The Influence of Sufficiency Economy Philosophy Practice on SMEs’ Performance in Thailand

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to investigate the extent and level of sufficiency economy philosophy (SEP) practice, the performance measured by the balanced scorecard (BSC) of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand, and to test the influence of SEP practice on SMEs’ performance measured by BSC.

Research Design & Methods: Using stratified sampling, 600 SMEs were adopted as the sample in this study. Self-reported data was collected using a mailed questionnaire containing items incorporating a five-point Likert scale. The data was initially analysed by descriptive analysis, correlation matrix, and multiple regression.

Findings: The study found that both SEP practice and performance measured by the BSC of SMEs were at a high level. Moreover, the moderation element was the most common SEP practice followed by the morality condition, the reasonableness element, the self-immunity element, and the knowledge condition. The multiple regression analysis indicated that all the elements and conditions of SEP positively and significantly influenced performance measured by the BSC. Using control variables, the study also found the significant relationship between firm size, firm age, and SMEs’ performance.

Implications & Recommendations: Business owners and top management can use SEP as a practical management tool with which to operate their business instead of adopting Western management models.

Contribution & Value Added: The study findings can demonstrate that stakeholder theory can be used to explain SMEs in Thailand putting SEP into practice in order to satisfy stakeholder demands for better performance.

Keywords

Sufficiency economy philosophy; performance; balanced scorecard; small and medium enterprises; Thailand

Author Biography

Afsa Arwae

Ph.D. candidate of Ph.D. Program (Management) of Faculty of Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University (PSU), Thailand.

References

1. Avery, G.C. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: achieving success in a competitive world. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
2. Carrol, A., & Bucholtz, A.K. (2006). Business and society: ethics and stakeholder management. New York, USA: Thompson.
3. Cheng, L.H., & Fan, H.K. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451.
4. Collier, P.M. (2008). Stakeholder accountability: a field study of the implementation of a govern-ance improvement plan. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 933-953.
5. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometric, 16(2), 297-334.
6. Decharin, P. (2004). Implementing balance scorecard (Edition 4). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn Universi-ty.
7. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures-a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
8. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concept, evidence, and implications. Academic of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
9. Dutta, S., & Evrard, P. (1999). Information technology and organization within European small enterprises. European Management Journal, 17(3), 239-251.
10. Ekwueme, C.M., Egbunike, C.F., & Onyali, C.I. (2013). Benefits of triple bottom line disclosures on corporate performance: an exploratory study of corporate stakeholders. Journal of Manage-ment and Sustainability, 3(2), 201-230.
11. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with fork: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century business. Capstone, Oxford.
12. European Commission. (2019). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Retrieved from ec.europa.eu on March 15, 2020.
13. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
14. Gray, R., Collison, D., & Bebbington, J. (1998). Environmental and social accounting and reporting. Dundee, UK: University of Dundee.
15. Garrison, R.H., Noreen, E.W., Brewer, P.C., Cheng, N.S., & Yuen, K.C. (2015). Managerial Account-ing Asia Global. United State: McGraw-Hill Education.
16. Gunno, P., & Penawuthikul. P. (2018). Factors affecting disclosure quality on key audit matters in auditor’s report in Thailand. Journal of MCU Nakhondhat, 5(3), 926-942.
17. Hatetong, P. (2016). The relationship between ownership structure, environment, and performance measurement of finance and non-finance (Research Paper in National Conference of Walailak Research No. 4). Retrieved from www.research.wu.ac.th on May 25, 2019.
18. Jitsuchon, S. (2019). Thailand’s sufficiency economy philosophy as an alternative path to sustaina-ble development. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(2), 191-200.
19. Joshi, P.L., & Gao, S.S. (2009). Multinational corporate social and environmental disclosures (CSED) on web sites. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 19(1), 27-44.
20. Kantabutra, S. (2006). Relating vision-based leadership to sustainable business performance: a Thai perspective. Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review, 6(1), 37-53.
21. Kantabutra, S. (2010). Philosophy of suffiency economy in business and sustainable development. Human Resource Management by Sufficiency Economy Philosophy, 17(1), 143-185.
22. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced socrecard-measures that drive performance. Havard Business Review, 70(1), 72-82.
23. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced socrecard: translating strategy into action. MA: Harvard Business Scholl Press.
24. Kulkalyuenyong, P. (2018). Strategies in building corporate enterpreneurship. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Rajapruk University, 4(1), 1-11.
25. Mongsawad, P. (2010). The philosophy of the sufficiency economy: a contribution to the theory of development. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 17(1), 123-143.
26. Mongsawad, P., & Thongpakde, N. (2016). Sufficiency economy philosophy: a holistic approach to economic development and mainstream economic thought. Asian Social Science, 12(7), 136-142.
27. Nuttavuthisit, K. (2005). Applying sufficiency economy philosophy in business organizations: a case of Panda Jewelry (unpublished paper). Sufficiency Economy Unit, Office of National Economic and Social Development Board, Thailand.
28. Noim Uddin, S., Taplin, R., & Yu, X. (2006). Energy, environment and development in Bhutan. Re-newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 2083-2103.
29. Norreklit, K. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard: a critical analysis of some of its as-sumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65-88.
30. Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP). (2018). SMEs Promotion Scheme Number 4 (2560-2564 B.C.) Retrieved from www.sme.go.th/th/download.php?modulekey=12 on March 10, 2019.
31. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Enhancing the Contribu-tions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalized Economy. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/mcm/documentsC-MIN-2018-EN.pdf on October 25, 2018.
32. Parmar, B.L., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakehold-er theory: the state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445.
33. Pruetipibultham, O. (2010). The sufficiency economy philosophy and strategic HRD: a sustainable development for Thailand. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 99-110.
34. Revenue Department. (2018). SMEs Characteristics. Retrieved from www.re.go.th on April 16, 2019.
35. Silpcharu, T. (2010). Research and statistical analysis by SPSS (Edition 11). Bangkok: S.R. Printing Mass Product.
36. Shone, J.J. (2014, September). The sufficiency economy philosophy and its international role in sustainable development as seem in application in the SEP model villages of Laos and Timor-Leste. Paper presented at the 3rd MSSRC International Conference on Mekong Region and ASEAN in Transition: People and Tranborder. Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand.
37. Skouloudis, K. (2009). Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental Management, 44(2), 298-311.
38. Srisa-ard, B. (2010). Introductory Research. Bangkok: Suweeriyasarn.
39. Suriyankietkaew, S., & Avery, G. (2016). Sustainable leadership practices driving financial perfor-mance: empirical evidence from Thai SMEs. Sustainability, 8(1), 1-14.
40. Suttipun, M. (2018). The influence of corporate governance, sufficiency economy philosophy re-porting on corporate financial performance: evidence from Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 10(1), 79-99.
41. Suttipun, M. (2019). The longitudinal study of sufficiency economy philosophy reporting of listed companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 11(2), 187-206.
42. Suttipun, M., & Saefu, S. (2017). Investigation of sufficiency economy philosophy reporting in Thai-land. DLSU Business & Economics Review, 26(2), 53-65.
43. Suttipun, M., & Sittidate, N. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting and operation perfor-mance of listed companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Songklanakarin Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 22(1), 269-295.
44. Teeratanachaikul, K. (2010). Performance measurement by balance scorecards in software indus-try. Srinakharinwirot Business Journal, 2(1), 135-147.
45. ThaiPat Institute. (2017). The KPI’s of Sustainable Development Reporting of Listed Company in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Retrieved from www.thaipat.org on October 3, 2017.
46. The Ministry of Industry. (2019). Definition of SMEs in Thailand. Retrieved from www.industry.go.th on September 10, 2019.
47. UNESCO. (2013). Towards a Sufficiency Economy & New Ethical Paradigm for Development. UNESCO, France.
48. Vanstraelen, A., Schelleman, C., Meuwissen, R., & Hofmann, I. (2012). The audit reporting debated seemingly intractable problems and solutions. European Accounting Review, 21(2), 193-215.
49. Williams, R.I., Manley, S.C., Aaron, J.R., & Daniel, F. (2018). The relationship between a compre-hensive strategic approach and small business performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), 33.