Introduction
Sustainable social development (SSD)—understood as the inclusive advancement of human well-being through equitable governance, environmental stewardship, and social cohesion—has emerged as a critical pillar of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. While the global community has made considerable strides in outlining comprehensive frameworks for SSD, practical implementation continues to lag, particularly in culturally diverse and religiously pluralistic societies [2]. Persistent challenges such as governance deficits, social fragmentation, and uneven civic participation continue to hinder the realization of sustainable, inclusive, and resilient communities [3].
Religion is increasingly recognized as a potent yet complex force in shaping sustainable development. Far beyond its spiritual dimension, religion functions as a moral, cultural, and institutional system that informs ethical norms, reinforces social cohesion, and influences collective behavior [4, 5–6]. Religious institutions often provide social services, mobilize community resources, and mediate trust between citizens and state actors—functions vital for SSD [7]. However, religion’s role is not uniformly constructive [8]. Fragmented doctrinal interpretations, exclusivist beliefs, or resistance to policy change can generate intergroup tensions, weaken public consensus, or obstruct inclusive governance [9]. These divergent outcomes underscore the need to investigate how religion contributes to or complicates sustainable development, particularly in multi-faith contexts.
This study focuses on three theoretically grounded religious constructs with particular relevance for SSD. First, collective conscience, derived from Durkheim’s sociological theory, which shape pro-social behaviors, enhance trust, and drive collective actions aligned with environmental and social sustainability [10]. Second, rituals and ceremonies are symbolic and participatory practices that transmit values, reinforce social bonds, and legitimize collective goals [5, 11]. These rituals often serve as platforms to reaffirm environmental ethics or promote intergenerational responsibility. Third, moral regulation denotes the prescriptive moral codes embedded within religious teachings and community norms that govern individual behavior and social accountability [12, 13]. When aligned with sustainability values, moral regulation can promote equity, moderation, and long-term stewardship.
Despite growing theoretical interest in these constructs, their empirical relationships with sustainable social development remain underexplored, particularly in Southeast Asia. Much of the existing literature tends to view religion as a static institutional variable or focuses on elite-level political activism, neglecting the nuanced ways in which religious values interact with policy implementation and civic participation [14, 15]. Moreover, few studies integrate religion into robust, theory-driven models of social capital, sustainability, and governance.
Malaysia offers a compelling setting for such inquiry. As a multi-faith nation with consistent economic growth and a formal commitment to sustainable development, Malaysia nonetheless ranks 51st out of 168 countries on the Social Progress Index [16], reflecting persistent gaps in social inclusion, environmental resilience, and institutional trust. Religious identity in Malaysia is deeply embedded: approximately 61% of the population identify as Muslim, followed by Buddhists (20%), Christians (9%), and Hindus (6%) [17]. Religious organizations have played important roles in health campaigns, disaster relief, and community education [18], yet their broader influence on SSD remains insufficiently examined in empirical research. Specifically, there is a lack of clarity on how religious constructs interact with institutional mechanisms such as administrative policy and civic engagement networks to influence developmental outcomes.
This study addresses this gap by investigating how collective conscience, rituals and ceremonies, and moral regulation function as predictors of sustainable social development, and how their influence is mediated by civic and policy mechanisms. It also examines the function of religion as a moderating variable that either strengthen or weaken these relationships. Grounded in Durkheim’s Theory of Religion and Society [19] and Putnam’s (2000) Social Capital Theory [20, 21], the study conceptualizes religion not merely as belief, but as a lived, institutional, and moral force that interacts with governance structures and civic life.
Using stratified random sampling and Structural Equation Modeling (SmartPLS 4), the study analyzes survey data from 385 individuals across six major religious groups in the Klang Valley—an urban, multi-religious region encompassing Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, and Selangor. The model tests both direct and indirect effects, including mediation through administrative policy and civic engagement, and moderation by the perceived function of religion.
This study contributes to theory by offering an integrated framework that bridges Durkheim’s moral cohesion and Putnam’s civic trust to explain how religious systems influence sustainability outcomes. It advances a more differentiated understanding of religion as both ethical regulator and social infrastructure, challenging binary assumptions that position religion as either a facilitator or obstacle to development. Empirically, it contributes original insights from a Southeast Asian context that remains underrepresented in the SSD literature. Practically, the findings offer policy-relevant recommendations on how to align religious values with inclusive sustainability strategies and engage faith-based institutions in culturally grounded governance initiatives.
Literature review
Sustainable social development and religious views
Sustainable social development (SSD) has evolved from a narrow focus on material and economic progress to a broader paradigm that integrates social justice, cultural identity, ethical values, and spiritual worldviews [22, 23]. Increasingly, scholars recognize that achieving holistic sustainability requires not only institutional frameworks but also normative structures embedded in communities—particularly those offered by religion. Religion, as both a moral compass and a source of collective identity, can mobilize grassroots participation, inspire ethical behavior, and reinforce long-term commitment to community well-being [24, 25].
Empirical studies underscore this duality. On one hand, religious traditions often champion principles aligned with sustainability—stewardship of the Earth, social equity, and the sanctity of life. These principles foster civic responsibility and strengthen resilience during crises [8, 26]. For instance, faith-based networks have mobilized communities for environmental conservation, public health, and disaster relief, demonstrating religion’s capacity to galvanize prosocial behavior [25, 27]. On the other hand, critics note a persistent gap between religious rhetoric and systemic action. While religious discourse may symbolically affirm sustainability ideals, these values are not always institutionalized into policy or development frameworks [5, 28].
This ambivalence reflects deeper tensions between doctrinal aspirations and socio-political realities. Similar to how irrational consumer responses—such as panic buying—are shaped by fear and uncertainty [29, 30], religious responses to sustainability are mediated by contextual factors such as theological interpretations, leadership dynamics, and community cohesion. Some religious groups actively integrate ecological teachings into liturgy, education, and service initiatives [31], while others remain confined to ritualistic affirmations with limited policy influence [8]. For example, a mosque or temple may advocate environmental stewardship during sermons but lack concrete engagement with municipal sustainability planning.
Moreover, the impact of religious engagement is not uniform across contexts. Studies show that Islamic boarding schools in Indonesia incorporate Sufistic ethics into conservation education [32], while Catholic and Hindu traditions in Bali and the Philippines have mobilized sacred rituals for forest and water protection [33]. However, such practices often depend on the interplay between religious authority, civic infrastructure, and political will. As a result, the same religious values can be empowering in one locality and inert in another [27, 34].
Given these inconsistencies, scholars have increasingly called for granular, context-specific investigations into the mechanisms by which religion influences SSD [25, 28]. Key questions remain unresolved: To what extent does religion promote participatory governance? How do variations in religious leadership or doctrinal emphasis affect environmental outcomes? And can religious actors function as institutional partners in state-led sustainability agendas?
Religion, civic engagement, and sustainability in Southeast Asian contexts
Recent studies in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, provide critical insights into how religious frameworks shape civic engagement and sustainable development. Islam plays a dual role: it fosters civic participation aligned with environmental values yet may reinforce bonding social capital over cross-cutting engagement [35]. Religious movements increasingly integrate theological principles with ecological activism to drive behavioral change, such as the incorporation of Sufistic ethics in Islamic boarding schools' conservation programs [32, 36].
Empirical evidence also links religiosity to pro-environmental consumer behavior. Suhartanto et al. [37] demonstrate that Islamic values predict green product adoption, while Eom and Ng [6] show that religious stewardship norms elevate support for ecological initiatives. In Bali, religious ecotourism models have facilitated sustainable community development through culturally embedded practices [33].
Civic engagement is further institutionalized through religiously infused education. Casmana et al. [38] find that schools promote global citizenship by integrating environmental and religious curricula. Similarly, Sukayat et al. [39] identify religious farmer networks as pivotal in advancing sustainable agriculture through participatory governance.
These findings reinforce and extend Durkheim’s and Putnam’s theories by demonstrating how religious identity, moral regulation, and civic networks operate within pluralistic and Islamic governance contexts to shape sustainable social development.
Theoretical understanding
This study draws upon two foundational sociological frameworks—Durkheim’s Theory of Religion and Society and Putnam’s Social Capital Theory—to conceptualize how religion fosters sustainable social development (SSD) through both moral regulation and social infrastructure. While each theory was originally developed to explain distinct dimensions of social cohesion, their integration enables a more holistic account of how religious beliefs and networks shape sustainability-related behaviors in pluralistic, multi-faith societies like Malaysia.
Durkheim’s perspective positions religion as a moral architecture that binds individuals into a collective through shared symbols, rituals, and beliefs [19, 40]. Central to this framework is the notion of collective conscience—a set of shared norms and values that regulate individual behavior and promote societal harmony. Religious rituals reinforce these norms, cultivating a communal identity grounded in ethical responsibility. In the context of sustainability, Durkheimian theory suggests that religious doctrines can function as moral triggers, encouraging pro-environmental behavior, equity, and long-term social welfare by imbuing everyday actions with sacred significance.
In contrast, Putnam’s Social Capital Theory focuses on the structural and relational dimensions of community life. It posits that dense networks of reciprocity, trust, and civic engagement enhance cooperation and collective efficacy [20, 41]. Within religious communities, such capital is often embedded in congregational life, faith-based volunteering, and mutual aid initiatives. Putnam’s framework explains how interpersonal trust and organized participation, particularly in faith settings, translate normative commitments into coordinated actions—such as environmental clean-ups, charity drives, or civic dialogues around social justice and sustainability.
Despite their differing emphases, both theories share a foundational assumption: religion operates as a collective force capable of shaping social behavior and advancing communal goals. Durkheim highlights the role of sacred meanings and normative alignment, while Putnam emphasizes relational density and participatory capacity. When integrated, these lenses reveal religion to be both an ideational resource—shaping values and ethical imperatives—and a social platform that facilitates coordinated action for the public good.
This theoretical integration addresses an overlooked gap in sustainability studies. While Durkheimian theory explains why individuals may be morally inclined toward sustainability (through internalized sacred norms), Putnamian theory explains how those inclinations are mobilized into collective action (through social networks and trust-based participation). In this study, constructs such as collective conscience, rituals and ceremonies, and moral regulation reflect the Durkheimian domain of moral order, while civic engagement networks and administrative policy reflect the Putnamian domain of social coordination and institutional mediation.
Crucially, this synthesis enables a more nuanced understanding of religion’s dual potential: while it can inspire cooperation, it may also pose barriers. Durkheim’s emphasis on moral cohesion may not hold in settings of doctrinal pluralism or theological fragmentation, potentially weakening normative consensus. Similarly, Putnam’s distinction between bonding and bridging social capital suggests that strong intra-group ties may inadvertently promote exclusivity and resistance to broader collaboration [42]. These insights are particularly salient in multi-faith societies where religious actors function not only as moral authorities but also as socio-political stakeholders with competing visions of the common good (Fig. 1).
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework
By unifying these theoretical strands, the study proposes that religion’s influence on SSD is contingent upon both value congruence and institutional alignment. Religious teachings serve as ethical anchors, while congregational structures act as civic incubators for participatory development. This dual-process model of moral motivation and social activation provides a robust framework for empirically examining how religion fosters—or at times hinders—sustainable development outcomes. In doing so, the study advances a more integrated and culturally grounded theory of religion’s role in shaping sustainable futures.
Hypothesis development
Religious constructs and SSD
Durkheim’s theory of religion emphasizes that religious systems foster social integration by promoting a collective conscience—a shared moral fabric that underpins community cohesion and collective behavior [19]. This theoretical foundation remains central to understanding how religion influences sustainable social development (SSD), particularly through internalized norms, symbolic practices, and moral regulation.
Collective conscience, as conceptualized by Durkheim, provides a moral compass that transcends individual interests and guides behavior toward socially desirable outcomes. In sustainability contexts, a strong collective conscience fosters group-level commitment to shared goals such as environmental protection, social justice, and intergenerational equity [43, 44]. Recent studies have linked collective conscience to increased support for sustainability policies and higher levels of pro-environmental behavior, civic responsibility, and trust in institutions [45, 46]. When religious communities internalize sustainability as a moral imperative, they are more likely to organize around shared goals and advocate for long-term developmental strategies [47].
Rituals and ceremonies, also emphasized by Durkheim, serve as symbolic affirmations of moral solidarity. They not only transmit religious meaning but also reinforce social cohesion and moral regulation through collective participation [48, 49]. These rituals often reaffirm values such as moderation, stewardship, and community service—values that closely align with SSD. Empirical research highlights the transformative nature of rituals in embedding sustainability values into cultural memory [5, 50]. Despite increasing secularization, rituals remain deeply embedded in many societies, functioning as mechanisms for social learning and symbolic governance [51].
Moral regulation refers to the explicit and implicit moral norms that guide behavior within a religious or communal setting. It draws on religious teachings to define what is acceptable and just, thereby influencing community-level decision-making and behavioral patterns [52]. When aligned with sustainability objectives, moral regulation plays a crucial role in promoting ethical consumption, equity, and long-term thinking [53]. Religious communities with robust systems of moral accountability are often more effective in mobilizing action on issues such as poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and civic cooperation [54]. Based on these theoretical insights and empirical findings, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1a: There is a relationship between collective conscience and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 1b: There is a relationship between rituals and ceremonies and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 1c: There is a relationship between moral regulation and sustainable social development.
Institutional & civic constructs and SSD
While Durkheim’s theory focuses on moral cohesion, Putnam’s (2000) Social Capital Theory emphasizes the role of social networks, civic norms, and institutional trust in fostering collective action and societal well-being. These mechanisms are central to enabling policy implementation, participatory governance, and the achievement of sustainability goals.
Administrative policy refers to the institutional frameworks, rules, and practices that govern resource distribution and decision-making within a society. When designed with sustainability in mind, administrative policies serve as vehicles for translating collective moral concerns into tangible outcomes [55]. Effective administrative policies integrate economic, social, and environmental priorities while promoting transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness [56, 57]. In culturally diverse societies, policies that resonate with local moral values and community norms are more likely to gain public trust and support, thereby increasing their developmental effectiveness.
Networks of civic engagement, as defined by Putnam, are relational systems through which citizens cooperate, share resources, and engage in public life. These networks enhance social trust, foster democratic participation, and facilitate knowledge exchange—key enablers of sustainable social development [23]. Civic engagement has been shown to improve environmental outcomes, increase local ownership of sustainability initiatives, and enhance collective problem-solving capacity [42]. Moreover, in religiously diverse settings, civic networks often serve as spaces for interfaith dialogue and collaborative action, allowing for broader consensus around developmental goals [58]. Together, these institutional and civic mechanisms complement the normative functions of religion by operationalizing collective goals and enabling stakeholder coordination. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: There is a relationship between administrative policy and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 2b: There is a relationship between network of civic engagement and sustainable social development.
Administrative policy as a mediator of religious constructs and SSD
Administrative policy plays a pivotal role in translating societal values and collective moral aspirations into formal structures, programs, and measurable outcomes that shape sustainable social development (SSD). In this study, administrative policy is conceptualized not merely as governmental procedures, but as a cultural and moral medium that transforms the abstract norms of collective conscience, rituals, and moral regulation into actionable sustainability initiatives [59, 60]. From a Durkheimian lens, administrative structures are an institutional extension of collective conscience—they operationalize shared norms into regulatory frameworks, thereby stabilizing society and coordinating collective action [19]. Meadowcroft [59] emphasizes that effective sustainability governance requires institutions that are normatively grounded and capable of institutional learning. Meuleman [61] similarly argue that the success of policy interventions depends on how closely administrative measures align with societal values. This aligns with the role of religion in encoding moral order, which is then channelled through policy frameworks.
Empirical studies confirm that religiously inspired values, when reflected in policy, enhance legitimacy and citizen compliance [62, 63]. For instance, administrative rituals—such as national sustainability campaigns with religious backing—can symbolically communicate ethical norms and reinforce behavioral compliance [11, 64]. This convergence of moral authority and admtrative rationality supports a mediating role for policy in the religion–SSD nexus. Furthermore, administrative rituals themselves may serve as performative instruments that embody shared societal values, reinforcing legitimacy and civic trust [65, 66]. Rayman-Bacchus and Radavoi [67] explore how administrative ceremonies in Southeast Asia integrate religious and cultural elements to advance social goals. Similarly, Tennekoon [68] and Yeshchenko et al. [69] discuss how administrative performances often serve as codified expressions of moral or ideological narratives embedded in local belief systems.
Recent work by Caldatto et al. [56] and Sukarso and Dasuki [70] further underscore the alignment of administrative management with normative principles. They argue that sustainability reforms must account for moral values encoded in public institutions to be effective. Lynch et al. [71] highlight how public-sector productivity and legitimacy are affected by the perceived moral integrity of administrative actors. In this context, administrative policy becomes a conduit for transmitting religious values into the domain of governance and public action. Given this conceptual integration, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3a: Administrative policy mediates the relationship between collective conscience and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 3b: Administrative policy mediates the relationship between rituals and ceremonies and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 3c: Administrative policy mediates the relationship between moral regulation and sustainable social development.
Mediating role of network of civic engagement
Multiple studies have emphasized the intermediary function of civic networks in strengthening sustainable outcomes, particularly by enhancing local knowledge exchange, fostering public trust, and creating participatory governance platforms [72, 73]. For instance, religious rituals and ceremonies often serve as catalysts for civic mobilization, strengthening social capital and resilience during environmental or health crises [74, 75–76]. Similarly, collective moral regulation derived from religious norms can activate service-learning initiatives, prosocial identity formation, and social advocacy—all filtered through civic engagement platforms [77, 78]. Studies have shown that these civic pathways mediate relationships between religious orientations and public participation in environmental or developmental programs [79, 80]. When religious teachings emphasize mutual aid, stewardship, and community welfare, civic engagement becomes the vehicle through which these principles are transformed into measurable SSD outcomes. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4a: Network of civic engagement mediates the relationship between collective conscience and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 4b: Network of civic engagement mediates the relationship between rituals and ceremonies and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 4c: Network of civic engagement mediates the relationship between moral regulation and sustainable social development.
Moderating role of function of religion
Religion, while often a source of ethical direction and social unity, also introduces doctrinal variation and institutional complexity that may condition the effectiveness of public policy and civic engagement efforts. The function of religion refers to its role in shaping public norms, guiding behavior, and influencing civic identity—either through formal religious organizations or informal cultural practices [5, 8].
The moderating role of religion has been well-documented in contexts where doctrinal values reinforce—or challenge—state-led development initiatives. For instance, in some multifaith societies, religious teachings support redistributive justice, environmental protection, or poverty alleviation, thereby strengthening the efficacy of administrative policies [81]. However, where religious communities adopt exclusivist or apolitical stances, civic engagement may decline, particularly in activities not aligned with doctrinal mandates [82, 83–84]. In Malaysia, religious affiliation has been shown to influence participation in both charitable and policy-oriented civic organizations, with variations across congregational contexts and religious traditions [85, 86].
Religion also plays a significant role in shaping social capitals and promoting sustainable development [5, 87]. It creates shared meaning and values, facilitating interaction and understanding between different religious systems [88]. However, the relationship between religion and sustainable development is complex, with both positive and negative influences [89]. Religious communities have the potential to contribute to sustainability through their beliefs and actions [27], and they can play a role in local energy transition processes. Faith actors are increasingly recognized as important contributors to the Sustainable Development Goals [24]. Based on these theoretical and empirical insights, the following moderation hypotheses are advanced:
Hypothesis 5a: Function of religion moderates the relationship between administrative policy and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 5b: Function of religion moderates the relationship between network of civic engagement and sustainable social development.
Hypothesis 5c: Function of religion moderates the relationship between rituals and ceremonies and sustainable social development.
Research methodology
This study adopts a quantitative, explanatory research design to investigate how religious constructs, civic engagement, and institutional factors influence sustainable social development (SSD) within the Klang Valley region of Malaysia. The design is explanatory in nature as it aims to test theoretically grounded relationships and mediation/moderation effects using structural equation modeling (SEM). A cross-sectional survey strategy was employed to collect data from multiple religious communities across Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, and Selangor.
The unit of analysis in this study is the individual respondent. While survey items sometimes refer to collective perceptions (e.g., “ourcommunity”), responses were captured at the individual level, reflecting each participant’s subjective interpretation of community-level phenomena. This is consistent with prior multilevel studies that assess perceived social constructs through individual responses [90].
Population and sampling strategy
The population of interest comprises religiously affiliated residents in Klang Valley. The sampling frame was derived using membership data from religious associations and community centers representing six major religious categories in the region: Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and other minor faiths. To ensure adequate representation and facilitate group comparisons, a stratified random sampling approach was used.
Each stratum represented one religious group. Within each stratum, participants were randomly selected using the Excel RAND() function, ensuring probabilistic selection. A total of 383 valid responses were obtained, following the proportional allocation of 70 respondents each from the five major religions and 33 from the collective group of minor religions. Eligibility criteria were verified via a screening question confirming religious affiliation and residence in Klang Valley. Surveys were distributed via messaging applications (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram) and social platforms, supplemented by outreach through religious institutions. The sample size exceeds the minimum requirement suggested by Krejcie and Morgan [91] for a population > 100,000 and is deemed adequate for PLS-SEM analysis with multiple latent constructs [92].
Measurement instrument
The survey instrument was developed by adapting validated measurement items from prior studies, modified for contextual appropriateness (Table 1). Items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). To ensure content validity, 11 academic experts and practitioners reviewed the initial questionnaire. Feedback was used to refine item phrasing for semantic clarity and cultural sensitivity. A pilot study with 50 respondents was conducted, yielding Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.80 for all constructs, indicating strong internal consistency. The measurement instruments for this study are carefully designed based on a variety of scholarly sources, each contributing to the nuanced assessment of different variables.
Table 1. Measurement items
Variables | Codes | Items | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
Collective conscience | CC1 | Our religious community shares a strong set of values and beliefs | [7, 93] |
CC2 | Members of our religious group actively participate in communal decisions | ||
CC3 | We have a shared vision and goals within our religious community | ||
CC4 | I feel a strong sense of belonging to my religious community | ||
Rituals and ceremonies | RC1 | I regularly participate in rituals and ceremonies of my religious community | [94] |
RC2 | Rituals and ceremonies are important in maintaining our religious community life | ||
RC3 | I am actively involved in organizing religious rituals in our community | ||
RC4 | Religious rituals and ceremonies hold significant symbolic value in our community | ||
Moral regulations | MR1 | I adhere to the moral teachings of my religion | [12] |
MR2 | Moral principles guide my daily decision-making | ||
MR3 | Our community upholds and enforces moral standards based on our religious beliefs | ||
MR4 | Moral principles play a key role in maintaining order within our religious community | ||
Administrative policy | AP1 | I am aware of local government policies impacting our religious community | [95] |
AP2 | The local policies are effective in addressing our community's needs | ||
AP3 | Our religious community is involved in the local policy-making process | ||
AP4 | Local policies positively impact our religious community's well-being | ||
Network of civic engagement | NCE1 | Our religious community actively participates in civic and volunteer activities | [96] |
NCE2 | We engage in projects that benefit the wider community | ||
NCE3 | We collaborate with others in our community to solve local problems | ||
NCE4 | We regularly communicate with community leaders and officials | ||
Function of religion | FR1 | Religious practices are a regular part of my life | [97] |
FR2 | My religious beliefs influence my daily decisions | ||
FR3 | Religion acts as a unifying force within our community | ||
Sustainable social development | SSD1 | Our community is making progress in sustainable development areas | [98] |
SSD2 | I actively participate in initiatives promoting sustainability | ||
SSD3 | I am aware of the sustainability challenges we face as a community | ||
SSD4 | I am involved in promoting sustainable practices within our community |
For Collective Conscience, the items are informed by Durkheim's conceptualization of shared beliefs and moral sentiments within a community [7, 93], focusing on adherence to community norms and the sense of belonging. The measurement of Rituals and Ceremonies draws on Smith & Stewart (2011), with items evaluating participation and the perceived importance of rituals in community life. Moral Regulations are gauged using frameworks by Hitlin et al. [12], focusing on moral principles in decision-making and community enforcement. Administrative Policy relies on Cejudo et al. [95] to assess policy awareness, effectiveness, and community involvement in policymaking. Network of Civic Engagement is measured through Xiong et al. [96] emphasizing civic participation and political engagement. Function of Religion is used by Stark [97] to assess religious practices and their influence on daily life. Lastly, Sustainable Social Development is informed by Jetzkowitz [98], with items evaluating community progress in sustainability areas.
Data analysis and results
Demographic analysis
In this study involving 557 participants, a response rate of 68.76% was achieved with 383 respondents completing valid questionnaire. Of these respondents, the gender distribution was 58.22% female and 41.78% male. In terms of marital status, 62.14% were married, while 37.86% were single. The age distribution among the participants showed that the largest groups were those aged 25–40 years (34.20%) and 41–56 years (44.13%), followed by the 18–24-year-olds (21.67%). The respondents represented a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds, religious affiliations, and varied educational levels, from primary education to doctorate degrees. The occupational background of the participants was equally diverse, including students, employed individuals, self-employed professionals, unemployed persons, homemakers, and retirees. Geographically, most of the respondents were from Kuala Lumpur (54.4%), Putrajaya (30.1%), and Selangor (15.5%), providing a broad demographic representation from these significant regions in Malaysia.
Common method bias
To address the potential for common method bias (CMB)—a concern in studies relying on self-reported data collected via a single survey instrument—this study employed both procedural and statistical remedies [99]. Procedurally, item ambiguity was minimized, confidentiality was assured to reduce social desirability bias, and construct items were psychologically separated to avoid priming effects. Statistically, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, with the first unrotated factor accounting for less than 50% of the total variance, indicating no serious CMB threat. Additionally, a marker variable technique was applied, using a theoretically unrelated construct to assess spurious correlations. The results confirmed that CMB did not materially distort the observed relationships.
Measurement model analysis
In our research, the convergent validity of the measurement model (refer to Fig. 2) was meticulously evaluated in alignment with the methodological framework proposed by [100]. This evaluation entailed an in-depth examination of multiple indicators, encompassing outer loadings, variance inflation factor (VIF), Cronbach's Alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE), with the findings comprehensively detailed in Table 2. The analysis revealed that factor loadings significantly exceeded the established threshold of 0.60, VIF values were consistently below the critical benchmark of 5, and AVE values surpassed the 0.5 mark, indicating that the latent variables substantially accounted for the variance within their respective indicators [101]. Moreover, CR values uniformly surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.70 [102], suggesting a robust and accurate representation of latent constructs by their corresponding indicators. Additionally, Cronbach's Alpha values also transcended the 0.7 threshold, thereby affirming strong internal consistency and underscoring that all scale items cohesively measured the intended underlying constructs [102]. Consequently, according to these established criteria, all items satisfactorily met the requisite standards for convergent validity, and none were identified as invalid within the parameters of this research [103].
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 2
Measurement model
Table 2. Measurement model statistics (outer loading, variance inflation factor, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted)
Variables | Items | OL | VIF | CA | CR (rho_c) | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AP | AP1 | 0.879 | 2.572 | 0.899 | 0.930 | 0.769 |
AP2 | 0.881 | 2.569 | ||||
AP3 | 0.897 | 2.933 | ||||
AP4 | 0.850 | 2.226 | ||||
CC | CC1 | 0.811 | 1.929 | 0.874 | 0.914 | 0.726 |
CC2 | 0.877 | 2.518 | ||||
CC3 | 0.831 | 2.030 | ||||
CC4 | 0.886 | 2.595 | ||||
FR | FR1 | 0.906 | 2.283 | 0.754 | 0.859 | 0.676 |
FR2 | 0.620 | 1.208 | ||||
FR3 | 0.908 | 2.372 | ||||
MR | MR1 | 0.834 | 2.077 | 0.891 | 0.925 | 0.754 |
MR2 | 0.876 | 2.869 | ||||
MR3 | 0.906 | 3.359 | ||||
MR4 | 0.857 | 2.226 | ||||
NCE | NCE1 | 0.829 | 2.017 | 0.859 | 0.904 | 0.703 |
NCE2 | 0.867 | 2.250 | ||||
NCE3 | 0.846 | 2.025 | ||||
NCE4 | 0.812 | 1.796 | ||||
RC | RC1 | 0.859 | 2.042 | 0.828 | 0.886 | 0.661 |
RC2 | 0.842 | 1.970 | ||||
RC3 | 0.828 | 1.929 | ||||
RC4 | 0.715 | 1.424 | ||||
SSD | SSD1 | 0.895 | 2.826 | 0.884 | 0.920 | 0.743 |
SSD2 | 0.885 | 2.732 | ||||
SSD3 | 0.867 | 2.282 | ||||
SSD4 | 0.799 | 1.817 |
Following the assessment of convergent validity, the study focused on evaluating discriminant validity, which ensures distinctiveness between different constructs in the model. Discriminant validity was examined using the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, a recognized method in social sciences research [103]. The HTMT compares the average correlations among items within the same construct against the correlations of items across different constructs. According to Table 3, the HTMT values were all below the threshold of 0.85 except for APxRC which is lower than 0.900, indicating that the constructs are sufficiently distinct from each other, thereby confirming discriminant validity for the model [103].
Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)
Construct | AP | CC | FR | MR | NCE | RC | SSD | FR × MR | FR × AP | FR × NCE | FR × RC | FR × CC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AP | ||||||||||||
CC | 0.811 | |||||||||||
FR | 0.662 | 0.636 | ||||||||||
MR | 0.826 | 0.785 | 0.685 | |||||||||
NCE | 0.840 | 0.816 | 0.650 | 0.823 | ||||||||
RC | 0.877 | 0.841 | 0.784 | 0.803 | 0.849 | |||||||
SSD | 0.840 | 0.846 | 0.710 | 0.818 | 0.846 | 0.841 | ||||||
FR × MR | 0.352 | 0.400 | 0.311 | 0.510 | 0.421 | 0.386 | 0.432 | |||||
FR × AP | 0.393 | 0.379 | 0.258 | 0.384 | 0.366 | 0.336 | 0.429 | 0.835 | ||||
FR × NCE | 0.348 | 0.437 | 0.286 | 0.435 | 0.437 | 0.350 | 0.425 | 0.839 | 0.847 | |||
FR × RC | 0.330 | 0.394 | 0.377 | 0.412 | 0.361 | 0.395 | 0.381 | 0.812 | 0.845 | 0.837 | ||
FR × CC | 0.357 | 0.498 | 0.276 | 0.410 | 0.434 | 0.377 | 0.442 | 0.802 | 0.799 | 0.827 | 0.789 |
Fornell-Larcker Criterion (FLC) in Table 4, confirms that each construct is distinct from the others. The square root of AVE values greater than their correlations with other constructs [104], validate that construct are unique and measure different phenomena
In summary, the measurement model statistics validate the reliability and distinctiveness of the constructs used in the study. These constructs, including Administrative Policy (AP), Collective Conscience (CC), Function of Religion (FR), Moral Regulation (MR), Network of Civic Engagement (NCE), Religious Capital (RC), and Sustainable Social Development (SSD are influential in enhancing sustainable social development in Klang Valley. The rigorous validation of these constructs, as demonstrated in Tables 2, 3, and 4, supports the robustness of the study's findings and contributes to sustainable social development.
Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion
Construct | AP | CC | FR | MR | NCE | RC | SSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AP | 0.877 | ||||||
CC | 0.720 | 0.852 | |||||
FR | 0.559 | 0.534 | 0.822 | ||||
MR | 0.741 | 0.694 | 0.579 | 0.869 | |||
NCE | 0.742 | 0.710 | 0.539 | 0.721 | 0.839 | ||
RC | 0.762 | 0.723 | 0.633 | 0.695 | 0.719 | 0.813 | |
SSD | 0.841 | 0.747 | 0.597 | 0.815 | 0.768 | 0.769 | 0.862 |
Hypothesis testing and discussion
The empirical findings from the structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis substantiate the intricate and theoretically informed hypotheses proposed in this study, revealing nuanced relationships between religious constructs, civic engagement, administrative policy, and Sustainable Social Development (SSD) (Table 5).
Table 5. Structural equation model and hypotheses testing result
Hypothesis path | Original sample | Sample mean | Standard deviation | T statistics | P values | f-square | Support | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1a | CC—> SSD | 0.075 | 0.074 | 0.031 | 2.453 | 0.014 | 0.010 | Yes |
1b | RC—> SSD | 0.134 | 0.135 | 0.031 | 4.276 | 0.000 | 0.030 | Yes |
1c | MR—> SSD | 0.336 | 0.338 | 0.040 | 8.482 | 0.000 | 0.187 | Yes |
2a | AP—> SSD | 0.300 | 0.299 | 0.039 | 7.782 | 0.000 | 0.129 | Yes |
2b | NCE—> SSD | 0.108 | 0.109 | 0.032 | 3.384 | 0.001 | 0.022 | Yes |
3a | CC—> AP—> SSD | 0.067 | 0.067 | 0.016 | 4.145 | 0.000 | Yes | |
3b | RC—> AP—> SSD | 0.112 | 0.112 | 0.020 | 5.615 | 0.000 | Yes | |
3c | MR—> AP—> SSD | 0.098 | 0.097 | 0.017 | 5.762 | 0.000 | Yes | |
4a | CC—> NCE—> SSD | 0.029 | 0.029 | 0.010 | 2.803 | 0.005 | Yes | |
4b | RC—> NCE—> SSD | 0.032 | 0.032 | 0.011 | 2.968 | 0.003 | Yes | |
4c | MR—> NCE—> SSD | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.011 | 3.195 | 0.001 | Yes | |
5a | FR x AP—> SSD | − 0.132 | − 0.132 | 0.038 | 3.434 | 0.001 | 0.032 | Yes |
5b | FR x NCE—> SSD | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.038 | 0.096 | 0.923 | 0.000 | No |
5c | FR x RC—> SSD | 0.102 | 0.100 | 0.034 | 3.022 | 0.003 | 0.022 | Yes |
Hypothesis 1a, which posited a positive relationship between collective conscience and SSD, was validated (β = 0.075, t = 2.453, p = 0.014). This finding aligns with Durkheimian propositions about the integrative power of shared moral and ethical frameworks [19, 40]. Specifically, it suggests that a strong collective conscience—expressed through shared community values—significantly contributes to collective sustainability practices such as recycling, conservation initiatives, and community-led environmental stewardship [43, 45, 46]. In multi-faith societies such as Malaysia, this result highlights how moral commonalities can transcend doctrinal differences, facilitating collective mobilization for sustainability despite underlying pluralism.
Hypothesis 1b, affirming the impact of rituals and ceremonies on SSD (β = 0.134, t = 4.276, p < 0.001), reinforces the notion that religious rituals play an essential symbolic and practical role in embedding sustainable norms within communities. This finding corroborates prior research [5, 50], suggesting that ritualistic practices operationalize abstract ethical commitments into routine behaviors that foster communal unity and sustainability. Empirical evidence from Malaysia—such as green initiatives within Islamic festivities (Green Masjid Malaysia) and Hindu environmental stewardship rituals—further exemplify how culturally resonant rituals strengthen community-wide sustainable practices.
The influence of moral regulation on SSD (Hypothesis 1c, β = 0.336, t = 8.482, p < 0.001) emerged as notably robust, confirming theoretical insights that religiously derived ethical norms exert powerful regulatory functions, motivating pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors [50, 52]. Moral regulation operates by fostering internalized commitments to ethical standards, facilitating both individual and collective sustainability actions, particularly crucial in addressing collective-action dilemmas associated with environmental and social issues.
Hypothesis 2a demonstrated that administrative policy significantly promotes SSD (β = 0.300, t = 7.782, p < 0.001), consistent with the literature emphasizing policy’s role in translating abstract ethical imperatives into tangible and structured community practices [59, 60]. Effective administrative policies that integrate cultural and religious values appear to enhance legitimacy, encourage broader participation, and facilitate adherence to sustainability norms, particularly in multicultural contexts.
Additionally, civic engagement networks were found to directly influence SSD (Hypothesis 2b, β = 0.108, t = 3.384, p = 0.001). This finding echoes the theoretical framework of social capital articulated by Putnam (2000), asserting that trust, reciprocity, and participatory networks facilitate collective mobilization and sustained community commitment to sustainability goals [23]. In practical terms, organizations such as Malaysia’s EcoKnights provide tangible examples of how active civic networks significantly contribute to achieving local sustainability targets by effectively harnessing community resources and fostering collaborative action.
Hypothesis 3a is supported, indicating that administrative policy mediates the impact of collective conscience on SSD, with a path coefficient of 0.67, t-statistics of 7.782, and a p value of 0.000. This finding aligns with Meadowcroft [59], who posits that administrative policy serves as a tangible representation of a society's collective conscience, particularly when manifested in regulations, programs, and sustainable development initiatives. Administrative policies, by translating collective values into actionable frameworks, ensure that the moral and ethical dimensions of a community's conscience are reflected in sustainable development practices.
Further, Hypothesis 3b is confirmed, showing that administrative policy also mediates the relationship between rituals and ceremonies and SSD, with a path coefficient of 0.112, t statistics of 3.384, and a p value of 0.001. This underscores the insights from Rayman-Bacchus et al. [67] and Caldatto et al. [56], who emphasize the role of cultural policy and public administration in shaping sustainable development, with a particular focus on its social dimensions. Administrative policies can institutionalize the values and norms expressed through rituals and ceremonies, thereby embedding cultural practices into sustainable development initiatives.
Moreover, Hypothesis 3c is validated, suggesting that administrative policy mediates the relationship between moral regulation and SSD, with a path coefficient of 0.098, t statistics of 5.762, and a p value of 0.000. This finding resonates with Caldatto et al. [56], who explore how public entities and administrative courts implement sustainable practices and shape the principle of sustainable development. Administrative policies act as conduits for moral regulation, ensuring that ethical standards and societal norms are upheld in sustainability efforts.
The findings of the study strongly support Hypothesis 4, indicating the significant mediating role of networks of civic engagement in SSD. Specifically, Hypothesis 4a is validated, revealing that the network of civic engagement positively affects the relationship between collective conscience and SSD, with a path coefficient of 0.029, t-statistics of 2.803, and a p value of 0.005. This is consistent with Kist [72] and McDermott et al. [73], who highlight that civil society networks provide essential information for local management and that successful sustainability policies often stem from robust citizen engagement.
Hypothesis 4b is also supported, demonstrating that networks of civic engagement mediate the relationship between rituals and ceremonies and SSD, with a path coefficient of 0.032, t statistics of 2.968, and a p value of 0.003. This aligns with research by Kadambi [76], emphasizing the crucial role of civic engagement, facilitated by rituals and ceremony, in fostering sustainable social development. Civic engagement enables communities to leverage the shared values and social cohesion fostered by rituals and ceremonies to drive collective sustainability efforts.
Moreover, Hypothesis 4c is confirmed, indicating that the relationship between moral regulation and SSD is mediated by networks of civic engagement, with a path coefficient of 0.036, t statistics of 3.195, and a p value of 0.001. This supports the perspective that civic engagement is integral to sustainable development, as outlined in studies by Kadambi [76] and Fernandez et al. [79], which suggest that cities incorporating civic engagement into their plans are more likely to achieve sustainability goals. According to Fernandez et al. [79], the development of civic engagement is influenced by adaptive developmental regulations, which involve moral regulations.
A particularly intriguing aspect of the findings lies within the moderation effects of religion. The positive moderation of religion between rituals and SSD (Hypothesis 5c, β = 0.102, t = 3.022, p = 0.003) aligns with theoretical perspectives proposing that religious rituals serve as powerful catalysts for embedding and amplifying sustainable practices [88]. However, religion's negative moderation effect between administrative policy and SSD (Hypothesis 5a, β = −0.132, t = 3.434, p = 0.001) signals an important theoretical and practical nuance. This negative moderation can be interpreted through the lens of institutional friction arising when secular governance frameworks intersect with rigid religious orthodoxy. Such frictions become particularly salient when top-down policy measures are perceived as externally imposed or culturally incongruent with deeply entrenched religious doctrines. Supporting this view, Al-Issa et al. [15] discussed how certain religious doctrines (e.g., the “purgatory ethic” in Muslim communities) might encourage passive reliance on spiritual rather than civic mechanisms for social improvement, thereby limiting cooperative engagement with secular sustainability policies.
Interestingly, religion did not significantly moderate civic engagement's relationship with SSD (Hypothesis 5b, β = 0.004, p = 0.923). This unexpected result suggests a decoupling of formal religious affiliation from direct civic participation, possibly reflecting broader societal shifts toward individualized spirituality or secular civic engagement in urban and digitally connected environments. Weber’s [105] classical Protestant Ethic framework provides a helpful theoretical lens here, suggesting contemporary urban religiosity may prioritize private ethical conduct or spiritual identity over collective civic action [106].
Collectively, these nuanced findings yield several theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the results enrich Durkheimian and Putnamian theories by revealing how religion simultaneously functions as a moral authority and an institutional stakeholder—what this study terms "religious policy sensitivity"—thereby affecting SSD differently across diverse institutional contexts. Practically, the findings highlight the necessity for policymakers to deeply engage with religious institutions and civic networks in culturally sensitive ways, ensuring congruence between policy objectives and community norms to maximize sustainability impacts.
Implications of this study
Theoretical implications
This study advances theoretical understanding by empirically refining Durkheim’s Theory of Religion and Society and Putnam’s Social Capital Theory within the context of sustainable social development (SSD) in a religiously pluralistic society. Specifically, it demonstrates how collective conscience, rituals, moral regulation, and civic engagement networks function as interlinked mechanisms that influence sustainable behavior.
Durkheim’s premise—that religion fosters social cohesion through shared beliefs and moral regulation—is substantiated by the observed significance of collective conscience and ritual practices in predicting SSD. These findings affirm that symbolic religious expressions and internalized moral codes reinforce collective commitment to sustainability, extending Durkheim’s theory into contemporary environmental and civic domains. Moreover, the role of moral regulation in shaping sustainable attitudes revalidates Durkheim’s notion of normative order as the backbone of social stability and prosocial action.
In alignment with Putnam’s Social Capital Theory, the study provides strong empirical support for the mediating role of civic engagement networks, which translate religiously inspired norms into participatory sustainability actions. These findings demonstrate how social trust and collective efficacy serve as operational pathways through which religious capital is activated for public good. Furthermore, the significance of administrative policy in reinforcing or weakening these pathways underscores the role of institutional alignment in leveraging social capital—a perspective that nuances Putnam’s original civic voluntarism model by integrating state-society dynamics.
A core theoretical contribution lies in conceptualizing the ambivalent moderating role of religion—sometimes enabling, sometimes constraining SSD outcomes based on its congruence with formal institutional policies. This introduces the construct of “religious policy sensitivity,” defined as the degree to which policy success depends on alignment with embedded religious values and institutional belief systems. This construct enriches both Durkheimian and Putnamian frameworks by highlighting religion not merely as a stabilizing force, but as a dynamic, context-sensitive agent that mediates policy legitimacy and civic response.
Academically, this study enriches the theory of religion by demonstrating its dual character: as a moral authority that catalyzes civic engagement and as a socio-political actor that can challenge secular sustainability agendas. It also extends social capital theory by integrating cultural-religious capital into its architecture—highlighting how trust, norms, and networks are shaped by deeper value systems rather than being functionally neutral.
Practical implications
This study offers actionable guidance for policymakers, community leaders, and development practitioners seeking to promote sustainable social development (SSD) in culturally and religiously diverse contexts. Drawing from significant empirical results, the implications center on enhancing the cultural resonance, policy coherence, and participatory depth of sustainability initiatives.
First, the observed influence of collective conscience on SSD underscores the value of aligning sustainability messages with community moral values. Local authorities can frame environmental campaigns (e.g., recycling, conservation) as expressions of religious stewardship, enhancing legitimacy and behavioral adoption. Faith-aligned messaging supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) by embedding ecological responsibility into communal ethics [107].
Second, the strong role of rituals and ceremonies suggests these practices can serve as vehicles for sustainability education. Religious and cultural festivals should incorporate ecological themes—such as tree planting or environmental pledges—to embed pro-sustainability norms within community identity. This fosters cultural internalization rather than compliance-driven behavior.
Third, findings on administrative policy as a mediator call for policy co-creation that reflects religious and cultural sensitivities. Government bodies can engage with religious councils and interfaith platforms to co-develop faith-based environmental initiatives, ensuring policy legitimacy and higher community adherence.
Fourth, the mediating power of civic engagement networks points to the importance of grassroots mobilization. NGOs and municipalities should facilitate community-led sustainability efforts through volunteer programs, local forums, and citizen advisory panels, thereby translating social capital into developmental outcomes.
Fifth, the moderating effect of religion highlights the importance of managing religion as a dynamic factor in policy design. Religious holidays and gatherings offer strategic opportunities to integrate sustainability themes. However, the findings also caution that religious resistance may emerge if policies clash with doctrinal values—suggesting the need for “religious policy sensitivity” in all stages of program implementation.
Finally, the study encourages businesses to incorporate religio-cultural values in CSR initiatives, partnering with faith-based organizations to co-sponsor sustainability projects like urban greening, eco-literacy campaigns, or community gardens. This enhances local trust and long-term project sustainability.
Concluding remarks and future directions
This study critically examines the intersection of religion, governance, and social development by empirically testing how collective conscience, rituals, moral regulation, civic engagement, and administrative policy interact to influence sustainable social development (SSD) in Malaysia’s multireligious context. Grounded in Durkheim’s and Putnam’s theoretical frameworks, the findings reveal that while civic engagement and administrative policy serve as effective mediators, the function of religion exerts a context-dependent moderating effect—enhancing the influence of rituals, undermining administrative policy efficacy, and remaining insignificant in civic pathways—thus challenging assumptions of religion as a uniformly cohesive force in sustainable development processes.
Theoretically, this research advances both classical frameworks by repositioning religion not merely as a stable force for cohesion, but as a conditional and sometimes contradictory influence. The introduction of the construct “religious policy sensitivity”—defined as the degree to which policy effectiveness depends on alignment with embedded religious beliefs—adds a critical dimension to both Durkheimian and Putnamian perspectives. It reconceptualizes religion as a contextual actor whose role may vary depending on institutional congruence and cultural resonance. Likewise, the study expands Social Capital Theory by highlighting civic engagement not simply as a mechanical outcome of trust, but as a culturally embedded process shaped by both religious meaning systems and administrative design.
Practically, the findings underscore the need for policy frameworks that are not only environmentally sound but also religiously and culturally inclusive. Sustainability programs must be co-designed with religious communities and structured to harness the symbolic and participatory functions of rituals, while being cautious of potential resistance when policies clash with deep-seated doctrinal values [108]. Engaging religious leaders, incorporating ritual-based messages, and cultivating civic channels attuned to local moral orders are key to achieving culturally resonant sustainable outcomes.
Looking ahead, future research should investigate the mechanisms behind the negative moderation effect of religion on administrative policy’s influence over SSD [109]. Qualitative or mixed-method studies could explore whether such resistance stems from perceived secular encroachment, theological interpretations, or power dynamics between religious institutions and state governance [110]. Additionally, comparative studies across different religious denominations or national governance systems could reveal how the function of religion as a moderating force varies according to doctrinal flexibility, institutional autonomy, or interfaith dynamics. Exploring these differences may help refine the concept of religious policy sensitivity and enhance its application across sociopolitical contexts. Furthermore, longitudinal studies could track how these religio-social relationships evolve over time in response to societal secularization, environmental crises, or changing policy environments. Finally, future work might also examine how digital technologies and online religious communities are reshaping civic engagement and sustainability discourse in contemporary faith-based societies.
In sum, this study not only fills a critical gap at the intersection of religion, governance, and sustainability but also sets the foundation for a more contextually grounded theory of sustainable social development. It encourages both scholars and practitioners to account for the cultural embeddedness of policy and the dynamic role of religion as both moral compass and institutional force.
Acknowledgements
Ethics Approval: Formal ethical approval has been waived by the Institutional Review Board of MAHSA University Malaysia. This decision falls under Category 2: Educational Testing, Survey Procedures, Interview Procedures, and Observation of Public Behavior, as outlined in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations for the protection of human subjects (45 CFR 46.101(b)) criteria. Issued by Faculty Ethical Approval Committee, MAHSA University, Malaysia.
Author contributions
A.A.S. played a pivotal role in conceptualizing the study and was also involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, software development, visualization, and drafting the original manuscript. Furthermore, J.B.A & R.H. contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript. S.Z.Q. contributed to the conceptualization of the study, oversaw the project as an external evaluation, and participated in data curation. N.F.A.R. was involved in formal analysis, investigation, contributed to drafting the original manuscript, and acted as a co-supervisor alongside A.A.S. and A.R.S. took part in data curation, contributed to drafting the original manuscript, and was involved in reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Authors reported there is no funding associated with this work.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Formal ethical approval has been waived by the Institutional Review Board of MAHSA University Malaysia. This decision falls under Category 2: Educational Testing, Survey Procedures, Interview Procedures, and Observation of Public Behavior, as outlined in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations for the protection of human subjects (45 CFR 46.101(b)) criteria. This study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, following strict ethical standards. Participation was anonymous, confidential, and voluntary, with informed oral consent obtained from all participants. Participants had the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point.
Consent for publication
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Clinical trial
Not applicable.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Hariram, NP; Mekha, KB; Suganthan, V et al. Sustainalism: an integrated socio-economic-environmental model to address sustainable development and sustainability. Sustainability; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310682]
2. Fagan A, Kopeckỳ P. The Routledge handbook of East European politics. 2017. Epub ahead of print 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687681
3. Saaida M, Saaidah I. Understanding the Dynamics of failure development in marginalized areas: a comprehensive analysis. Epub ahead of print 6 December 2023. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202312.0395.v1
4. Deane-Drummond, C. A case for collective conscience: Climategate, COP-15 and climate justice. Stud Christ Ethics; 2011; 24, pp. 5-22.
5. Ives, CD; Kidwell, J. Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustain Sci; 2019; 14, pp. 1355-1362.
6. Eom, K; Ng, ST. The potential of religion for promoting sustainability: the role of stewardship. Top Cogn Sci; 2023; 15, pp. 480-499.
7. McDonald, EK. Perceptions of The’less fortunate’: an exploratory study of short-term mission trips; 2015; Hammond, Southeastern Louisiana University:
8. Narayanan, Y. Religion and sustainable development: analysing the connections. Sustain Dev; 2013; 21, pp. 131-139.
9. Saleh, C; Hayat, H; Sumartono, S et al. Moderating of religiosity on reward and engagement: empirical study in Indonesia public service. J Asian Financ Econ Bus; 2020; 7, pp. 287-296.
10. Pecherskikh, A. Durkheimian tradition through the eyes of the cultural sociologist. Sotsiol Obozr Russian Sociol Rev; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-1-191-196]
11. Samier, E. Administrative ritual and ceremony. Educ Manage Adm; 1997; 25, pp. 417-436.
12. Hitlin, S; Vaisey, S. The new sociology of morality. Annu Rev Sociol; 2013; 39, pp. 51-68.
13. Dastagir, G; Ramzy, MI. Understanding “the others”: Buddhist-islamic dialogue for peace with particular reference to ‘moderation’. Al-Shajarah; 2019; 24, pp. 25-48.
14. Olmos-Vega, FM; Stalmeijer, RE; Varpio, L et al. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Med Teach; 2023; 45, pp. 241-251.
15. Al-Issa, RS; Krauss, SE; Roslan, S et al. Can i pay at Purgatory? The negative impact of the purgatory ethic in Islamic societies: theoretical and empirical evidence. Religions; 2022; 13, 101.
16. The Malay Mail SR. PM Anwar: Malaysia sets national sustainable development goals indicator targets. The Malay Mail, 7 November 2023. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/11/07/pm-anwar-malaysia-sets-national-sustainable-development-goals-indicator-targets/100806. Accessed 30 Dec 2023.
17. Zarkasi, A; Ruslan, I; Rosana, E et al. Kerjasama Hindu–Islam dalam hubungan antar agama di desa kiluan lampung. JAWI; 2020; 3, 8075.
18. The Malay Mail SR. Nik Nazmi: Malaysia facing serious sustainability issues than ever. The Malay Mail, 15 June 2023. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/06/15/nik-nazmi-malaysia-facing-serious-sustainability-issues-than-ever/74457. Accessed 30 Dec 2023.
19. Morrison, K. The elementary forms of religious life. Soc Forces; 2003; 82, pp. 399-404.
20. Evers, A. Social capital and civic commitment: on Putnam’s way of understanding. Soc Policy Soc; 2003; 2, pp. 13-21.
21. Edwards, B; Foley, MW. Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. Am Behav Sci; 1998; 42, pp. 124-139.
22. de Hedlund- Witt, A. The rising culture and worldview of contemporary spirituality: a sociological study of potentials and pitfalls for sustainable development. Ecol Econ; 2011; 70, pp. 1057-1065.
23. Mensah, J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: literature review. Cogent Soc Sci; 2019; 5, 1653531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531]
24. Tomalin, E; Haustein, J; Kidy, S. Religion and the sustainable development goals. Rev Faith Int Aff; 2019; 17, pp. 102-118.
25. Öhlmann, P; Hunglinger, S; Gräb, W et al. Religion and sustainable development: the ``secular distinction’’ in development policy and its implication for development cooperation with religious communities. Religion in motion; 2020; Cham, Springer: pp. 119-137.
26. Ellingson, S; Woodley, VA; Paik, A. The structure of religious environmentalism: movement organizations, interorganizational networks, and collective action. J Sci Study Relig; 2012; 51, pp. 266-285.
27. M. Altmann, Aniko Bunta, Olivier Mazimpaka. Religion a Sustainability: The Contribution of Religious Belief in Moving Society Towards Sustainability.
28. Bsoul, L; Omer, A; Kucukalic, L et al. Islam’s perspective on environmental sustainability: a conceptual analysis. Soc Sci; 2022; 11, 228.
29. Kaur, A; Malik, G. Understanding the psychology behind panic buying: a grounded theory approach. Glob Bus Rev; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150920973504]
30. Yuen, KF; Tan, LS; Wong, YD et al. Social determinants of panic buying behaviour amidst COVID-19 pandemic: the role of perceived scarcity and anticipated regret. J Retail Consum Serv; 2022; 66, 102948.
31. Sivaramakrishnan, K. Ethics of nature in Indian environmental history: a review article. Mod Asian Stud; 2015; 49, pp. 1261-1310.
32. Irawan, B. Islamic boarding schools (pesantren), Sufism and environmental conservation practices in Indonesia. HTS Teol Stud Theol Stud; 2022; 78, 7073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7073]
33. Purnamawati, IGA; Jie, F; Hatane, SE. Cultural change shapes the sustainable development of religious ecotourism villages in Bali, Indonesia. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7368.
34. Reckien, D; Creutzig, F; Fernandez, B et al. Climate change, equity and the sustainable development goals: an urban perspective. Environ Urban; 2017; 29, pp. 159-182.
35. Mondesir, R. A civic bridge or a silo? Islam, religious affiliation, and civic engagement in rural Indonesia. Soc Sci Res; 2023; 112, 102876.
36. Smith, JD; Adam, R; Maarif, S. How social movements use religious creativity to address environmental crises in Indonesian local communities. Glob Environ Change; 2024; 84, 102772.
37. Suhartanto, D; Dean, D; Amalia, FA et al. Attitude formation towards green products evidence in Indonesia: integrating environment, culture, and religion. Asia Pac Bus Rev; 2022; 30, pp. 94-114.
38. Casmana, AR; Dewantara, JA; Timoera, DA et al. Global citizenship: preparing the younger generation to possess pro-environment behavior, mutual assistance and tolerance awareness through school engagement. Glob Soc Educ; 2022; 21, pp. 15-32.
39. Sukayat, Y; Setiawan, I; Suharfaputra, U et al. Determining factors for farmers to engage in sustainable agricultural practices: a case from Indonesia. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10548.
40. Shilling, C; Mellor, PA. Retheorising Emile Durkheim on society and religion: embodiment, intoxication and collective life. Sociol Rev; 2011; 59, pp. 17-41.
41. Putnam, RD. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Culture and politics; 2000; New York, Palgrave Macmillan US: pp. 223-234.
42. Lewis, VA; MacGregor, CA; Putnam, RD. Religion, networks, and neighborliness: the impact of religious social networks on civic engagement. Soc Sci Res; 2013; 42, pp. 331-346.
43. Chwialkowska, A; Bhatti, WA; Glowik, M. The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. J Clean Prod; 2020; 268, 122305.
44. Afful, A; KumiAcquah, GK; Agyekum, K. Level of knowledge of design professionals on the principles of social sustainability in Ghana. SSRN Electron J; 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3511538]
45. Hayes A. Type II error definition. Investopedia. (2020). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/type-ii-error.asp
46. Procentese, F; Gatti, F; Sgammato, G et al. Promoting individual and collective pro-environmental behaviors: the role of sense of responsible togetherness and sense of community. J Prev Interv Community; 2024; 52, pp. 435-455.
47. Christie, I; Gunton, RM; Hejnowicz, AP. Sustainability and the common good: catholic social teaching and ‘integral ecology’ as contributions to a framework of social values for sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci; 2019; 14, pp. 1343-1354.
48. Rappaport, R. Ritual, sanctity, and cybernetics1. Am Anthropol; 1971; 73, pp. 59-76.
49. Aldenderfer, M. Ritual, hierarchy, and change in foraging societies. J Anthropol Archaeol; 1993; 12, pp. 1-40.
50. Wojtkowiak, J. Towards a psychology of ritual: a theoretical framework of ritual transformation in a globalising world. Cult Psychol; 2018; 24, pp. 460-476.
51. Hammond PE. The sacred in a secular age: toward revision in the scientific study of religion. 2023. Epub ahead of print 2023. https://doi.org/10.2307/3711605
52. Molla R, Dastagir G. Faith-based ethical reform for social stability and sustainable development.
53. Elías, JJ; Lacetera, N; Macis, M et al. Economic development and the regulation of morally contentious activities. Am Econ Rev; 2017; 107, pp. 76-80.
54. Ghafran, C; Yasmin, S. Participation strategies and ethical considerations in NGO led community-based conservation initiatives. J Bus Ethics; 2025; 196, pp. 659-675.
55. Gabler, CB; Itani, OS; Agnihotri, R. Activating corporate environmental ethics on the frontline: a natural resource-based view. J Bus Ethics; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05201-2]
56. Caldatto, FC; Bortoluzzi, SC; de Lima, EP. The role of public administration in sustainable development. World sustainability series; 2019; Cham, Springer: pp. 69-79.
57. Gustafson, DJ; Ingle, MD. Defining sustainable development: environmental and investment perspectives and implications for administrative reform. Int J Public Adm; 1999; 22, pp. 833-854.
58. Pestana, MH; Parreira, A; Moutinho, L. Motivations, emotions and satisfaction: the keys to a tourism destination choice. J Destin Mark Manage; 2020; 16, 100332.
59. Meadowcroft, J. National sustainable development strategies: features, challenges and reflexivity. Eur Environ; 2007; 17, pp. 152-163.
60. Briassoulis, H. Sustainable tourism policy implementation: An ex ante critical examination. Tourism and the environment; 2000; Dordrecht, Springer: pp. 255-282.
61. Meuleman, L. Public administration and governance for the SDGs: navigating between change and stability. Sustainability (Switzerland); 2021; 13, 5914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13115914]
62. Bulachek V. Administrative and legal protection of public morality. Soc Legal Stud. 5.
63. Baumgartner, RJ; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. J Clean Prod; 2017; 140, pp. 81-92.
64. Kapoor, V. Promoting sustainable development in festivals through ritual revisions. J Sustain Tour; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2024.2315497]
65. McComas, K; Besley, JC; Black, LW. The rituals of public meetings. Public Adm Rev; 2010; 70, pp. 122-130.
66. Goodsell, CT. Administration as ritual. Int J Public Adm; 1997; 20, pp. 939-961.
67. Rayman-Bacchus, L; Radavoi, CN. Advancing cultures role in sustainable development: social change through cultural policy. Int J Cult Policy; 2019; 26, pp. 649-667.
68. Tennekoon, NS. Rituals of development: the accelerated Mahaväli development program of Sri Lanka. Am Ethnol; 1988; 15, pp. 294-310.
69. Yeshchenko, M; Fasolko, T; Dolgaleva, O et al. Legal provision of the state administration of the ecological component of sustainable socio-economic development. Manag Theory Stud Rural Bus Infrastruct Dev; 2021; 42, pp. 415-421.
70. Sukarso, Dasuki NP. The ethics of public administration and policy for sustainability development: a case of Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on social transformation, community and sustainable development (ICSTCSD 2019). 2020.
71. Lynch, TD; Lynch, CE; Cruise, PL. Productivity and the moral manager. Adm Soc; 2002; 34, pp. 347-369.
72. Kist, MB; Van, BHM. Sustainability management in cities: a perspective regarding the role of civil society networks in the public policy analysis process. Rev Adm Públ; 2022; 56, pp. 583-602.
73. McDermott, K; Kurucz, EC; Colbert, BA. Collaborative civil society organizations and sustainable cities: the role of ``mobilizing leadership’’ in building the integral commons. Organ Environ; 2017; 32, pp. 234-254.
74. Wu, M-Y; Tong, Y; Li, Q et al. Interaction rituals and social relationships in a rural tourism destination. J Travel Res; 2022; 62, pp. 1480-1496.
75. Lerner, RM; Wang, J; Champine, RB et al. Development of civic engagement: theoretical and methodological issues. Int J Dev Sci; 2014; 8, pp. 69-79.
76. Kadambi A, Choi H. Civic engagement and sustainable cities.
77. Koliba, CJ. Moral language and networks of engagement. Am Behav Sci; 2000; 43, pp. 825-838.
78. Jones, JN; Warnaar, BL; Bench, JH et al. Promoting the development of moral identity, behavior, and commitment in a social action program. J Peace Educ; 2014; 11, pp. 225-245.
79. Fernandez, K; Robichau, RW; Alexander, JK et al. How a nonprofitness orientation influences collective civic action: the effects of civic engagement and political participation. Voluntas; 2022; 33, pp. 1051-1063.
80. Kavanaugh, A; Carroll, JM; Rosson, MB et al. Participating in civil society: the case of networked communities. Interact Comput; 2005; 17, pp. 9-33.
81. Clarke, M. Points of equilibrium: religious beliefs and economic development policy. Sustain Dev; 2016; 24, pp. 181-189.
82. Marshall, P. Institutional religious freedom: an overview and defense. Religions; 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel12050364]
83. Sarkissian, A. Religion and civic engagement in Muslim countries. J Sci Study Relig; 2012; 51, pp. 607-622.
84. Schwadel, P. Individual, congregational, and denominational effects on church members civic participation. J Sci Study Relig; 2005; 44, pp. 159-171.
85. Beyerlein, K; Vaisey, S. Individualism revisited: Moral worldviews and civic engagement. Poetics; 2013; 41, pp. 384-406.
86. Driskell, RL; Lyon, L; Embry, E. Civic engagement and religious activities: examining the influence of religious tradition and participation. Sociol Spectr; 2008; 28, pp. 578-601.
87. Abumoghli, I. The role of religions, values, ethics, and spiritual responsibility in environmental governance and achieving the sustainable development agenda. Relig Dev; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30965/27507955-20230008]
88. Foster, H. The role of religion in education for social sustainability. Rethinking work and learning; 2009; Dordrecht, Springer: pp. 119-130.
89. Basedau M, Gobien S, Prediger S. The ambivalent role of religion for sustainable development: a review of the empirical evidence. SSRN Electron J.
90. Sarstedt, M; Ringle, CM; Hair, JF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of market research; 2021; Cham, Springer: pp. 1-47.
91. Krejcie, RV; Morgan, DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas; 1970; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308]
92. Moore, Z; Harrison, DE; Hair, J. Data quality assurance begins before data collection and never ends: what marketing researchers absolutely need to remember. Int J Market Res; 2021; 63, pp. 693-714.
93. Tole, LA. Durkheim on religion and moral community in modernity*. Sociol Inq; 1993; 63, pp. 1-29.
94. Smith, ACT; Stewart, B. Organizational rituals: features, functions and mechanisms. Int J Manag Rev; 2011; 13, pp. 113-133.
95. Cejudo, GM; Trein, P. Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach. Policy Sci; 2023; 56, pp. 9-27.
96. Xiong, A; Pu, Y. Research on social capital and regional development in China: what has been done so far and what should be done in future. Handbook of social capital and regional development; 2016; Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781783476831.00022]
97. Stark, R. Micro foundations of religion: a revised theory. Sociol Theory; 1999; 17, pp. 264-289.
98. Jetzkowitz, J. Co-evolution of nature and society; 2019; Cham, Springer: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96652-6]
99. Podsakoff, PM; MacKenzie, SB; Lee, JY et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol; 2003; 88, pp. 879-903.
100. Hair, JF. Reflections on SEM. ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv Inf Syst; 2021; 52, pp. 101-113.
101. Edeh, E; Lo, W-J; Khojasteh, J. Review of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook. Struct Equ Modeling; 2023; 30, pp. 165-167.
102. Sarstedt, M; Hair, JF; Pick, M et al. Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychol Mark; 2022; 39, pp. 1035-1064.
103. Henseler, J; Ringle, CM; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci; 2015; 43, pp. 115-135.
104. Fornell, C; Larcker, DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50.
105. Weber M. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. 2005. Epub ahead of print 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203995808
106. Cloke, P; Baker, C; Sutherland, C et al. Geographies of postsecularity; 2019; London, Routledge: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315670614]
107. Wider, W. Effects of metacognitive skills on physics problem -solving skills among form four secondary school students. J Balt Sci Educ; 2023; 22,
108. Jiang, Y; Abdullah, SINW; Lim, BJH; Wang, R; Phuah, KT. The role of marketing stimuli and attitude in determining post-COVID buying decisions toward organic food products: evidence from retail consumers in Beijing, China. Front Sustain Food Syst; 2023; 7, 1051696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1051696]
109. Lim, ST; Haque, R; Safiyuddin, FS; Hakimi, NB; Noordin, NBM; Manickam, L. Innovative marketing strategies in the competitive economic environment in sustainable development goals (SDGs): a case study of top glove manufacturers in Malaysia. J Lifestyle SDGs Rev; 2024; 4,
110. Liaw, JOH; Ibrahim, N; Singh, I; Tajudin, A; Isa, A; Haque, R. Integration model of human dimensions, military minds and patriostism. Int J Relig; 2024; 5,
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Sustainable social development (SSD)—defined as the integration of equity, environmental responsibility, and civic cohesion—remains an underachieved goal in many multi-faith societies, particularly in Southeast Asia. Although theoretical discussions recognize religion as a moral and institutional force, empirical studies rarely investigate how specific religious constructs influence SSD through civic and policy pathways. This study addresses this gap by examining how collective conscience, rituals and ceremonies, and moral regulation contribute to SSD, and how these effects are mediated by civic engagement and administrative policy. It also investigates whether the function of religion moderates these relationships. Drawing on Durkheim’s theory of religion and society and Putnam’s social capital theory, the study proposes and tests a comprehensive structural model. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire using Likert-scale items from 385 respondents across major religious communities in the Klang Valley, selected via stratified random sampling. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to validate the hypothesized relationships. The results reveal that moral regulation (β = 0.336, p < 0.001) and rituals (β = 0.134, p < 0.001) exert strong direct effects on SSD, while administrative policy and civic networks significantly mediate these effects. Notably, the moderating role of religion produced mixed results, including a significant negative interaction between religious function and administrative policy. These findings extend Durkheim’s and Putnam’s theories by demonstrating how religious structures and policy interfaces co-produce sustainability outcomes in pluralistic societies. The study offers theoretical and policy implications for leveraging cultural and civic capital in sustainable development planning.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Awang, Jaffary Bin 2
; Haque, Rasheedul 3
; Qazi, Sayeeduzzafar 4
; Rahman, Nur Farhana Abdul 1
; Senathirajah, Abdul Rahman Bin S. 5
1 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Research Centre for Theology and Philosophy, Bangi, Malaysia (GRID:grid.412113.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 1557)
2 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Research Centre for Theology and Philosophy, Institute of Islam Hadhari, Bangi, Malaysia (GRID:grid.412113.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 1557)
3 MAHSA University, Faculty of Business, Accounting, Finance, Law and Humanity (FOBAFLH), Bandar Saujana Putra, Malaysia (GRID:grid.459705.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0366 8575)
4 University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (GRID:grid.443327.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0417 7612)
5 INTI International University, Faculty of Business and Communications, Nilai, Malaysia (GRID:grid.444479.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1792 5384); Shinawatra University, Faculty of Management, Sam Khok, Thailand (GRID:grid.443708.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0646 5626); Wekerle Business School, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.466256.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0446 163X)