1. 1
Final Evaluation Report
Project # (Office use)
Project title:
Corporate Sustainable-developmental Responsibility (CSd
R):
Corporate Fulfilling Responsible Citizenship for a Sustainable World
Country Singapore
Selected year 2006
Implementing
organisation:
Climate Change Organization; Department of Building, National
University of Singapore
Partner
organisations:
Singapore Institute for International Affairs
NetRes Singapore Institute for International Affairs
Project duration: 12 / 07- June / 09 (18 months)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. OUTLINE OF THE EVALUATION STUDY
1.1 Project Background
1.2 Project Overview
1.3 Study Objectives
1.4 Scope of Work
1.5 Study Period
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Evaluation Questions
2.2 Methodology
2.3 Schedule of the Study
3. RESULTS
3.1 Project Implementation
・ Planned and Actual Input
・ Planned and Actual Activities
3.2 Relevance
・ Priority of the Targeted Issues
・ Needs of Target Group / Target Area
・ Relevance of Project Scope, Expected Outcome and Approach

2. 2
3.3 Effectiveness
・ Achievement of the Project Objective
・ Attribution of Outputs on the Project Objective
3.4 Self-reliance of the Project
3.5 Participation
・ Analysis of Factors Attributable to Project Results
3.6 Conclusions
4. LESSONS LEARNED
5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATION (by NetRes)
ANNEXES
Annex 1: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for Davis Langdon & Seah Pte
Ltd
Annex 2: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for SKF Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
Annex 3: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for Senoko Energy Pte Ltd
PREFACE
Corporate Sustainable-developmental Responsibility (CSd
R) extends beyond the traditional
boundaries of Corporate Social Responsibility. A standard for CSR is lacking despite its
growing importance, and this study aimed at coming up with holistic standards that can be
implemented by the stakeholders. This study was based on a set of pre-determined
sustainability indicators, chosen to represent and measure the levels of performances in the 3
bottom line indicators- i.e. economy, environment and social/equity. The project is funded by
the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development (APFED).
This project was jointly implemented by the Climate Change Organisation (CCO) and the
Department of Building, National University of Singapore. Dr. Kua was the Principal
Investigator (PI) for the project. He developed the six indicators of CSdR, worked with the
three companies (SKS, DLS and Senoko) to implement and improve sustainability indicators.

3. 3
PICTURES
ACRONYMS
ACCA Association of Certified Chartered Accountants
AIQS Australian Institute for Quantity Surveyors
APFED Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development
BCA Building and Construction Authority of Singapore
CCO Climate Change Organisation
CDL City Development Limited
CEO Chef Executive Officer
CSd
R Corporate Sustainable-Developmental Responsibility
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DLS Davis Langdon & Seah
EHS Emergency, Health and Safety
EWI Economic Web Institute
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
HPB Health Promotion Board
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ITE Institute for Technical Education
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
MEWR Ministry of Environment and Water Resources
MNCs Multinational Corporations

4. 4
MOE Ministry of Education
NEA National Environment Agency
NUS National University of Singapore
NWSP National Weather Study Project
PI Principal Investigator
PMETs Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians
PUB Public Utilities Board
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
SCDF Singapore Civil Defence Force
SEC Singapore Environment Council
SHA Singapore Hotel Association
SIIA Singapore Institute for International Affairs
SISV Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers
SMEs Small-Medium Enterprises
SPUR Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience
SWCDC Southwest Community Development Council
TBP Total Building Performance
TWA Teacher Work Attachment
WEB Water Efficiency Building
WH Warehouse
WIT Work Improvement Team
SUMMARY
Please refer to Appendix 4

5. 5
OUTLINE OF THE EVALUATION STUDY
1.1 Project Background
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is widely considered as a viable direction to pursue to
involve corporate to contribute to the different aspects of sustainable development, mostly
related to improving the working environment of their own employees. Even though much has
been discussed about the importance of CSR, a standard for CSR is still lacking. The current
situation consists of different bodies advocating CSR within a selected community or
collection of companies.
Even so, many of the current CSR guidelines do not really address all the 3 bottom line of
sustainable development – economy, environment and social/equity. Since corporations play
such an important role within the production-consumption continuum, a more holistic set of
guidelines is required to guide them along a pathway toward sustainable development.
The concept of Corporate Sustainable-Developmental Responsibility (CSd
R) is proposed by
the Principal Investigator (PI) – Dr Harn-wei Kua of NUS. Based on a set of pre-determined
sustainability indicators chosen by him to represent and measure the levels of performance in
the three bottom line, a research team at NUS worked with selected corporations (including
selected construction firms) to come out with a holistic set of CSd
R standards that can be
implemented with these corporate stakeholders. This project was also showcased as one of
the selected innovative policy research projects funded by the Asia-Pacific Forum for
Environment and Development (APFED). Hence, not only is this an important contribution to
the ongoing global discourse on CSR – within both the academic and busine
ss communities – it will also highlight NUS’ contribution to the formulation of a CSd
R standard
in Asia-Pacific.
1.2 Project Overview
When determining the areas of concern, we have to strike a balance between the range of
coverage and ‘implementability’ of the eventual guideline. Basically, we are confident that
there are six key areas of concern. Each is itemized into one category. Categories A, B and C
pertain to the three bottom line of sustainable development. Categories D, E and F examine
the status quo of the organization in its capacity to put CSd
R into practice. A few of these
areas are inspired by work of the Business for Social Responsibility and Newswire for CSR.
The six categories of CSd
R indicators are:
Category A: Social Sustainability
Category B: Social–Environmental Sustainability
Category C: Social-Economic Sustainability

6. 6
Category D: Organizational structure of company
Category E: Profile of the CSd
R standards within organization
Category F: Implementation of CSd
R
The detailed indicators under these categories can be found in Annex 1.
1.3 Study Objectives
The main research question is: can the study of, and cooperation with, selected corporations
in Singapore help to design and then implement a model standard for CSd
R? How can
lessons learnt be shared with other companies and corporate actors in other Asia-Pacific
countries?
The aim of this work is to come out with a set of guidelines or standards that our corporate
stakeholders can identify with, and effectively adopt, to help themselves achieve, and
contribute to, sustainable development of their respective communities.
To achieve this aim, the meeting of a few key objectives will act as important milestones.
These key objectives are:
1. Understand the current development of the CSR movement and evolution of any ad
hoc guidelines designed to promote CSR ideals. This includes identifying or
confirming any gap in the promotion of sustainable development with these guidelines.
2. Formulate of a list of indicators that can aptly and adequately describe and measure
the state and level of sustainable development of a corporation.
3. Select and invite companies based in Singapore to co-refine these indicators. At least
one construction firm will be invited. Assistance will be provided by the research team
to these firms in implementing and providing feedback on the CSd
R guidelines.
4. Engage a wider audience of corporate stakeholders through effective channels such
as focus group meetings and seminars.
1.4 Scope of Work
The work is primarily carried out in Singapore and the lessons learnt from implementing CSd
R
in participating companies are then shared with their sister companies within the Asia-Pacific
region or through outreach seminars and workshops to government and civil agencies in the
ASEAN region.

7. 7
1.5 Study Period
The study period was between 1 December 2007 and 1 June 2009.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Evaluation Questions
The main guiding questions for this project are:
 How can a set of progressive sustainability guidelines be created with and for a
company?
 How can different stakeholders work together with the company to implement
measures according to the created guidelines?
 How can the lessons be shared with a larger audience, with respect to corporate
sustainability?
2.2 Methodology
The methodology that we applied in this project is action research. In this approach, the
project team (comprising the PI and NUS undergraduate and post-graduate students) works
with the companies’ management and leadership representatives to effect desirable changes
to the operation of the companies. The following are the key steps:
 During the first meetings, the project team briefed the companies’ representatives
about the objectives of the project, before explaining the meaning behind the
indicators in the 6 categories. Most of the companies’ representatives come from the
various departments (such as the human resource and financial departments) and/or
CSR units. These meetings usually took slightly more than 4 hours, after which the
department heads or CSR champions would return to gather data and information to
describe the status quo of all the indicators;
 At opportune times, a follow-up meeting was arranged for the companies to report
their findings to the meetings. Long term goals were set after in collaboration with the
companies. Back-casting was conducted – in that short term and mid term goals in all
CSd
R indicators were set to serve as milestones that the companies can use to check
their own progress and/or fine-tune their long term goals. Short term goals are goals
that they can confidently achieve in 6 months’ time. Once these short term goals are
met, the research team worked with the companies to set mid term goals that will
challenge them for the following 6 months.
 In between the setting of new goals, the research teams met regularly with companies

8. 8
to offer suggestions and even complimentary performance evaluations, so that
companies can keep track of their progress toward the designated goals in all CSd
R
indicators.
 Outreaching is an important method of disseminating the research results.
Conferences and workshops were organized to share results within the companies or
with external audiences.
2.3 Schedule of the Study
The three participating companies are: Senoko Energy Pte Ltd., Davis Langdon & Seah (DLS)
Pte Ltd, and SKF Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. The short term goals were set for June 2008; mid term
goals for December 2008; and, finally, long term goals were set for October 2009. The reason
for the relatively long gap between the mid- and long term goals was that a few of these
companies were involved in their internal sustainability audits and hence meetings to fine-tune
the long term goals were delayed.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Project Implementation
 Planned and Actual Input
The PI put in on average 4 hours per session with each of the companies in creating the
indicators (for the sustainability guidelines) and the additional manpower needed to carry out
the TBP assessments was also provided as expected. Complementary inputs from the
management teams of the participating companies were as anticipated. In general, the
proceeding and progress of the project had been fairly predictable and very encouraging.
 Planned and Actual Activities
Given the extensive details covered for the CSd
R indicators, the long term goals set in
collaboration with the three companies were described in Annexes 1, 2 and 3. Observations
on any difference between the goals set and actual activities were also noted alongside the
related indicators, by means of notations.
In summary, these observed differences were caused mainly by operation-related factors,
such as a change on the entire management team and temporary shift in priority during the
months in which the goal achievements were evaluated. However, many of the actions
undertaken by the three participating companies are meant to be long term in nature and so
the PI and research team did not assert harder than necessary in achieving several of the
goals on time.

9. 9
 Public outreach event in Singapore
A public conference was organized by SIIA and NUS, on the 9 October 2008, in the NUS.
During this event, the senior management representatives or CSdR champions of the
three participating companies turned up to share their experiences with CSdR. The panel
was well received by the audience.
Other than this conference, the PI was invited to be an expert panellist during the 2009
ACCA Sustainability Conference. During this session, he shared the key lessons with of
corporate sustainability programs with an audience of about 50, most of whom are
representatives from local small-medium enterprises (SMEs) and multinational
corporations (MNCs).
The PI also made a presentation at the National Sustainability Conference 2009, held in
NUS Guild House.
 International outreach events in Asia
Under the auspices of the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the PI was invited to
conduct two courses on climate change in Vietnam and Myanmar. CSdR was also taught
to the delegates, who come from a wide range of governmental and non-governmental
sectors of both countries. These events are:
1. “Climate Change: Governance, Risk Management and Mitigation" (10 - 14 August

10. 10
2009, Hanoi, Vietnam);
2. "Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Challenges, Solutions and
Governance" (22-25 September 2009, Yangon, Myanmar).
3.2 Relevance
 Priority of the Targeted Issues
 Needs of Target Group/Target Area
 Relevance of Project Scope, Expected Outcome and Approach
The relevance of the targeted issues, groups, areas, scope of approach were ensured by the
fact the research team from NUS worked TOGETHER with the management teams of the
companies to come out with the indicators and guidelines; furthermore, implementation
advices given by the research team were comprehensively discussed among the
management teams before a series of in-house implementation actions was effected. In
summary, the approach is one that is highly collaborative yet customized and participatory.
3.3 Effectiveness
 Achievement of the Project Objective and Attribution of Outputs on the Project
Objective
The success of this project is analysed and presented in annexes 1, 2 and 3. To various
degrees, they contribute to the overall objective of the CSd
R project.
3.4 Self-reliance of the Project and Participation
In implementation of the project goals – short-, mid- and long-term – the research team
ensure that it was the final decisions of the management teams to select and physically
implement the selected actions. As a result, this instilled a sense of belonging and built
capacities within the organizations to carry out any necessary further actions in the future.

11. 11
3.5 Conclusions
In summary, this project manages to achieve many of the desirable features of a
capacity-building project. Its central structure – the indicators and guidelines – was created
WITH (and not for) the management teams of the participating companies, which has led to a
great degree to the relevance and sustainability of the projects to the companies.
4 LESSONS LEARNED
Several key lessons are in order:
1. Having an external person (that is, the PI) to drive a company’s sustainability
movement from within can help the staff to bypass any customary blind-spots and
induce more data or information-sharing. After the first meetings with the companies
(with the exception of Senoko, where meetings are always held between the PI and Mr
Kwong), representatives from different departments of the same companies often
have more to share with one another (to help advance the sustainability objectives)
than they are currently sharing.
2. All the three participating companies already have years of experience in certain
aspects of quality assurance (by abiding to certain ISO standards) and/or in-house
sustainability programs. It can be a barrier to introducing new sustainability ideas to
them; especially ideas that are not previously included in their sustainability programs.
One example being the Total Building Performance (TBP) concept. To tackle this
potential challenge, the CSd
R guidelines must be flexible enough to include the results
from the companies’ audit for, say, ISO 14001. In other words, it is very important for
any new sustainability program not to become a new problem or administrative burden
for the company.
3. The general impression gathered from the three companies is that the CSdR
indicators already covered all the existing measures relevant to the six categories
identified. Almost no additional indicators – so-called “co-created” indicators – were
proposed. An idea worth attempting is to conduct multiple surveys with employees in
the companies to identify indicators that fall beyond the scope already defined by the
given indicators.
4. There is a need to encourage SMEs to embark on sustainability programs. Although
DLS is an SME, it has several years of experience in CSR related actions and is
currently the second largest quantity surveyor firm in Singapore. To get more SMEs to
participate in future CSd
R projects, more flexibility is needed so that the less
experienced firms can choose to adopt indicators in clusters. That requires indicators
to be grouped into meaningful clusters so that even if SMEs do not adopt them all at

12. 12
once, they can still address the three bottom-lines of sustainable development with
every stage of adoption of the CSd
R guidelines.
5. Working with companies in implementing this project is an arduous and
energy-intensive process. It is essential to have a core team of experts who can help
facilitate the adoption of guidelines by the companies and also be in-charged of the
verification process. One possible future direction is to develop a “CSd
R Institute” to
provide training for professionals in the Asia-Pacific region interested to become
sustainability consultants.
5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATION (by NetRes)
The organizations should consider forming a consortium to share the key lessons from this
project with more corporate bodies – especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs),
which may not have the essential expertise and resources to commit to a project of this
nature.
ANNEXES
Annex 1: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for Davis Langdon & Seah Pte
Ltd
Annex 2: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for SKF Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
Annex 3: CSdR goals and record of actions and observations for Senoko Energy Pte Ltd