Sejarah:

“The program of Corporate Social Responsibility is the social program that provides a lot of contributions in solving social problems in job opportunities, health, education, economy, and the environment. The implementation of the CSR program still faces some obstacles, namely, the program has not been socialized. Another barrier is the difference of viewpoint between the Department of Laws and Human Right and the Department of Industry. The other is that there is no clear regulation on the implementation of CSR. However, CSR program can improve the spirit of togetherness among different communities.”

CSR

Peran tiapstakeholdersberbeda.

Pemerintah

Masy madani

MasyarakatPelaku Bisnis

CSR Apa fungsi Bisnis dalam Masyarakat? Menciptakan barang dan jasa atas dasar efisiensi

usaha. Mekanisme pasar: menggunakan seefisien

mungkin sumber daya langka bagi kesejahteraan umat manusia.( Adam Smith)

- Berorientasi kpd kebutuhan konsumen termasuk memproteksi ke konsumen

- Berorientasi kpd kelanjutan lingkungan hidup - berorientasi kpd kesejahteraan manusia.

Corporate Social ResponsibilityCorporate Social Responsibility

Social ProgramSocial Program

Job OpportunitiesJob Opportunities HealthHealth EducationEducation EconomyEconomy EnvironmentEnvironment

BarriersBarriers

Not SocializedNot Socialized Difference of viewpoint between the Department of Difference of viewpoint between the Department of

Laws & Human Right & Department of IndustryLaws & Human Right & Department of Industry

CSR : it can improve the spirit of togetherness CSR : it can improve the spirit of togetherness among different communitiesamong different communities

Landasan di Ind Ps 74 UUPTLandasan di Ind Ps 74 UUPT

CSR CSR (Program Corporate Social

Reponsibility) merupakan salah satu kewajiban yang harus dilaksanakan oleh perusahaan sesuai dengan isi pasal 74 Undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas (UUPT) yang baru. Undang-undang ini disyahkan dalam sidang paripurna DPR

CSR

CSR

UUPT no 74

Industri tambang

Stake Holders

Tanggung jawabLandasan hukum

PS Third party Creditor Employee Suppl dll

CSR

Hasil langsung

Hasil tidak langsung

Tahun 1953 Howard Rothmann Brower

1. CSR : tersosialisasi dengan baik di masyarakat

CSR There is no universally accepted definition of CSR. Selected definitions by CSR organizations and actors

include: "Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and

contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large" World Business Council for Sustainable Development

"CSR is about how companies manage the business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society." Mallen Baker

"Corporate social responsibility is undertaking the role of “corporate citizenship” and ensuring the business values and behaviour is aligned to balance between improving and developing the wealth of the business, with the intention to improve society, people and the planet"

"CSR is a company’s commitment to operating in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner whilst balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders." CSR Asia

"Corporate social responsibility is the commitment of functional businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development by working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their lives in ways that are good for business and for development." International Finance Corporation

"A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." European Comission

Corporate Social Corporate Social Responsibility Responsibility

Responsibility – Value added 4 Shareholder’sResponsibility – Value added 4 Shareholder’s

-Stake holder’s driven concept-Stake holder’s driven conceptFairnessFairnessTransparencyTransparencyAccountabilityAccountability

CSR Untuk menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan adalah warga dunia bisnis yang

baik maka perusahaan dapat membuat pelaporan atas dilaksanakannya beberapa standar CSR termasuk dalam hal:

Akuntabilitas atas standar AA1000 berdasarkan laporan sesuai standar John Elkington yaitu laporan yang menggunakan dasar triple bottom line (3BL)

Global Reporting Initiative, yang mungkin merupakan acuan laporan berkelanjutan yang paling banyak digunakan sebagai standar saat ini.

Verite, acuan pemantauan Laporan berdasarkan standar akuntabilitas sosial internasional SA8000 Standar manajemen lingkungan berdasarkan ISO 14000

Corporate Social Corporate Social Responsibility Responsibility

Responsibility : Triple Bottom lines:

‘- Financial

‘- Social

‘- Environment

CSR Kasus bisnis dari CSR Skala dan sifat keuntungan dari CSR untuk suatu organisasi dapat berbeda-beda

tergantung dari sifat perusahaan tersebut dan amat sulit untuk mengukur walaupun banyak sekali literatur yang memuat tentang cara mengukur seperti misalnya metode "Empat belas poin balanced scorecard oleh Deming. Orlizty, Schmidt, dan Rynes menemukan suatu korelasi antara social / performa lingkungan hidup dan performa keuangan . Namun bisnis nampaknya tidak menguntungkan apabila diharuskan melaksanakan strategi CSR.

Hasil Survey "The Millenium Poll on CSR" (1999) yang dilakukan oleh Environics International (Toronto), Conference Board (New York) dan Prince of Wales Business Leader Forum (London) diantara 25.000 responden di 23 negara menunjukkan bahwa dalam membentuk opini tentang perusahaan, 60% mengatakan bahwa etika bisnis, praktek terhadap karyawan, dampak terhadap lingkungan, tanggungjawab sosial perusahaan (CSR) akan paling berperan, sedangkan bagi 40% citra perusahaan & brand image yang akan paling mempengaruhi kesan mereka. Hanya 1/3 yang mendasari opininya atas faktor-faktor bisnis fundamental seperti faktor finansial, ukuran perusahaan,strategi perusahaan, atau manajemen.

CSR Issue news dated June 11, 2008 perusahaan

exportir makanan dari hasil laut Malaysia ditolak oleh negara Eropa karena dari pemeriksaan team ( 16 perusahaan exportir, 10 perusahaan tidak memenuhi standard pengolahan dari negara Eropa)

CSR contoh: Sesuai Undang-Undang Bank Indonesia No. 23 Tahun 1999 sebagaimana

telah diubah dengan Undang-undang No. 3 Tahun 2004, sebagai bank sentral Bank Indonesia diwajibkan untuk dapat mencapai dan memelihara kestabilan nilai tukar rupiah. Untuk mencapai tujuan Bank Indonesia tersebut, terdapat tiga pilar utama yang menjadi tugas Bank Indonesia yaitu menetapkan dan melaksanakan kebijakan moneter; mengatur dan menjaga kelancaran sistem pembayaran; dan mengatur dan mengawasai bank. Selain dituntut untuk dapat melaksanakan tugas-tugas utamanya tersebut, Bank Indonesia juga diminta untuk tetap memiliki kepedulian terhadap lingkungan (komunitas) sebagai wujud corporate social responsibility-nya.

Kasus: Burhanudin Abdullah, masuk penjara krn transfer BLBI CSR or Corporate Good Governance???

CSR Kesadaran tentang pentingnya mempraktikan

CSR ini menjadi trend global seiring dengan semakin maraknya kepedulian mengutamakan stakeholders. CSR BI ini selain wujud

penerapan prinsip Good Corporate Governance juga terkait untuk mendukung pencapaian tujuan Millenium Goals Development, salah satu diantaranya pengurangan angka kemiskinan menjadi setengah pada tahun 2015 dari sekitar 1,3 miliar sekarang ini melalui CSR dengan konsentrasi UMKM, peningkatan taraf pendidikan masyarakat melaui CSR dengan konsentrasi edukasi dan pelestarian kuantitas dan kualitas lingkungan melalui CSR dengan konsentrasi lingkungan.  CSR BI merupakan tanggung jawab Bank Indonesia untuk menyesuaikan diri terhadap kebutuhan dan harapan stakeholders sehubungan dengan isu-isu etika, sosial, pendidikan dan lingkungan disamping ekonomi.

CSR Tema Program CSR BI

Dengan dasar pemikiran bahwa komunikasi merupakan hal pokok bagi Bank Indonesia untuk membina relationship dan menunjukkan kepedulian terhadap komunitasnya, Bank Indonesia melalui program CSR berusaha untuk mengedepankan kegiatan yang bermanfaat bagi kedua belah pihak dengan tujuan untuk: (i) meningkatkan kehidupan ekonomi masyarakat khususnya masyarakat ekonomi menengah dan kecil; (ii) membantu program Pemerintah dalam menyiapkan sumber daya manusia yang unggul dan berkualitas serta mampu berkompetisi dengan SDM asing; dan(iii) meningkatkan dan memelihara ekosistem melalui kerjasama dengan segenap masyarakatAtas dasar itu, tema program CSR Bank Indonesia direfleksikan dalam slogan :BI COMMUNICATE - eCOsystem, sMall MediUm eNterprIse, and eduCATion for peoplE

Program Kunjungan Studi BIProgram Kunjungan Studi ke Bank Indonesia merupakan bagian dari upaya BI untuk memberikan edukasi kepada masyarakat khususnya atas materi yang terkait dengan pelaksanaan tugas Bank Indonesia di Bidang Moneter, perbankan dan sistem pembayaran. Bank Indonesia membuka kesempatan kepada masyarakat untuk melakukan kunjungan ke BI setiap hari Selasa dan Kamis sesuai prosedur yang telah ditetapkan.

Berita CSR-BIRubrik ini menyajikan berita-berita aktual, mengenai kegiatan-kegiatan CSR yang dilakukan Bank Indonesia baik yang berada di pusat maupun di daerah-daerah, serta info-info lainnya yang terkait dengan CSR-BI

Case: Topik bahasan next week The Social Responsibility of Business is to

Increase its Profits

CSR When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a

free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free en terprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing em ployment, eliminating discrimination, avoid ing pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re formers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preach ing pure and unadulterated socialism. Busi nessmen who talk this way are unwitting pup pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the "social responsibili ties of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means in dividual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.

CSR In a free-enterprise, private-property sys tem, a corporate executive is an employee

of the owners of the business. He has direct re sponsibility to his employers. That responsi bility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while con forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for exam ple, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.

CSR Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own

right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he rec ognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He ma}. feel impelled by these responsibilities to de vote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corpo rations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. Ifwe wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he

CSR has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibili ties," they are the social

responsibilities of in dividuals, not of business. What does it mean to say that the corpo rate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as

businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expendi tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor poration or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" un employed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.

In each of these cases, the corporate exec utive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsi bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.

The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.

CSR Case: Indofood – Mrs Eva Rianti Hutapea CSR ??? Profit??? Support expense: PC donation??? Indofood identik Eva Rianti Hutapea??? Peduli Sinarmas identik Gandhi Sulistyanto?? Artha graha identik Tommy Winata?

( Sugianto)

CSR 5 % dari omset untuk CSR????

CSR There are casualties in successful businesses’ Monday, 23 September 2002 — Yanuar Nugroho The Jakarta Post, 23 September 2002, OPINION & EDITORIAL The head of The Indonesian Control Body for Stock Market (Bapepam) Herwidayatmo last month stated that the number of public investors in

Indonesia now number only 55,000, down from 1995 when there were more than two million investors. Herwidayatmo said this is caused by three main factors: The economy, lack of good corporate governance and investor disappointment with stock

market services. Are these reasons valid? Let’s look at some other facts. Between 1973 and 1995, the portion of developing countries in global trading skyrocketed from 6.6 percent to 24.7 percent and from the mid 1970s

to 1996 foreign currency trading jumped more than 1,000 fold, i.e. from US$1 billion to $1.2 trillion per day. The UN reported in the Human Development Report that in 1960, the top 20 percent of the world’s richest individuals controlled 70.2 percent of

world’s business while the bottom 20 percent controlled a mere 2.3 percent. In 1989, the former had controlled 82.7 percent, and the latter only 1.4 percent (UN, 1992). In the U.S., the top 5 percent of families increased theirs by 23 percent and the top 1 percent by a whooping 50 percent.

Even in Indonesia, a researcher pointed out that 61.7 percent of market capitalization is controled by 15 families. Another study published last year shows that while 51 of the world’s 100 largest economies are now corporations, only 49 are nation-states.

We might have not seen what the process of the above mentioned capital and profit accumulation contains. The writer Ellwood (2001) reveals that since 1950 global business output has soared from $3.8 trillion to $18.9 trillion, a nearly five-fold increase. This means we have consumed more of the world’s natural capital in this brief period than during the history of mankind.

William Rees (2001), an economist and ecologist estimates that around 10 acres to 14 acres (4 hectares to 6 hectares) of land are used for the consumption of the average person in the West; yet, the world’s total available productive land is about 4.25 acres per person. The difference is what Rees calls “appropriated carrying capacity”, which basically means that the rich are living off the resources of the poor.

According to the World Bank (2001), in 1960 gross domestic product in the richest 20 countries was 18 times that of the poorest countries. By 1995, this gap had widened to 37 times. About 12 economies in Asia and Latin America account for 70 percent of exports from the developing world and absorb almost 80 percent of investment flow to the developing world and receiving more than 90 percent of the portfolio investment flow.

Clearly, free trade-centered globalized distribution of benefits and cost are unequal. This is indicated by market exchange rates and purchasing-power parity, as the global gap becomes rapidly wider.

Ellwood (2001) again states that The World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) 2000 Red List of Threatened Species warns that the global extinction crises is accelerating, with dramatic declines in the populations of many species.

IUCN sees habitat loss, human exploitation and invasion by alien species as major threats to wildlife. In the last 500 years, human activity has led to the extinction of 816 species — while scientists calculate the normal extinction rate is one species every four years.

CSR It is more likely that this situation is not caused merely by globalization. This would entaiil a a business

phenomenon rising up as the result of a more intensive interaction in the trade, financial transaction, media and technology sectors, with a single goal: Capital gain and profit accumulation.

To accumulate profit, business practices are attempting to be released from adhering to rules that take into account production location, capital sources, environmental concerns, technology, local people’s participation, etc.

Corporations are more often than not granted dispensation from these rules, becoming a privileged class unto themselves. In the current climate of globalization, businesses can unaccountably reject labors’ demands or put the squeeze on government regulations by investment boycott or threatening to relocate operations from one country to another, where lax regulation enforcement promises a better environment for quick and dirty profit accumulation.

Capital flight without regulation or penalty finally turns into the most deadly weapon freely given to business. The capital flow in East Asia in 1996 was $93 billion, but just a year later flew out in higher amounts: $105 billion (UNDP Report, 1999). Lay-offs happen more frequently without regard to the work performance of laborers.

Recently, for example, to maintain its dividend and profit, Reebok Indonesia abandoned its contract, planning to leave its investments in Indonesia while looking for a new country to invest in. More than 11,000 workers are now facing lay-offs — Nike and other shoe factories in Indonesia may follow suit.

These illustrations reflect the main force driving current business practices. The economist Theodore Levitt in 1958 and Milton Friedman in 1962 had already declared that “business has no other responsibility other than the accumulation of profit”. This current global mantra involves at least three aspects.

First, at the very center of global business practice are the transnational businesses of trade, finance, media, bank, transportation, etc. Second, the main actors are business people mainly in the many transnational corporations (TNCs). Third, the current pace of globalization can only be maintained by expanding the ideological culture of consumerism.

The fact that the chief executive officers (CEOs) of hundreds of TNCs have control over globalization is indeed inescapable. And those with no access to assets and capital are stranded in a world owned and controlled by these people.

Beyond all this is simply power. At the heart of the deregulation projects of the neo-liberals, there lies the deregulation of the reaching-power of capital and financial asset owners. Removing various business operation rules is delegating privilege and vast power to them. Business has thus become immensely powerful to an earlier unimaginable level: The literal capture of the legitimate power of government.

We might now be able to understand why the legitimate authority of government to manage our shared life is more and more silently being taken over by the power of business. Just when we really need the government to address so many complicated issues, it has become powerless, as in Indonesia and many other developing and developed countries — including the United States. For a shared life, a powerless government controlled by business corporations is as at least as dangerous as a repressive one.

We are often treated to propaganda when businesses open. “Our business will bring wealth to our society. We provide good paying, local-hire jobs and preserve the environment.” Then, after laying-off hundreds of people and destroying entire ecosystems, they will say, “So sorry, there are always casualties in any successful business venture”.

Good Corporate Governance Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dalam Prinsip GCG Rabu, 20 Oktober 2004 Corporate social responsiblity dalam prinsip good coorporate government (GCG) ibarat dua sisi mata

uang. Keduanya sama penting dan tidak terpisahkan. Salah satu dari empat prinsip GCG adalah prinsip responsibility (pertanggung jawaban). Tiga prinsip GCG lainnya adalah fairness, transparency, dan accountability.

Ada perbedaan yang cukup mendasar antara prinsip responsibility dan tiga prinsip GCG lainnya. Tiga prinsip GCG pertama lebih memberikan penekanan terhadap kepentingan pemegang saham perusahaan (shareholders) sehingga ketiga prinsip tersebut lebih mencerminkan shareholders-driven concept. Contohnya, perlakuan yang adil terhadap pemegang saham minoritas (fairness), penyajian laporan keuangan yang akurat dan tepat waktu (transparency), dan fungsi dan kewenangan RUPS, komisaris, dan direksi (accountability).

Dalam prinsip responsibility, penekanan yang signifikan diberikan pada kepentingan stakeholders perusahaan. Di sini perusahaan diharuskan memperhatikan kepentingan stakeholders perusahaan, menciptakan nilai tambah (value added) dari produk dan jasa bagi stakeholders perusahaan, dan memelihara kesinambungan nilai tambah yang diciptakannya. Karena itu, prinsip responsibility di sini lebih mencerminkan stakeholders-driven concept. Barangkali timbul di benak pembaca, ''Apa sih stakeholders perusahaan itu?'' atau ''Siapa saja sih stakeholders perusahaan itu?''

'Stakeholders perusahaan' dapat didefinisikan sebagai pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan terhadap eksistensi perusahaan. Termasuk di dalamnya adalah karyawan, pelanggan, konsumen, pemasok, masyarakat, dan lingkungan sekitar, serta pemerintah selaku regulator. Perbedaan bisnis perusahaan akan menjadikan perusahaan memiliki prioritas stakeholders yang berbeda.

Sebagai contoh, masyarakat dan lingkungan sekitar adalah stakeholders dalam skala prioritas pertama bagi perusahaan pertambangan seperti PT Aneka Tambang, Tbk., dan Rio Tinto. Sementara itu, konsumen adalah stakeholders dalam skala prioritas pertama bagi perusahaan produk konsumen seperti Unilever atau Procter & Gamble.

Good Corporate Governance Dari penjelasan tersebut, terutama ''menciptakan nilai tambah pada produk dan jasa bagi

stakeholders perusahaan,'' prinsip responsibility GCG menelurkan gagasan corporate social responsibility (CSR) atau ''peran serta perusahaan dalam mewujudkan tanggung jawab sosialnya.''

Dalam gagasan CSR, perusahaan tidak lagi dihadapkan pada tanggung jawab yang berpijak pada single bottom line, yaitu nilai perusahaan (corporate value) yang direfleksikan dalam kondisi keuangannya (financial) saja. Tanggung jawab perusahaan harus berpijak pada triple bottom lines. Di sini bottom lines lainnya, selain finansial adalah sosial dan lingkungan.

Kondisi keuangan saja tidak cukup menjamin nilai perusahaan tumbuh secara berkelanjutan (sustainable). Keberlanjutan perusahaan hanya akan terjamin apabila perusahaan memperhatikan dimensi sosial dan lingkungan hidup. Sudah menjadi fakta bagaimana resistensi masyarakat sekitar muncul ke permukaan terhadap perusahaan yang dianggap tidak memperhatikan lingkungan hidup. Contohnya kasus Indorayon di Sumatera Utara.

Kesadaran tentang pentingnya mempraktikkan CSR ini menjadi tren global seiring dengan semakin maraknya kepedulian masyarakat global terhadap produk-produk yang ramah lingkungan dan diproduksi dengan memperhatikan kaidah-kaidah sosial dan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia (HAM). Sebagai contoh, boikot terhadap produk sepatu Nike oleh warga di negara Eropa dan Amerika Serikat terjadi ketika pabrik pembuat sepatu Nike di Asia dan Afrika diberitakan mempekerjakan anak di bawah umur.

Good Corporate Governance Contoh lainnya adalah penerapan kebijakan dalam pemberian pinjaman dana oleh bank-bank Eropa.

Umumnya bank-bank Eropa hanya akan memberikan pinjaman kepada perusahaan perkebunan di Asia apabila ada jaminan dari perusahaan tersebut, yaitu pada saat membuka lahan perkebunan tidak dilakukan dengan membakar hutan.

Tren global lainnya dalam pelaksanaan CSR di bidang pasar modal adalah penerapan indeks yang memasukkan kategori saham-saham perusahaan yang telah mempraktikkan CSR. Sebagai contoh, New York Stock Exchange memiliki Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) bagi saham-saham perusahaan yang dikategorikan memiliki nilai corporate sustainability dengan salah satu kriterianya adalah praktek CSR.

DJSI dipraktikkan mulai 1999. Begitu pula dengan London Stock Exchange yang memiliki Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index dan Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) yang memiliki FTSE4Good sejak 2001. Inisiatif ini mulai diikuti oleh otoritas bursa saham di Asia, seperti di Hanseng Stock Exchange dan Singapore Stock Exchange. Konsekuensi dari adanya indeks-indeks tersebut memacu investor global seperti perusahaan dana pensiun dan asuransi yang hanya akan menanamkan investasinya di perusahaan-perusahaan yang sudah masuk dalam indeks dimaksud.

Menghadapi tren global tersebut, saatnya perusahaan melihat serius pengaruh dimensi sosial, ekonomi, dan lingkungan dari setiap aktivitas bisnisnya, serta melaporkan kepada stakeholder-nya setiap tahun. Laporan bersifat nonfinansial yang dapat digunakan sebagai acuan oleh perusahaan dalam melihat dimensi sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan, diantaranya Sustainability Reporting Guidelines yang dikeluarkan oleh Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) dan ValueReporting yang digagas perusahaan konsultan dunia Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC).

Kita semua berharap bahwa perusahaan yang beroperasi di Indonesia tidak hanya memperhatikan sisi GCG dan melupakan aspek CSR. Karena kedua aspek tersebut bukan suatu pilihan yang terpisah, melainkan berjalan beriringan untuk meningkatkan keberlanjutan operasi perusahaan

Good Corporate Governance

Good Corporate Governance

Good Corporate Governance

Good Corporate Governance

Good Corporate Governance