Journal Ok 1

8/10/2019 Journal Ok 1

1/19

Property ManagementTransparency in Malaysian property companies

Muhammad Najib Razali Yasmin Mohd AdnanArticle information:

To cite this document:Muhammad Najib Razali Yasmin Mohd Adnan, (2012),"Transparency in Malaysian property companies",Property Management, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 398 - 415Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211273383

Downloaded on: 25 November 2014, At: 05:11 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 863 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this artic le also downloaded:

Muhammad Najib Razali, Rohana Abdul Rahman, Yasmin Mohd Adnan, Azlina Mohd. Yassin, (2014),"Theimpact of information and communication technology on retail property in Malaysia", Property ManagementVol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 193-212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PM-05-2012-0018

Hassan Gholipour Fereidouni, Tajul Ariffin Masron, (2013),"Real estate market factors and foreign realestate investment", Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 40 Iss 4 pp. 448-468

Richard Reed, Hao Wu, (2010),"Understanding property cycles in a residential market", PropertyManagement, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 33-46

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 546288 []

For Authors

If 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 guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emerald insight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals andover 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211273383http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211273383


2/19

Transparency in Malaysianproperty companies

Muhammad Najib RazaliDepartment of Real Estate Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

Johor, Malaysia, and

Yasmin Mohd AdnanDepartment of Estate Management, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose This purpose of this paper is to investigate the current level of transparency based on thecustomised transparency matrix (TM) amongst the top listed property companies in Malaysia, based

on capital market value. Furthermore, this paper discusses the concept of transparency from theperspective of Malaysian property markets.Design/methodology/approach Data for this research were collected from the top 30 propertycompanies in Malaysia through their annual reports and corporate websites. The indicator oftransparency was developed based on various literature surveys and other research findings. Usingthe developed indicators, the study analysed the transparency attributes from TM of the top 30 listedproperty companies in Malaysia.Findings In terms of transparency levels and widely implemented transparency elements, thefindings revealed that Malaysian property companies were within a good level range.Research limitations The research is based on a study of the top 30 listed property companies inMalaysia based on market capital values as at 30th June 2010.Originality/value This paper examines the transparency level of property companies in Malaysiabased on each companys current annual report. The findings provide some insights and guidelines forthe industry as well as academics on the transparency level particularly in Malaysian property

business.Keywords Malaysia, Property companies, Transparency, Property, Capital markets

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe transparency concept in Malaysia is not a relatively new concept though it is notwidely practiced in every company. In the real estate industry, it is believed that thetransparency concept can attract more professionals and investors in the propertymarket. With the onset of the globalisation process, the transparency concept hasbecome more significant in the property market due to the demand from internationalinvestors. However, the term transparency is not an expression that is clearly definedin real estate literature (Schulte et al., 2005).

Institutional investors have been increasing their interest in real estate and havestarted using publicly listed real estate as a cost-efficient, more liquid alternative fortheir direct real estate holdings (Brounenet al., 2007). From the perspective of economicand key performance indicators, Malaysia has shown strong growth in 2010 though hitby the global economic crisis (see Table I). Hence, it sees Malaysia as being on the radarfor property fund managers.

The significance of the property market in Malaysia can be seen from the listedproperty securities market in Malaysia over the period 2008-2010 as evident in Table II.Market capitalisation in Malaysia increased significantly from USD9 billion in 2009 to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm

Received November 2011Revised March 2012Accepted April 2012

Property Management

Vol. 30 No. 5, 2012

pp. 398-415

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-7472

DOI 10.1108/02637471211273383

398

PM30,5


3/19

USD23 billion in 2010. Improvement in GDP growth and the stabilisation of the creditmarkets shores up investors confidence. Market fundamentals were weak in 2008 and

2009, but it was a range of capital market factors that led the recovery. In this respect,investors are currently looking for good corporate governance within companies inspecific markets in a particular country. Although company performance is a mainindicator in investment decisions, market and company information are also essentialfor the decision-making strategy for investors.

Based on an earlier study of the market capitalisation of the Asian stock market, thelisted property companies made a significant contribution (Newell and Chau, 1996).Moreover according to Bond et al. (2003), international diversification is shown to bemore effective in the Asian property markets rather than the European property

2010

GDP (billion) USD383 billionGDP growth 7.2%GDP-PPP (billion) 14,700Population 28.7 millionGDPsectorsAgriculture 9.4%Industry 40.9%Services 49.7%Labour force (million) 11.4Unemployment 3.5%

Household incomeLowest 10 per cent 2.6%Highest 10 per cent 28.5% of GDPInvestment (gross fixed) 20.1% of GDPInflation rate 2.2%

Property transaction volume (billion) 2.8Business competitiveness index No. 24Corruption perception index No. 56World competitiveness indexEconomic performance No. 42Government efficiency No. 42Business efficiency No. 25Infrastructure No. 30Overall No. 26Real estate transparency index No. 25Financial stability No. 3

Sources: Authors compilation from WEF (2011), RCA (2011), Transparency International (2011), CIA(2011), JLL (2010), Worldbank (2011) and Bank Negara (2011)

TableEconomic a

financial profof Malaysia

2009/20

Number of property companies Market capitalisation (USD billion)

2008 84 92009 82 112010 83 23

Source:Authors calculation from Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2009, 2010, 2011)

Table Significance of list

property securitmarket in Malays

2008-20

39

Malaysiapropert

companie


4/19


5/19

foreign investors (Eichholtz et al., 2009). Investors always seek to find betteropportunities for their investment. The reason to invest in certain countries depends onvarious factors. Transparency level is considered as one of the important factors.

Eichholtz et al. (2009) found that foreigners may be at a disadvantage particularly incountries with an unfavourable political environment, an opaque real estate marketand a low level of economic integration.

The availability of real estate market reports has increased significantly over thelast ten years (Schulte et al., 2005). As such, property companies in particular arelegally required to publish annual reports, disclosing a range of facts and figures as aregular requirement (Newell et al., 2005). In Malaysia, the number of listed propertycompanies which published annual reports has significantly increased due to therequirement by the Malaysian Securities Commission to reveal their companysperformance to the public. According to the Malaysian code of corporate governance(Securities Commission, 2007), companies are required by the listing requirements ofBursa Malaysia to include their narrative statements, and have applied the relevantprinciples in their annual report. In addition, in order to comply with the regulations,companies must state in the annual report their best practice of corporate governance.In comparison with the early 1990s, only a few companies published their marketreport, which coincided with the early stage of internet usage during that time. Today,with the rapid development of the internet, many companies list their annual reporton their web sites and have a link to the Securities Commission web site for the publicto access.

In order to achieve a high transparency level such as the likes of Singapore, US, UKand Australia, Malaysia must achieve high ratings for three attributes as indicators

Highly transparentAustralia Canada UKNew Zealand Sweden USAIreland France Netherlands

Germany Belgium DenmarkTransparentFinland Spain AustriaSingapore Norway Hong KongPortugal Switzerland ItalyPoland South Africa Czech RepublicMalaysia Japan HungaryIsraelSemi-transparentGreece Slovakia RussiaRomania Taiwan ChileTurkey Dubai BrazilThailand Bulgaria India

Low transparent

Oman Morocco CroatiaEgypt Saudi Arabia QatarChina Lebanon PanamaKuwait Uruguay KazakhstanOpaqueSyria Sudan Algeria

Source:JLL (2010)

Table IGlobal real esta

transparency index: 20

40

Malaysiapropert

companie


6/19

under the element of transparency which constitutes world class companies, web sitetransparency, and a healthy and good environment for a for business, investmentand dwelling. In terms of real estate, this can be related to the transparency concept.The concept of transparency will lead to certain characteristics as follows:

. the rental market, e.g. average and top rents, lease rents, demand and supplyspace;

. the investment market, e.g. property and rents and yield; purchase and sellingprices;

. the property and construction market, e.g. building costs; and

. the capital markets, e.g. lending constructions (Schulteet al., 2005).

The JLL transparency index is based on five major categories which are:

(1) performance measurement;

(2) market fundamentals;

(3) listed vehicles;

(4) regulatory and legal environment; and

(5) transaction process ( JLL, 2010).

The above methodology is highly dependent on a questionnaire disseminated amongsenior JLL investment management personnel, working in each country in order toconstruct composite transparency indexes. JLL has been constructing this index since1999. JLLs survey has not taken into account companies levels of transparency fromthe physical evidence such as annual reports and corporate web sites. As such, thisresearch attempts to explore transparency levels from the property companies point ofview with a consideration of the Malaysian real estate market environment. Although

a similar theme of study of related topics have been carried out by JLL and otherresearchers, this study is among the first to analyse companies physical evidence,annual reports and corporate web sites as a function of information transparencyusing desk research methods.

In terms of economic sciences, transparency refers to information equivalencywhich means markets provide as much information as possible (Schulte et al., 2005). Theglobalisation process in the world makes transparency become more essential asinvestors seek to find international diversification. In addition, transparency will decreasethe volatility level of property markets by creating positive synergy in the industry.

Moreover, a transparent industry will accelerate cross-border investments from thepositive impact on the market as a result of high confidence among investors.Transparency in real estate is difficult to achieve as the property market is highlycorrelated with the local and global economic situation. As such, it is important toassess the local market situation as it is critical to investors. With regards to theimplications of information available in the market and creating a transparentenvironment in the Malaysian property market, specifically in listed propertycompanies, this research attempts to investigate current levels of transparency amongthe top property companies in Malaysia. Easy access to property companiesinformation reflects the maturity of the real estate market.

In addition, this information will provide a better overview to investors for theirdecision-making process. The importance of this increased information transparency

402

PM30,5


7/19

by listed property companies is widely acknowledged (Brounen et al., 2011). Theresults of transparency levels will then be compared to the ranking of the top 30property companies in Malaysia. Information transparency is important for largercompanies as investing in larger companies makes for a better strategy in investment

decision making.

Research methodologyThis paper examines a unique sample using the content analysis approach of selectedlisted property companies web sites taken from the Malaysian Stock Exchange (BursaMalaysia). Only the top 30 companies were selected for this survey based on marketvalue as of June 2010 (see Table III). It has been said that investing in public listedshares of these real estate investment vehicles has recently become increasinglypopular (Boeret al., 2005). These public listed companies are required to publish theirown annual reports. Apart from annual reports, companies web sites can also bea major tool for the transparency benchmark.

Using a similar research methodology by Brounen et al. (2007) and Newell et al.

(2005) on the European and Asian markets, respectively, the attributes used to assessinformation transparency was modified by taking into account the local environmentof property business in Malaysia. The customised matrixes also exploit the RETI,published by JLL, which is based on five key indices. The element of the indices wasthen modified to suit the local market. The transparency matrixes (TM) reflect theaverage transparency level for each local property companies.

Corporate web site transparency has 12 criteria covering the availability of anEnglish web site, accessibility, the clarity of the information contents, whetherit is updated regularly, and whether the site includes information such as annualreports, property information, investment information, news, stock informationand product information. A 24-point criteria covering transparency within an annualreport covers items such as company management, financial reports, cash flow

statements, risk analysis, market segmentation, shareholders information, futureinvestment plans and dividend policies. Annual reports have been the traditionalmeans for a company to disclose comprehensive and detailed information regardingthe companys current performance. However, how far a company will disclose theirinformation, based on the information symmetry attributes, is the basis of variousliterature reviews.

It is noted that while varying levels of information is available, many propertycompanies currently provide significant information than what is minimally required.This is made through the provision of an enhanced accessible investor relations serviceto ensure investors are informed of their investment decisions, and their selectedproperty companys operation is seen to be transparent and with the necessaryinvestors information available (Newell et al., 2005). As mentioned by Schulte et al.

(2005), transparent markets provide as much information as possible for all marketparticipants and therefore minimise the information advantages of other marketparticipants.

The study used the data collected based on visible information from the companiesweb sites and annual reports. In addition, a list of attributes pertaining totransparency, referred to as transparency information matrix, was developed. Eachattribute was then reviewed and a score was given to develop an index. The approachof this research is to investigate each and every selected companys web site, amethod which constitutes a desk research. According to South Coast Information and

40

Malaysiapropert

companie


8/19


9/19

Results and discussionsA matrix table was used to assess the transparency level among top propertycompanies in Malaysia (Table V). Tables VI and VII presents the score for eachcompany and the transparency attributes for the two matrixes. The results also

demonstrate the attributes score that revealed which common transparency attributesare being practised among the property companies in Malaysia. Furthermore, each ofthe attributes was also examined to provide a clear idea of the transparency index.As mentioned above, these attributes provide an overview of factors that are believedto be the transparency indicator for property companies in Malaysia. Obviously, therewill be some other elements which relate to transparency that needs considering butthese attributes are identified as pillars based on various literature reviews.

The horizontal line indicates the overall score for each company by each attribute.In additional to the score, a vertical line shows the score for each attribute for eachcompany. The results indicate large property companies in Malaysia such as SP Setia,Dijaya and Paramount, were among the highest level and achieved almost fullscores for both matrixes. Consequently, this signifies that these companies are the

most transparent property companies in Malaysia. It could be observed that somecompanies obtained the same score and as such share the same rank. Out of 30companies 26 were able to achieve a score of more than half of the attributes in terms ofcorporate web sites. For annual reports, all companies managed to achieve more thana half score of the attributes.

The average score for property companies in matrix 1 and matrix 2 is 10 and 14,respectively. This indicates that the majority of the listed property companies inMalaysia have almost all attributes in the TM. The results also indicate that there isroom for improvement in order to enhance transparency elements in the companiescorporate web sites. Compared to annual reports, more transparency elements need tobe achieved. The results also correlate with the earlier transparency report by JLL thathas placed Malaysia under the transparency market level for property ( JLL, 2010).

Interestingly, three companies, namely: KRIS Asset Holdings, Mutiara Goodyear

Matrix 1: Corporate web siteLanguage Easy access Update Companies newsDocumentscollection

Contact details Financial calendar Investment information

Propertyinformation

Annual report Stock perfor manceinformation

Corporate organisation

Link to otherrelated web sites

Corporate socialresponsibility activities

Customer value andsatisfaction section

Price and quality comparison

Matrix 2: Annual reportsYear published Financial report Shareholder

informationIncome statement

Cash flowstatement

Mission statement Balance statement Dividend policy

Competitors Risk analysis Future investment plan Ownership structureCompaniesliabilities

Companies investment Market segmentation Competitors

Risk analysis Future investment plan Ownership structure Accounting policyAudit committee Related party

transactionsShareholders by typeand classes

Remuneration andperformance pay for directors

Table Transparen

matrixes (T

40

Malaysiapropert

companie


10/19

Companiesa

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

2930Total

1.

Language

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

30

2.

Easyaccess

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

30

3.

Update

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

21

4.

Companiesnews

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

24

5.

Documentscollection

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

25

6.

Contactdetails

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

29

7.

Financialcalendar

|

|

|

|

4

8.

Investmentinformation

|

|

|

|

4

9.

Propertyinformation

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

28

10.

Annualreport

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

11.

Stockperformanceinformation

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

12

12.

Corporateorganisation

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

28

13.

Linktootherrelatedwebsite

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

8

14.

Corporatesocialresponsibilitysection

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

12

15.

Customervalueandsatisfactionsection|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

16

16.

Priceandqualitycomparison

0

Total

1310

7

10

6

11

8

12

8

10101310

6

1012

6

10

9

12121012

8

1311

9

11

9

10

Notes:aEachnumberrepre

sentsthecompany:1.

SPSetia;2.

KLCCPropertyHoldings;3.

SelangorPro

perties;4.

TAHPSGroup;5.

KRISAs

setHoldings;

6.SunwayCity;7.P

lenitude;

8.Paramount;9.I

GB;10.Sunrise;11.D

amansaraRealty;12.I

JMLand;13.Ma

hSingGroup;14.DaimanDevelopmen

t;15.Bandar

RayaDevelopment;16.

HunzaProperties;17.

SHLConsolidated;1

8.

OrientalInterest;19.

MetroKajang;20.

Guocoland;21.

Crescendo;22.

KSLHoldings;

23.

Dijaya;24.

MutiaraDeve

lopment;25.

Glomac;26.

EncorpBerh

ad;27.

Eastern&Oriental;28.

HuaY

ang;29.

CountryHeights;30.

Bolton

Table VI.Transparencymatrix 1 (corporateweb site) findings

406

PM30,5


11/19

Companiesa

1

2345

6

7

8

9

10111213141516

1718192021222324252627

282930

1.

Yearpublished

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

2.

Financialreport

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

26

3.

Shareholderinformation

|

|

0

4.

Incomestatement

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

5.

Cashflowstatement

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

6.

Missionstatement

|

|

|

|

|

|

6

7.

Balancestatement

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

8.

Dividendpolicy

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

26

9.

Companiesliabilities

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

25

10.

Companiesinvestment

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

26

11.

Marketsegmentation

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

24

12.

Competitors

0

13.

Riskanalysis

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

14.

Futureinvestmentplan

|

1

15.

Ownershipstructure

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

21

16.

Accountingpolicy

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

17.

Auditcommittee

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

27

18.

Relatedpartytransactions

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

26

19.

Shareholdersbytypeandclasses

0

20.

Remunerationandperformancepayfordirectors|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

||

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

25

Total

1500141

11615161516141515121515

15151413151516

0

141515

141516

Notes:aEachnumberrepre

sentsthecompany:1.

SPSetia;2.

KLCCPropertyHoldings;3.

SelangorPro

perties;4.

TAHPSGroup;5.

KRISAs

setHoldings;

6.SunwayCity;7.P

lenitude;

8.Paramount;9.I

GB;10.Sunrise;11.D

amansaraRealty;12.I

JMLand;13.MahSingGroup;14.DaimanDevelopment;15.Bandar

RayaDevelopment;16.

HunzaProperties;17.

SHLConsolidated;1

8.

OrientalInterest;19.

MetroKajang;20.

Guocoland;21.

Crescendo;22.

KSLHoldings;

23.

Dijaya;24.

MutiaraDeve

lopment;25.

Glomac;26.

EncorpBerh

ad;27.

Eastern&Oriental;28.

HuaY

ang;29.

CountryHeights;30.

Bolton

Table VTransparency matrix

(annual report) findin

40

Malaysiapropert

companie


12/19

Development and KLCC Property Holdings have no transparency elements for annualreports. While Selangor Properties has minimal transparency attributes (belowaverage score).

By comparing matrix 1 and matrix 2, it appears that most of the companies

obtained the same score in matrix 2 which was assessed on annual reports. Thisindicates that these companies share similar attributes of transparency elements inannual reports. It can be concluded that the majority of the top property companies inMalaysia have put their transparency indicator through the annual reports comparedto their corporate web sites. On average, property companies in Malaysia havepositioned themselves to number 12 (corporate web sites) and 7 (annual reports).

Transparency and accountability strategies among property companies can becatalysts for sustainable development in Malaysia. Stronger corporate governance willdeliver higher shareholder returns (Chi, 2009). Beeks and Brown (2006) highlightedthat firms with more effective corporate governance make better informationdisclosures. In addition, institutional investors have started using publicly listed realestate and cost-efficient, more liquid alternatives for their direct real estate holdings

(Brounen et al., 2007). In this regard, property companies with better corporategovernance and high levels of transparency will help Malaysia to achieve sustainabledevelopment in the long term. With USD23 billion worth of property transactionsin 2010, a securitised property market contributes significantly to the Malaysianeconomic growth.

In many OECD countries including Malaysia, financial reports must be based onNew Public Management standards. This standard requires financial information thatis more comparable, relevant and useful for decision making. Annual reports have beena traditional means for companies to communicate with investors and analysts; assuch it is very important to disclose comprehensive details regarding performance,current values and companies plans and objectives. Therefore, the findings abovedescribe the current situation in terms of comparable, relevant and useful data

which relates to transparency elements. Moreover, transparency could improve theintelligibility and comparability of companies financial statements. The findings showthat most of the property companies were able to achieve a good score in the annualreport matrix.

Consequently, it will enhance the success of the Malaysian GovernmentsEconomic Transformation Plan (ETP) which states that one of the objectives is tobe a transparent government. Furthermore, it is important to assess the impact ofproperty company management strategies on enhancing investment appeal andcreating shareholder value for the listed property companies (Newell et al., 2005). Withnumerous scandals on reporting and auditing in corporate companies, transparencyand disclosure practices are important components and a leading indicator of qualitycorporate governance (Aksu and Kosedag, 2006).

Some of the big companies such as SP Setia, IJM, Glomac, Dijaya and Paramount,scored among the highest for transparency attributes. This reflects their effort topromote integrity of their companies. Hence it will also promote the integrity ofthe securities market. The Malaysia Government introduced several regulationsto continue the process of upgrading information disclosure and corporate governancestandards.

The development of the two matrixes of the transparency index took into accountearlier identified attributes which were modified by considering the local environmentof property business in Malaysia. As such, the attributes that have been identified were

408

PM30,5


13/19

also examined to provide an overview of factors that are critical for drivingtransparency in property companies in Malaysia. For matrix 1 (corporate web sites),attributes such as language and easy access indicated 100 per cent usage in terms oftransparency attributes.

On the other hand for matrix 2 (annual reports), none of the attributes acquired a100 per cent score by top property companies in Malaysia. Other attributes such ascontact details, corporate organisation and property information were among thepopular attributes in matrix 1 used by property companies in Malaysia which indicatesa percentage above 90 per cent. While in matrix 2, income statements, cash flowstatements, year published and risk analysis were among the attributes that gatheredthe highest percentage. Some unpopular transparency attributes such as price andquality information (matrix 1), shareholder information, competitors and shareholderby type and classes (matrix 2) received a score of zero. This indicates that propertycompanies in Malaysia were not yet ready to reveal all the required information.

Interestingly, some common transparency elements such as financial calendars andinvestment information for matrix 1 obtained a low percentage (13.3 per cent) which

indicates only a few companies provided this information. Similarly in terms of annualreports (matrix 2) elements such as mission statements also obtained a low percentage(20 per cent). The average percentages for both matrixes are 62.1 and 65.8 per cent,respectively. The percentages above 50 per cent specify that most of the transparencyattributes are being implemented whether in the form of corporate web sites or annualreports.

Overall the results revealed that the annual report is still the most commonand widespread strategy for companies to disseminate and disclose information.Attributes such as year published, income statements, cash flow statements, riskanalysis and related party transactions were among the popular elements. Corporateweb sites have the least attention in terms of transparency from Malaysian propertycompanies; whilst attributes such as web sites in English, easy access, annual reports

and links to other related web sites were among the popular elements.Table VIII presents the full score and percentage of TM among the top property

companies surveyed. The full score is worked out from the score of bothmatrixes (company web site and annual report) which examined the companyscorporate web sites and annual reports. SP Setia is the most transparent companyin Malaysia with the highest score of TM. Three companies share the highest samescore and therefore share the same rank. Dijaya, Paramount and IJM Land had78 per cent of the major attributes score for TM. Thus, these three companies areranked at second place in terms of the transparency index among top propertycompanies in Malaysia.

Another four companies, namely, Crescendo, Sunway City, Hunza Properties andGlomac follow closely with 75 per cent of the transparency attributes score. Moreover,

three other property companies, namely, Encorp Berhad, Bolton and Sunrise alsoobtained a close percentage score (72 per cent) with other top score property companiesin the TM.

This indicates that the top ten property companies in the transparency index havealmost all the transparency attributes. On average, property companies in Malaysiaobtained 64.4 per cent or a score of 23 out of a possible 37. Therefore, this indicates thatmost of the companies managed to have more than half of the transparency attributesindex. Consequently it leaves the transparency level among the property companies inMalaysia at an acceptable level. It is also noted that overall nine companies scored

40

Malaysiapropert

companie


14/19

a below average ranking, ranging between 19.4 and 63.9 per cent. It indicates that thesecompanies have less transparency attributes compared to their rivals.

The increase in international real estate capital flows could foster increasingdemand for stronger institutions across global real estate markets (Eichholtz et al.,2009). The transparency index surveyed by JLL revealed that real estate transparencyaround the world continues to improve. Previous evidence by Eichholtz et al. (2001)revealed that internationally diversified property companies underperform localproperty companies. Hence its reduction of the information disadvantages could implythat international property companies have improved their performance relative toproperty companies locally. Based on this situation, it is crucial for Malaysian propertycompanies to increase their level of transparency. Property companies are able toachieve a satisfactory level in terms of transparency levels. Hence, it indicates thepotential of diversification for Malaysian property companies.

Historically, Malaysia had a poor culture of transparency. Real estate makes upalmost two-thirds of the nations wealth. As such transparency plays a crucial roleaffecting business and investments in real estate which will be the utmost importantdriving force of the countrys competitiveness, both presently and continuously in thefuture. Good corporation structures represent relationships within an organisationeffectively. Transparency creates ways and means to communicate, and provides

Ranking Company Matrix 1 (/16) Matrix 2 (/20) Total (/36) Percentage

1 SP Setia 13 16 29 80.562 Dijaya 12 16 28 77.78

2 Paramount 12 16 28 77.782 IJM Land 13 15 28 77.785 Crescendo 12 15 27 75.005 Sunway City 11 16 27 75.005 Hunza Properties 12 15 27 75.005 Glomac 13 14 27 75.009 Encorp Berhad 11 15 26 72.229 Bolton 10 16 26 72.229 Sunrise 10 16 26 72.22

12 Guocoland 12 13 25 69.4412 Mah Sing Group 10 15 25 69.4412 TAHPS Group 10 15 25 69.4412 Oriental Interest 10 15 25 69.4412 Hua Yang 11 14 25 69.44

12 KSL Holdings 10 15 25 69.4412 Bandar Raya Developments 10 15 25 69.4419 Damansara Realty 10 14 24 66.6719 Eastern & Oriental 9 15 24 66.6719 Country Heights Holdings 9 15 24 66.6722 Metro Kajang 9 14 23 63.8922 IGB 8 15 23 63.8922 Plenitude 8 15 23 63.8925 SHL Consolidated 5 15 20 55.5626 Daiman Development 6 12 18 50.0027 KRIS Assets Holdings 6 11 17 47.2228 KLCC Property Holdings 10 0 10 27.7829 Mutiara Goodyear Development 8 0 8 22.2230 Selangor Properties 7 0 7 19.44

Table VIII.Property companiesranking of transparencymatrixes

410

PM30,5


15/19

information in multiple formats to accommodate the diversified needs of investors andstakeholders.

Figure 1 represent the relationship between the overall top 30 property companiesindex in Malaysia and the transparency index ranking based on the analysis

illustrated in the previous section. This test is to analyse whether top companies alsohave a high level of transparency index. Using Spearmans coefficient of rankcorrelation between the two indexes, Rs 0.06 thus indicates that the transparencyindex and top 30 property companies in Malaysia is not significantly correlated. Thefact that the top companies must have a high level of transparency is not necessarilytrue. From the graph, it shows a weak relationship between the transparency indexesand the top 30 property companies in Malaysia. This figure highlights an importantfinding; highlighting the fact that although most of the companies in Malaysia have asatisfied level in terms of transparency attributes, the top property companies (basedon market value) may not necessarily have a good transparency level.

The findings on the correlation above is supposed to provide a significant impact onreal estate activities, serving as investor magnets for Malaysia which would create

a sustainable investment climate and driver of injection of funds to boost andstrengthen its global position.

In comparison the top property company rankings and transparency indexes notonly differ in the companies investment strategies, but also in terms of managementdecision strategies. By assessing these benchmarks, it will provide an overview of thedifferences between the transparency benchmark and property companiesperformances. This also highlights the importance of other factors in explaining theranking of the top 30 companies.

Plenitude

Sunway City

ParamountSelangorProperties

TAHPS Groups

30

30

Transparency

KRIS Asset HoldingsOrientalInterest

DamansaraRealty

SHL Consolidated

Guocoland

Metro Kajang

Dijaya

Mah Sing Group

KLCC Property Holdings

SP Setia

IGB

Mutiara

GoodyearDevelopment

Country Heights

Holdings

Encorp Berhad

Eastern and Oriental

IJM LandHunza Properties

KSL Holdings

Crescend

Hua Yang

BandarRayaDevelopments

DaimanDevelopment

Glomac

25

20

15

10

5

0

252015

Top 30

1050

Figure The transparency ind

and top 30 propercompanies ra

correlati

41

Malaysiapropert

companie


16/19

According to the analysis, the matrix model empirically validated that the literaturesuggested that a transparent market is able to attract professional investors locally aswell as globally. With a total amount of capital market of USD23 billion and being oneof the highest emerging markets, it is evident that Malaysia is able to attract investors,

both locally and internationally. Hence the analysis outcome supports this evidence.

Property implicationsThis paper has provided a comprehensive analysis on the current level oftransparencies based on the customised TM. Property companies in Malaysia wereassessed using these matrixes under two major elements corporate web site andannual report. The number of listed real estate companies in Malaysia has increaseddue to a property boom in the early 1990s. Transparency in property companies willhelp companies increase their awareness of the availability of market information.Furthermore, it will create benchmarking tools for performance information for listedproperty companies in the property industry. This will allow investors to comparefund-level performances. Consequently, it will contribute to the maturity of the

Malaysian real estate market.The implication of transparency by property companies via the annual report and

corporate web site will allow the property market to be measured, tracked andassessed accurately for various purposes. The level of transparency in the Malaysianproperty market is at a satisfactory level. Property markets in this region continue tomature in countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia. As such, the local property marketneeds to increase its level of transparency for benchmarking of property investment forthe next level of transparency which is performance indices. With data qualityimproved and easy to assess, the future development is to develop the investmentperformance index.

The importance of transparency in the property market in Malaysia has receivedsubstantial attention from regulators, financial institutions, investors and the academic

community, as the information will affect companies performance and marketvaluation. This is evident from the establishment of DanaHarta and Danamodal; twoagencies under the Ministry of Finance, created to regulate and act to acquire non-performing loans through statutory vesting, and to appoint special administrators whocan take control and manage the assets of borrowers unable to pay their debts. PostAsian financial crisis has also seen the establishment of the National PropertyInformation Centre to provide advice and supply all property data to the government inproperty industry decision making. The establishment of these three agencies are toacquire more knowledge and information on the market including the property market.The information and disclosure from the market is crucial for the government in thedecision-making process, specifically for the property market which was severely hitduring the AFC. This has been proven during the Global financial crisis where

Malaysia was one of the countries in South-East Asian that was quick to recovery fromthe crisis.

Transparency and information disclosure practices have been considered as acomprehensive corporate governance mechanism, both to mitigate agency costs byincreasing the monitoring of management actions and limiting managersopportunities, and to promote the integrity of the securities market (Ashbaugh et al.,2004; Chi, 2009). This study found that overall property companies that werepositively associated with the TM indicated that better transparency set a strongercorporate governance mechanism, leading to good corporate performance.

412

PM30,5


17/19

Stronger corporate governance will deliver higher shareholder returns (Chi, 2009). Thisis evident from previous research conducted by Brown and Caylor (2006), companieswith better governance practices are more profitable, more valuable, less risky, lessvolatile and pay more dividends. Weaker shareholders rights relate to lower profits

and lower sales growth (Gompers et al., 2003). In addition, La Porta et al. (2002), addthat better shareholder protection is empirically associated with a higher valuation ofcorporate assets. The more transparent the Malaysian market, the more goodcorporate governance will develop and more property market participants have theopportunity to behave correctly.

ConclusionThis paper attempted to examine transparency levels by using property companiesweb sites and annual reports. The TM were designed based on several literaturesurveys and similar previous research as tools to investigate the level of transparency.Based on earlier studied attributes, an index was developed and analysed furtherconstituting attribute rankings and company rankings based on the score. This

transparency index was then compared among the top 30 property companies inMalaysia based on the market value. Overall, it was found that the transparency levelamong the property companies in Malaysia is at a good level and is poised toexperience rapid changes.

With the average of 64.4 per cent of transparency attributes, most of the propertycompanies in Malaysia have widely implemented transparency elements. The awarenessof transparency in the property market has changed dramatically from the waycompanies operate their business in order to create confidence for more investment. Thebiggest property companies in Malaysia such as SP Setia, IJM Land and Glomac, reflecttheir image as big companies from the transparency index perspective. These companiesmanaged to obtain the highest score in terms of the transparency index in Malaysia.

This paper also attempted to demonstrate the definition of transparency in the

Malaysian context, particularly for listed property companies. As such, top propertycompany rankings based on the market value and top transparency index, were alsotested to analyse rank correlation between these two indexes. However, this study showedthat there is no correlation on the relationship between the top 30 property companiesand the transparency index. This indicates that the top property companies in Malaysiado not necessarily have good quality corporate web sites or annual reports to signifytheir transparency policy in their companies. In addition, the availability of the internet asa medium to express the transparency attributes is not widely used.

According to Khadaroo (2005), the decision to establish a web site is influenced byseveral factors such as company size and expected number of users. The larger sizedcompanies are more likely to engage good quality corporate web sites as well as annualreports. Interestingly some of the companies in the low-ranking groups in terms of

market value have scored a high-transparency attribute. It can be said that it is crucialfor the Malaysian property companies to have a good transparency level to attract fundmanagers who have viewed emerging markets such as Malaysia to invest. As such,transparency level will play its role towards the contribution of the property marketcapitalisation in international property portfolios. More importantly, transparency hasbeen shown to become more significantly important in the Malaysian propertymarkets. The introduction of the recent government policies such as the ETP andNew Economic Model will provide greater opportunities for these companies todemonstrate more transparency practices within their companies.

41

Malaysiapropert

companie


18/19

References

Aksu, M. and Kosedag, A. (2006), Transparency and disclosure scores and their determinants inthe Istanbul stock exchange, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 14No. 4, pp. 277-96.

Ashbaugh, H., Collins, D.W. and LaFind, R. (2004), Corporate governance and the cost of equitycapital, working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Bank Negara (2011), Various information, available at: www.bnm.gov.my (accessed 12January 2011).

Beeks, W. and Brown, P. (2006), Do better-governed Australian firms make more informationdisclosure, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33 Nos 3-4, pp. 422-50.

Boer, D., Brounen, D. and Opt Veld, H. (2005), Corporate focus and stock performanceinternational evidence from listed property markets, Journal of Real Estate Finance and

Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 263-81.

Bond, S., Karolyi, A. and Sanders, A. (2003), International real estate returns: a multifactor,multicounty approach, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 481-500.

Brounen, D., Opt Veld, H. and Raitio, V. (2007), Transparency in the European non-listedreal estate funds market,Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107-17.

Brounen, D., Kok, N. and Quigley, J.M. (2011), Residential energy use and conservation:economics and demographics, European Economic Review, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 931-45.

Brown, L.D. and Caylor, M.L. (2006), Corporate governance and firm performance,Journal ofAccounting and Public Policy,Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 409-34.

Capozza, D.R. and Seguin, P.J. (1999), Focus, transparency and value: the REIT evidence,RealEstate Economics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 587-619.

Chi, L.-C. (2009), Do transparency and disclosure predict firm performance: evidence from theTaiwan market,Expert System with Application, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 11198-203.

CIA (2011),World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.

Datastream (2010), Various information, available at: www.online.thomsonreuters.com/datastream (accessed 20 January 2011).

Eichholtz, P., Gugler, N. and Nils, K. (2009), Transparency, integration and the cost ofinternational real estate investment, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract1346409(accessed 21 January 2010).

Eichholtz, P.M.A., Huisman, R., Koedijk, K. and Schuin, L. (2001), Continental factors and thecosts of international diversification,Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 20No. 3, pp. 349-66.

Gompers, P.A., Ishii, J.L. and Metrick, A. (2003), Corporate governance and equity prices,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 107-55.

Jones Lang LaSalle ( JLL) (2010), Mapping the World of Transparency, Jones Lang LaSalle,Sydney.

Khadaroo, M.I. (2005), Business reporting on the internet in Malaysia and Singapore, CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 58-68.

La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (2002), Investor protection andcorporate valuation, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1147-70.

Linneman, P. (2002), Toward greater transparency in real estate private equity funds, availableat: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid596 (accessed 10 January2011).

Newell, G. and Chau, K.W. (1996), Linkages between direct and indirect property performance inHong Kong,Journal of Property Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 9-29.

414

PM30,5
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8683.2006.00507.x&isi=000239725500006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8683.2006.00507.x&isi=000239725500006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8683.2006.00507.x&isi=000239725500006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-5957.2006.00614.x&isi=000238730500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11146-005-2789-z&isi=000231808000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11146-005-2789-z&isi=000231808000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00074&isi=000184966800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.euroecorev.2012.02.007&isi=000306028200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaccpubpol.2006.05.005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaccpubpol.2006.05.005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaccpubpol.2006.05.005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00785&isi=000165970800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00785&isi=000165970800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2009.02.099&isi=000267179500043http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0261-5606%2801%2900004-3&isi=000168918900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1162%2F00335530360535162&isi=000181053200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13563280510578204http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13563280510578204http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6261.00457&isi=000176015500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09588689610152363http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1162%2F00335530360535162&isi=000181053200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11146-005-2789-z&isi=000231808000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11146-005-2789-z&isi=000231808000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6261.00457&isi=000176015500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.euroecorev.2012.02.007&isi=000306028200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8683.2006.00507.x&isi=000239725500006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00785&isi=000165970800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00785&isi=000165970800001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1540-6229.00074&isi=000184966800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0261-5606%2801%2900004-3&isi=000168918900003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-5957.2006.00614.x&isi=000238730500005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaccpubpol.2006.05.005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaccpubpol.2006.05.005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13563280510578204http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13563280510578204http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2009.02.099&isi=000267179500043http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09588689610152363


19/19

Newell, G., Hiang, L.K., Ooi, J. and Haihong, Z. (2005), The impact of information transparencyand market capitalisation on out-performed in Asian property companies, Pacific Rim

Property Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 393-411.

Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2009),Global Capital Trends, RCA, London.



Schulte, K.W., Rottke, N. and Pitschke, C. (2005), Transparency in the German real estatemarket,Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 90-108.

Securities Commission (2007), Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance, SC, Kuala Lumpur.

South Coast Information and Library Services (SCILS), University Bournemouth (1995),Marketing desk research, available at: www.zmfht.hu/dl_sp.php?id6&fMarkDeskResearch.pdf (accessed 15 December 2010).

Transparency International (2011), Corruption Perception Index 2010, TI, Berlin.

Worldbank (2011), Various information, available at: www.worldbank.org

World Economic Forum (2011), Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, New York.

Further reading

CIA (2009), World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.

CIA (2010), World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.

Lee, C.L. and Ting, K.H. (2009), The role of Malaysian securitised real estate in a mixed-assetportfolio, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 208-30.

Liow, K.H. (2001), The long term investment performance of Singapore real estate and propertystocks, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 156-74.

Liow, K.H. (2000), The dynamics of Singapore commercial property market,Journal of PropertyResearch, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 279-91.

Md. Saad, N., Abd Majid, M.S., Kassim, S., Hamid, Z. and Mohd. Yusof, R. (2010), A comparativeanalysis of the performance of conventional and Islamic unit trust companies inMalaysia, International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 24-47.

Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2008), Global Capital Trends, RCA, London.

Ting, K.H. and Tan, Y.K. (2008), The role of residential property in personal investmentportfolio: the case of Malaysia, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 466-86.

Ting, K.H., Zhou, S.Z. and Bao, H.X.H. (2007), Regional variations of residential real estate returns inMalaysia, paper presented at Asian Real Estate Society Conference, Macau, 9-12 July.



World Economic Forum (2009), Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, World EconomicForum, New York, NY.

World Economic Forum (2010), Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, World EconomicForum, New York, NY.

Corresponding authorMuhammad Najib Razali can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

41

Malaysiapropert

companie
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F14635780510575111http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13664380911000440http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13664380911000440http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F14635780110383703http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09599910010001402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09599910010001402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17439131011015779http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F14635780510575111http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09599910010001402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09599910010001402http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13664380911000440http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17439131011015779http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F14635780110383703

Journal Ok 1

Documents

Transcript of Journal Ok 1