This chapter will present the findings of this study. It begins with sample characteristics of the sample of study and then it proceeds to present the descriptive statistics of result, which consists of the mean and standard deviation of every item. Finally the chapter will show the result for pilot test in terms of validity and reliability test as well PLS analysis.
Sample Characteristics
The main study was conducted by distributing two hundred questionnaires (online and paper based) among the chosen population. Out of 200 questionnaires 154 questionnaires were gathered and validated, this shows the response rate of 77%.
The sample characteristics from the respondents are given in Table 4.1, which is divided into categories of age, length of employment, education and industry. By inspection of Table 4.1 in terms of age, there are higher percentages of respondents whose age are above 40 (37.01%), which followed by respondents between 36-40 years old (35.06%), then respondents within 31-35 years old (19.48%), below them are respondents within 26-30 years old (6.49%) and only 1.95% respondents who are within 20-25 years range. Regarding their length of employment high majority have 5 years and more of experience (86.36%). All respondents have in some extent university degree, where most have bachelor’s degree (57.14%) and the rest have master degree (42.86%). Furthermore, regarding industries the most represented among respondents is IT industry (33.12%), followed by manufacturing industry (25.32%), banking (10.39%), the rest of industries are represented below 10% mark.
Table 4.1
Sample Characteristics Based on Demographic Variables (N=154)
Variable Entries Percentage
Age 20-25 3 1.95%
26-30 10 6.49%
31-35 30 19.48%
36-40 54 35.06%
Above 40 57 37.01%
40 Table 4.1 (continued)
Variable Entries Percentage
Length of employment
1- 2 6 3.90%
2 - 3 1 0.65%
3 - 4 6 3.90%
4 - 5 8 5.19%
5 and above 133 86.36%
Education Bachelor’s Degree 88 57.14%
Master’s Degree 66 42.86%
Industry Banking 16 10.39%
Energy Industry 1 0.65%
Food Industry 4 2.60%
Healthcare 8 5.19%
Insurance 13 8.44%
IT Industry 51 33.12%
Manufacturing 39 25.32%
Other industries 10 6.49%
Real Estate 1 0.65%
Retailing 1 0.65%
Services 10 6.49%
41
Descriptive Analysis of Questionnaire Items
After a brief analysis of sample characteristics following section offers a summary of the responses gathered for the research. The tables show the mean and standard deviation of every item. Items that were not dropped from analysis would be further elaborated.
SPSS Findings: UNGC
Table 4.2 shows that concerning UNGC, the respondents showed the high agreement with GC-L4 (M=4.57) and GC-L3 (M=4.56) which showed that respondents agreed that their companies complies with minimum age standards and takes all necessary measures to ensure that it does not participate in any form of forced or bonded labour. This indicates that Taiwanese companies comply with minimum age standard and they not force employees for labor. The lowest score GC-L1 (M=3.59) indicated that employees thinks that companies do not recognizes the rights of its workers to freedom of association and to bargain collectively.
The second lowest is GC-HR2 (M=3.61) which represents “The company ensures that the workweek is limited to 48 hours; that overtime is infrequent and limited; and that workers are given reasonable breaks and rest periods” comply with general idea of overworking environment in Taiwan.
Table 4.2
UNGC by Likert Scale, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N=154)
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation GC-HR1* The company ensures that its workers are provided safe,
suitable and sanitary work facilities. 4.28 0.775
GC-HR2
The company ensures that the workweek is limited to 48 hours; that overtime is infrequent and limited; and that
workers are given reasonable breaks and rest periods. 3.614 1.208 GC-HR3*
The company protects workers from workplace harassment including physical, verbal, sexual or psychological
harassment, abuse, or threats. 4.212 0.933
GC-HR4 The company respects the privacy of its workers whenever it
gathers private information or monitors the workplace. 4.083 0.838 GC-HR5 The company takes steps to prevent risks to human rights
arising from product defects or improper use or misuse of
company products. 4.121 0.801
Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. GC-HR= Global Compact Human Rights.
42 Table 4.2 (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation GC-L1 The company recognizes the rights of its workers to freedom
of association and to bargain collectively. 3.598 0.948 GC-L2 The company enables workers to gather independently to
discuss work-related problems. 4.326 0.757
GC-L3 The company takes all necessary measures to ensure that it
does not participate in any form of forced or bonded labour. 4.561 0.668 GC-L4 The company complies with minimum age standards. 4.576 0.700 GC-L5 The company ensures that employment-related decisions are
based on relevant and objective criteria. 4.189 0.773 GC-E1 The company supports a precautionary approach to
environmental issues. 3.955 0.828
GC-E2 The company takes measures to prevent and reduce energy
consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases. 3.864 0.863 GC-E3 The company prevents, reduce and treat air emissions. 3.909 0.878 GC-E4 The company ensures that natural resources are used in a
sustainable manner. 3.773 0.946
GC-E5 The company encourages the development and use of
environmentally friendly technologies. 3.864 0.889
GC-C1 The company takes a clear stand against corruption. 4.295 0.906 GC-C2 The company assesses the risk of corruption when doing
business. 4.106 0.885
GC-C3 The company ensures that relevant workers are properly
trained against corruption. 3.909 0.912
GC-C4 The company's internal procedures support its anti-corruption
commitment. 4.174 0.843
GC-C5 The company takes joint actions with others to engage in and
promote anti-corruption initiatives. 3.992 0.904
Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. GC-L= Global Compact Labour; GC-E= Global Compact Environment; GC-C= Global Compact Anti-corruption.
SPSS Findings: CSR
Table 4.3 shows that concerning CSR, the respondents showed the high agreement with CSR-V2 (M=4.30), which showed that respondents agreed that in some extent materiality/relevance of sustainability are in companies. The second highest was CSR-V3 (M=4.174) pointed out that there is embedment of sustainability in strategy of company. The two lowest scores CSR-R1 (M=3.43) and CSR-R2 (M=3.43) indicates that employees don’t think that companies are providing enough quantitative and comparable information on consumption of energy and emissions.
43 Table 4.3
CSR by Likert Scale, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N=154)
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation CSR-V1 The company ensures commitment of CEO, Executive Board,
Board of Directors. 4.159 0.790
CSR-V2 The company ensures that there is materiality/relevance of
sustainability. 4.303 0.687
CSR-V3 The company ensures that there is embedment of
sustainability in strategy of company. 4.174 0.736
CSR-V4 The company ensures that there is balanced consideration of the three sustainability dimensions (Environment, Corruption,
Human rights). 3.909 0.869
CSR-V5 The company provides the definition of general and specific
sustainability goals. 4.03 0.741
CSR-V6
The company ensures that there is consideration of
sustainability goals and measures in BSC (Balance scorecard),
roadmap or similar action plans. 3.886 0.922
CSR-M1 The company ensures that the sustainability responsibilities
are defined. 3.939 0.789
CSR-M2 The company ensures that there is visibility and integration of
sustainability in core processes (objectives and measures). 3.795 0.971 CSR-M3
The company ensures there is visibility and integration of sustainability in support processes (IT, HR incl. Internal
training, facility management). 4.061 0.836
CSR-M4 The company provides sustainability related feedback culture (e.g. suggestion system / frequent employee and client
surveys). 3.924 0.825
CSR-M5 The company provides incentives (bonus, additional training
etc.) adjusted with sustainability criteria. 3.886 0.962 CSR-M6 There is monitoring / review process for whole company. 3.909 0.937 CSR-P1 The company ensures that there is systematic integration of
sustainability principles/criteria in products and services as
well in their promotion. 4.008 0.786
CSR-P2* The company ensures that there is transparency concerning
impact of products and services over their life-cycle. 3.894 0.784 CSR-P3 The company ensures there is support of clients and other key
stakeholders in achieving their sustainability objectives. 3.985 0.741 CSR-R1
The company ensures that there is quantitative and comparable information on consumption of energy (per source), water and other main sector relevant resources such
as steel, rare earth compounds. 3.432 0.982
CSR-R2*
The company ensures that there is quantitative and
comparable information on main emissions such as CO2 and
discharged waste (waste water, toxic waste, recyclable waste). 3.439 1.006 Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. CSR-M = Management systems, organization and processes; CSR-V = Vision, values and strategy; CSR-P = Products and services; CSR-R
= Resource and environmental management.
44 Table 4.3 (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation CSR-R3
The company ensures there is information on measures to reduce consumption of resources and negatively impact
natural environment. 3.53 0.976
CSR-S1 The company ensures that there is commitment for engaging
with internal and external stakeholders. 3.848 0.851 CSR-S2* The company ensures that there is identification of
sustainability issues jointly with stakeholders. 3.78 0.841 CSR-S3
The company ensure that there is existence of strategic partnerships / memberships aimed at developing and
implementing of industry specific sustainability practices. 3.856 0.830 CSR-S4 The company ensures that there is management of
controversial issues and critical stakeholders. 3.879 0.772 CSR-S5 The company has active involvement of employees in
corporate sustainability measures (do not count training /
capacity building). 3.917 0.811
CSR-S6 The company ensure that there is volunteering and
philanthropic contributions. 3.992 0.921
CSR-C1
The company ensure that there is degree of integration of sustainability understanding in corporate communication
(excl. Sustainability/CSR report) 3.826 0.852
CSR-C2
The company ensure that there is degree of formalization / standardization of sustainability reporting e.g. Applying GRI
framework 3.811 0.857
CSR-C3
The company ensures that there is frequent communication on sustainability engagements (including concerning product and
service related sustainability). 3.75 0.886
CSR-C4 The company ensures that there is independent review of
sustainability measures (verification, audit). 3.667 0.962 CSR-C5 The company ensure that there are results of sustainability
engagement including related to products and services are
communicated. 3.727 0.848
CSR-C6 The company ensures that there is degree of integration of sustainability understanding in corporate communication
(excl. Sustainability/CSR report). 3.78 0.832
Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. CSR-R = Resource and environmental management; CSR-S = Stakeholder management; CSR-C = Communication, Reporting.
SPSS Findings: Business Performance
Table 4.4 in the dimension of business performance variables showed agreement concerning the aspects of performance. The highest item BP-PC3 (M=3.78) showed that compared to other organizations their company was successful to gain customer satisfaction
45
within the past financial year. Second highest BP-PL4 (M=3.64) showed high agreement of employees with statement that “company had high level of the productivity of employees comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the past financial year.” Nevertheless, the least BP-PF2 (M=3.402) showed that respondents don’t think that their “company was successful in average return on investment comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in Taiwan on each item within the past financial year.”
Table 4.4
Business performance by Likert Scale, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N=154)
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation BP-PF1 The company was successful in average profit comparing to
the average level of immediate competitors in Taiwan on each
item within the past financial year. 3.417 0.9888
BP-PF2
The company was successful in average return on investment comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in
Taiwan on each item within the past financial year. 3.402 0.9796 BP-PF3 The company project profitability is successful comparing to
the average level of immediate competitors in Taiwan. 3.568 0.8666 BP-PF4
The company project profit forecast reliability is successful comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in
Taiwan. 3.561 0.8583
BP-PC1
The company was successful in ability to gain contracts comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the past financial
year. 3.53 0.9364
BP-PC2
The company was successful to gain market share comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in Taiwan on
each item within the past financial year. 3.492 0.8149 BP-PC3
The company was successful to gain customer satisfaction comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in
Taiwan on each item within the past financial year. 3.78 0.7942 BP-PC4
The company was successful in customer ranking comparing to the average level of immediate competitors in Taiwan on
each item within the past financial year. 3.492 0.8515 BP-PP1
The company was successful in ability to streamline internal processes (increase efficiency) comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each
item within the past financial year. 3.515 0.9204
Note. BP-PF = Performance from financial perspective; BP-PC = Performance from customer perspective; BP-PP = Performance from internal business process perspective.
46
Survey Questionnaires Mean Std.
Deviation BP-PP2
The company was successful to increase working to schedule comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the past financial
year. 3.598 0.7994
BP-PP3
The company was successful to rapidly commercialize new innovations comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the
past financial year. 3.598 0.8276
BP-PL1
The company had high level of employee satisfaction comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the past financial
year. 3.409 0.8645
BP-PL2
The company had high level of employees’ motivation to act in the best interest of the firm comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each
item within the past financial year. 3.523 0.7762
BP-PL3
The company had high level of employees’ freedom to make decisions and take actions comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item
within the past financial year. 3.492 0.8952
BP-PL4
The company had high level of the productivity of employees comparing to the average level of immediate competitors (contractors) in Taiwan on each item within the past financial
year. 3.644 0.7925 and the measurement is reliable for use in main study. Thirty-seven samples were collected to undergo the pilot study. In this part, four sections will be further explored. It begins by the validity test of the pilot study. Then it follows by the reliability test, according to these two results, the dropped items from the questionnaire were identified. Finally, the pilot data were analyzed by using PLS and the result presented for this study.
47 Validity Test
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Before conducting the factor analysis, the sample data have to go through KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table 4.5 shows the result of both tests before dropping items.
Based on table 4.5, UNGC constructs have low KMO value, which is .582. From these results, dropping items from UNGC dimension is expected, as the KMO results were below .70. For the CSR construct the KMO value is below the acceptable value of .70, therefore there is high probability of dropping items for higher validity of construct. Business performance dimension has acceptable value of .712, which is above the value of .70. Table 4.5 also shows Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity results before dropping of items. All of indicated values indicate that the data can be used for further analysis, as the p-values of all constructs are less than .001.
Before dropping items, reliability test has been run. This pilot had undergone two EFA factor analyses, first time before dropping items where items are being re-considered for evaluation. Then after dropping several items, the pilot again test KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table 4.6 shows the KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values after dropping items. It can be seen that after dropping items, in UNGC the KMO value reached acceptable, .636, for main investigation. The CSR construct KMO value also rises up after dropping an item, from .411 to .530, which is still mediocre but usable for further study, higher variance explained too. The Business performance dimension didn’t undergo with any change.
Overall, all of the values show that they satisfy the entire minimum requirement for conducting factor analyses.
Table 4.5
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-Before Dropping Items)
Constructs Number of Items KMO Variance Explained Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
UNGC 20 .582 60.63% 399.318***
CSR 30 .411 66.48% 823.374***
BP 15 .712 70.73% 298.879***
Note. *** p < .001. UNGC= Global Compact; CSR= Corporate Social Responsibility; BP=
Business Performance.
48 Table 4.6
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-After Dropping Items)
Constructs Number of Items KMO Variance Explained Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
UNGC 18 .636 63.96% 362.696***
CSR 27 .530 67.57% 635.102***
BP 15 .712 70.73% 298.879***
Note. *** p < .001. UNGC= Global Compact; CSR= Corporate Social Responsibility; BP=
Business Performance.
Factor Loadings EFA
Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to all variables in order to validate the instrument used for this study. If the factor loading is below .40, the item is then can be deleted from further analysis, because it indicate that this questionnaire item do not belong to factor (Kerlinger, 1986). Table 4.7 shows the factor loadings are all above .40 after dropping the items. A summary indicates that the items remained will be used for the main investigation and analysis.
49 Table 4.7
EFA: Factor Loadings (Pilot Test, N=37)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings Note. Items < .40 will be dropped from further analysis.
GC-HR= Global Compact Human Rights; GC-L= Global Compact Labour; GC-E= Global Compact Environment; GC-C= Global Compact Anti-corruption; CSR-M = Management systems, organization and processes; CSR-V = Vision, values and strategy; CSR-P = Products and services; CSR-R = Resource and environmental management; CSR-S = Stakeholder management; CSR-C = Communication, Reporting; BP-PF = Performance from financial perspective; BP-PC = Performance from customer perspective; BP-PP = Performance from internal business process perspective; BP-PL = Performance from learning and growth perspective
* items are dropped as to improve the reliability values.
50
Reliability Test
After establishing the construct validation has been established, construct reliability needs to be found in order to justify the consistency of the variables in the instrument and also to further refine the scales. Table 4.8 below gives the reliability of scales by using Cronbach’s Alpha values before and after dropping the items. The value of UNGC construct becomes higher after dropping 2 items from .886 to .898. This condition happened within human right variable (.673 to .753). It is noticed that the value UNGC anti-corruption has the lowest value (.634), which lies within questionable threshold according to George & Mallery (2006).
Looking at the table, it should be noticed that the value of corporate social responsibility becomes lower after dropping the items, from .917 to .908. This condition also happened within constructs CSR stakeholder management (.594 to .537) and CSR resource and environmental management (.707 to .595). Only CSR products and services get higher value after dropping variable (.414 to .571). All these values (.537, .571, .595) are below acceptable line 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) or lies within poor result threshold (George & Mallery, 2006). These values can be explained in several ways according to literature where low size of the coefficient alpha might not always indicate problems with the construction of the tool;
whereas large sizes do not always suggest adequate reliability (Spiliotopoulou, 2009).
Alternately, these reports might be related to the data characteristics of the construct, or the sample isn’t large enough (Bacon, Sauer, & Young, 1995). After CFA investigation and dropping variables, we can therefore declare that the questionnaire is still suitable for the next step of main investigation. The result also shows that most values of business performance dimension have values above .70. This indicates that the items fulfilled the requirement of reliability test. However only item performance from learning and growth perspective is below (.623), but it retained in acceptable threshold.
51 Table 4.8
Reliability Test (Pilot Test, N=37) Constructs Variables
Before Dropping Items After Dropping Items No. of
Items Cronbach’s
Alpha No. of
Items Cronbach’s Alpha
UNGC 20 .886 18 .898
GC-HR 5 .673 3 .753
GC-L 5 .783 5 .783
GC-E 5 .842 5 .842
GC-C 5 .634 5 .634
CSR 30 .917 27 .908
CSR-V 6 .734 6 .734
CSR-M 6 .753 6 .753
CSR-P 3 .414 2 .571
CSR-R 3 .707 2 .595
CSR-S 6 .594 5 .537
CSR-C 6 .817 6 .817
Business
Performance 15 .897
BP-PF 4 .868
BP-PC 4 .818
BP-PP 3 .746
BP-PL 4 .623
Note. GC-HR= Global Compact Human Rights; GC-L= Global Compact Labour; GC-E=
Global Compact Environment; GC-C= Global Compact Anti-corruption; CSR-M = Management systems, organization and processes; CSR-V = Vision, values and strategy;
CSR-P = Products and services; CSR-R = Resource and environmental management; CSR-S
= Stakeholder management; CSR-C = Communication, Reporting; BP-PF = Performance from financial perspective; BP-PC = Performance from customer perspective; BP-PP = Performance from internal business process perspective; BP-PL = Performance from learning and growth perspective
52 Table 4.9
Reasons for Dropping Items No. Items
Dropped Reasons
1 GC-HR3 Construct does not have value in factor loading therefore does not fit into construct.
2 GC-HR1 Construct does not have value in factor loading therefore does not fit
2 GC-HR1 Construct does not have value in factor loading therefore does not fit