016). Water use efficiency and conservation
during construction : drivers , barriers and practices, 6(5), 553–566.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-09-2015-0052
Zaid, S., & Zainon, N. (2019). Are green offices better than conventional? Measuring
operational energy consumption and carbon impact of green office in Malaysia.
Facilities, (January). https://doi.org/10.1108/F-06-2016-0063
Zhang, Y., Kang, J., & Jin, H. (2018). A review of green building development in China
from the perspective of energy saving. Energies.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020334
Received: 12th July 2021. Accepted: 23rd Sept 2021
