PIRAMIDA CARROLL PADA PERUSAHAAAN DI INDONESIA : STUDI PADA 3 PERUSAHAAN PEMENANG CSR AWARD 2016

Temy Setiawan, Ari Purwanti

Abstract


Currently, CSR disclosure to stakeholders in Indonesia has been done by many companies. Such disclosures are integrated in the annual report or produced as a report. Many motives underlie the disclosures. The purpose of this study is to describe the company's profile and CSR disclosure motives of the winning company of CSR Award Indonesia 2016 in accordance with the Carroll pyramid. Company’s disclosures will be analysed using the 10 principles developed by the United National Global Compact (UNGC). This study will analyses the data of the three companies who won CSR Award Indonesia 2016 from 2011 to 2015 using the corresponding indicators which are in accordance to the 10 principles of UNGC. The source of data are financial reports and sustainability reports. Findings. The analyses on the three companies that become the object of analysis has disclosed sustainability information that is in accordance with the 10 principles of UNGC. When associated with the CSR disclosure motive based on Carroll pyramid, the company has economic, legal, and ethical motives. Philanthropicic motive is not much expressed. Another finding shows that the three companies being analysed are engaged in mining and automotive.

Saat ini pengungkapan CSR di Indonesia kepada pemangku kepentingan sudah mulai banyak dilakukan oleh perusahaan baik terintegrasi di dalam laporan tahunan maupun dalam laporan tersendiri. Banyak motif yang mendasari pengungkapan tersebut. Tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk mendeskripsikan prodil perusahaan dan motif pengungkapan CSR dari perusahaan pemenang CSR Award Indonesia 2016 sesuai dengan piramida Carroll. Pengungkapan perusahaan akan dianalisis dengan 10 prinsip yang dikembangkan oleh United National Global Compact (UNGC). Penelitian ini akan menganalisis 3 perusahaan pemenang CSR Award Indonesia 2016 dari tahun 2011 hingga 2015 dengan indikator yang sesuai 10 prinsip UNGC. Sumber data adalah laporan keuangan dan sustainability report. Tiga perusahaan yang merupakan objek analisis mengungkapkan informasi keberlanjutan sesuai dengan 10 prinsip UNGC. Apabila dikaitkan dengan motif pengungkapan CSR pada piramida Carroll, perusahaan tersebut memiliki motif secara ekonomi, legal dan etika. Motif filantropi tidak banyak diungkapkan. Temuan lainnya, tiga perusahaan yang dianalisis bergerak di bidang tambang dan otomotif.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmad, N., & Sulaiman, M. (2004). Environmental disclosure in malaysian annual reports: a legitimacy theory perspective. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 14 (1), 44-58.

Carroll, A. B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model Of Corporate Social Performance. Academy Of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

Carroll, A. B. 1991. The Pyramid Of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward The Moral Management Of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, 268-295.

Carroll, A. B. 2016. Carroll Pyramid Of CSR: Talking Another Look. Carroll International Journal Of Corporate Social Responsibility Vol.1 No.3.

Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society: ethics and stakeholder management (4th ed.), Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Cannon, T. (2012). Corporate responsibility 2nd edition. England: Pearson.

Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 228-248.

Davis-Walling P, Batterman S. (1997). Environmental reporting by Fortune 50 firms. Environmental Management; 21(6): pp. 865-875.

Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosure - a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-343.

Garriga, E., and Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53:51-71.

Gunawan J. (2015). Corporate social disclosures in Indonesia: stakeholders’ influence and motivation. Social Responsibility Journal. Vol. 11 Iss 3: pp. 535 - 552

Halme M, Huse M. (1997). The influence of corporate governance, industry and country factors on environmental reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13(2):pp.137-157.

Kotler P., Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, New Jersey.

Li, X. G., Wang, X., & Cai, J. Y. (2011). Corporate-, product-, and user-image dimensions and purchase intentions: the mediating role of cognitive and affective attitudes. Journal of Computers, 6(9), 1875-1879.

Lii, Y. and Lee, M. (2012), Doing right leads to doing well: when the type of csr and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105(1), pp. 69-81.

Line M, Hawley H, Krut R. (2002). The development of global environmental and social reporting. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9(1): pp.69-78

McWilliams A., Siegel, D. S., Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 1–18.

Michelon, G. (2011), Sustainability disclosure and reputation: a comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 79-96.

Neu P, Warsame H, Pendwell K. (1998). Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23(3):pp.265-82.

O’Riordan L, Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics 83(4), pp. 745–758.

Othman, S., Darus, F. and Arshad, R. (2011), The influence of coercive isomorphism on corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation. Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 118-135.

Palazzo, G., Richter, U. (2005). Business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics 61(4), pp. 387–401.

Pérez, A. (2015). Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders gaps in the literature and future lines of research. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 11 – 29

Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R. (2002). The Competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. December, pp. 57-68.

Porter, E. M., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 78_92.

Porter, E. M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January-Februari, 2-17.

Raar, J. (2002). Environmental initiative: towards triple bottom line reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(3), 169-183.

Rae M, Rouse A. Mining Certification Evaluation Project - independent certification of environmental and social performance in the mining sector. A WWF-Australia discussion paper 2001. Resources Conservation Program, Mineral Resources Unit (WWF Australia), 2001.

Santema S, Van De Rijt J. (2001). Strategy disclosure in Dutch Annual Reports. European Management Journal 19(1):pp.101-108.

United Nations. (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Third Edition, UN Sales Publication No.E.08.II.A.2 (New York, December 2007).

Yuen CP, Yip D. (2002). Corporate environmental reporting e the CLP Power experience. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9(1):pp.95-100.

Walter, B. L, (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Towards a Phase Model of Strategic Planning In Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice. Published online: 25 Sep 2014; 59-79.

Williams SM, Ho Wern Pei CA. (1999). Corporate social disclosure by listed companies on their web sites: an international comparison. The International Journal of Accounting 34(3):pp.389-419.

Wilmshurst, T. D., & Frost, G. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: a test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10-26.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/jmb.v6i1.998

Article Metrics

Abstract - 2394 PDF - 1181

DOI (PDF): http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/jmb.v6i1.998.g635

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.