JSS  Vol.3 No.7 , July 2015
Comparison of CSR Activities between Global Construction Companies and Malaysian Construction Companies
ABSTRACT

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming a new requirement for a successful business in the 21st century. This trend continues to be strengthened throughout the industry and the construction industry cannot be exceptional. Extensive literature reviews on CSR in the construction industry have been conducted to find out the current status. Ten leading construction companies in the global construction market have been selected and their CSR reports have been analysed in five broad areas—“Leadership, visions and values”, “Workforce activities”, “Stakeholder engagement”, “Community activities”, and “Environmental activities”. Five-Malaysian construction companies have been selected, each representing a different range of turnovers to reflect the industry wide perspective. Comparisons have been made between global companies and Malaysian companies, resulting in large gaps between these two groups. Qualitative interviews have been conducted with the executives of the Malaysian companies to identify the causes of the gaps. The interview questions included CSR reporting, funding, Key Performance Indicators (KPI), challenges of CSR implementation, roles of government, CSR initiatives, future CSR activities, etc. CSR commitments of global construction companies have been identified and the current status of CSR of Malaysian companies has been grasped. The comparison shows that Malaysian companies lag behind global companies in almost all aspects of CSR. The obstacles have been found out to be studied in future—financial constraints, management attitudes, roles of government, and the trend of CSR in the industry.


Cite this paper
Kang, B. , Ahmad, H. , Goh, B. and Song, M. (2015) Comparison of CSR Activities between Global Construction Companies and Malaysian Construction Companies. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 92-98. doi: 10.4236/jss.2015.37016.
References
[1]   Matar, M.M. (2008) Sustainable Construction Management: Introduction of the Operational Context Space (OCS). Construction Management & Economics, 26, 261-275.

[2]   Shiers, D., Rapson, D., Roberts, C. and Keeping, M. (2006) Sustainable Construction: The Development and Evaluation of an Environmental Profiling System for Construction Products. Construction Management & Economics, 24, 1177-1184.

[3]   Constructing Excellence (2014) Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. A Consultation Paper July 2007. http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk

[4]   Murray & Roberts (2014) Murray & Roberts. http://www.murrob.com/au_overview.asp

[5]   BRE Global (2014) The World’s Leading Design and Assessment Method for Sustainable for Buildings. http://www.breeam.org/index.jsp

[6]   CEEQUAL Ltd. (2014) Sustainability Assessment and Awards Scheme for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping and the Public Realm. http://www.ceequal.com/index.html

[7]   US Green Building Council (2014) LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

[8]   Martland, C.D. (2012) Toward More Sustainable In-frastructure: Project Evaluation for Planners and Engineers. Wiley.

[9]   Leffers, M.R. (2010) Sustainable Construction and Design. Pearson/Prentice Hall.

[10]   Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Shen, L.Y., Zeng, S.X. and Ho, C.M. (2006) Environmental Performance Assessment: Perceptions of Project Managers on the Relationship between Operational and Environmental Performance Indicators. Construction Management & Economics, 24, 287-299

[11]   Terio, O. and Kashkonen, K. (2011) Developing and Implementing Environmental Management Systems for Small and Medium-Sized Construction Enterprises. Construction Management & Economics, 29, 1183-1195.

 
 
Top