Skip to main content

Proposed Integrated Measurement Standard to Measure Sustainability Performance: Evidence From Indonesia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dimensional Corporate Governance

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

This study introduces a new integrated measurement standard to comprehensively measure sustainability performance . It comprises a balanced scorecard and three internationally leading sustainability standards: Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) , ISO 26000 and United Nation Global Compact (UNGC). These integrated guidelines cover four aspects, economic, social, environmental , and well-being.

Samples were taken from Indonesian companies that had participated in the Indonesia Sustainability Reporting Awards (ISRA). The 2010 and 2011 sustainability reports were examined using these integrated measurement standards (IMS). The results of a content analysis showed that the trend of disclosing sustainability had tended to increase over the past 2 years. The disclosure scores were considered medium to high profile, with the indication that the sustainability performance of state-owned companies was higher than that of private companies; publicly-listed companies obtained higher scores of disclosures than non-listed companies; and manufacturing industries received the highest scores followed by service and energy industries respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Tuwairij, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. E., II. (2001). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance and economic performance: A simultaneous equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beurden, P. V., & Gossling, T. (2008). The worth of value-a literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006a). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies., 43(3), 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006b). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7–8), 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E., & Cloke, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in higher education. An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 8(3), 474–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. B., Henderson, S. C., & Raiborn, C. (2011). Sustainability and balanced scorecard; Integrating green measures into business reporting. Management Accounting Quarterly, 12(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2011). Sustainability measurement system: A reference model proposal. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 438–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., Dvir, R., Roth, N., & Pasher, E. (2004). Innovations: The new unit of analysis in the knowledge era: The quest and context for innovation efficiency and management of IC. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2001). Socially responsible investment and corporate social and environmental reporting in the UK: An exploratoey study. The British Accounting Review, 33(4), 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, S., & Germain, C. (2010). Integrating sustainability measures into strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical study. Management Accounting Quarterly, 11(3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theory; Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethic, 53, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., & Barlett, J. L. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relation Review, 33(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawan, J. (2010). Perception of important information in corporate social disclosures: Evidence from Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(1), 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, T., & Stark, W. (2009). Strategy development: Conceptual framework on corporate social responsibility. Journal Of Business Ethics, 3(5), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrebicek, J., Soukopva, J., Stencl, M., & Trenz, O. (2011). Integration of economic, environmental, social and corporate governance performance and reporting in enterprises. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, LIX(7), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 455–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughin, J., Kaminski, J., & Sodagar, B. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises the SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(2), 154–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan, J., Meehan, K., & Richards, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: The 3C-SR model. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navissi, F., & Naiker, V. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate value. Journal of Managerial Finance, 32(1), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(3), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayiotou, N. A., Aravossis, K., & Moschou, P. (2009a). A new methodology approach for measuring corporate social responsibility performance. Water and Air Soil Pollution: Focus, 9, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayiotou, N. A., Aravossis, K. G., & Moschou, P. (2009b). Greece: A comparative study of CSR reports. In Global practices of corporate social responsibility (pp. 149–164). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). Investing in CSR to enhance customer value. The Harvard Law School Forum, Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdana, K., & Gunawan, J. (2014). Integration of Balanced Scorecard, ISO 26000, United Nation Global Compact and Global Reporting Initiatives: Building an Integrated Measurement Standard for Measuring Sustainability Performance. In Proceeding International Conference on Governance. Economic Faculty, Trisakti university, Jakarta ISBN 978-979-3634-24-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 96(6), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard business review, 84(12), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, D., Borna, S., & Stearns, J. M. (2009). An investigation of the effects of corporate ethical values on employee commitment and performance: Examining the moderating role of perceived fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siregar, S. V., & Bachtiar, Y. (2010). Corporate social reporting: Empirical evidence from Indonesia stock exchange. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 3(3), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juniati Gunawan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

The Performance Indicators of Integrated Measurement Standard

No

Key performance indicators

 

Financial—economy

1

Added value and economic distribution

2

Cost, earning and profit

3

Company financial ratio

4

Investors and dividends

5

Marketing and selling improvements

6

Tax payments

 

Financial—social

1

Public investment

2

Indirect economic impact

3

Investment to support human rights

4

Payment for local distributor

 

Financial—environment

1

Financial and risk implication because of climate change

2

Mitigation and adaptation budget to climate change

3

Water and energy budget

4

R & D budget for air pollution

5

Environmental recovery and maintenance budget

 

Financial—well-being

1

To facilitate praying area for employees

2

Sports and entertainment facilities

3

Donations for natural disasters, social and religion

4

Environmental sanity guarantees

 

Process—economy

1

Budgeting affectivity by increasing efficiency

2

Budget controlling

3

Return of investment for shareholders

 

Process—social

1

Wage is higher than regional wage

2

Fight against human trafficking

3

Health and safety priority

4

Fair performance valuation

5

Motivate employee

6

Fair job placement

7

No intimidation

8

No discrimination

9

Assurance and pension program

10

Company culture

11

Freedom of association

12

Complaints and grievance

13

Security assistance

14

Against child labor

15

Liberation of slavery

16

Discipline and preventive disobedience

17

Anti-corruption, bribery and collusion

18

Fair competition and anti-monopoly

19

Community involvement

20

Obedience to government ’s rules

21

The decrease of fine/punishment

22

Effort of decreasing the negative effects in society

23

Woman empowerment

24

Supporting the society ’s organization

25

Local worker acceptance

26

Carrier development

 

Process—environment

1

Decreasing greenhouse effect

2

The usage of recycled water

3

Renewable and using natural resources consumption

4

Energy efficiency

5

Impact of transportation vehicles

6

The use of renewable material

7

Solvency to using dangerous materials

8

Abide by environmental legislation

9

Minimize the impact on the living ecosystem

10

Lowering the significant impact around company area

11

No negative impact on protected organisms

 

Process—well-being

1

Employment dialogue

2

Commitment to the employee

3

Healthy, safe and comfortable working area

4

Minimize the possibility of violating human rights

5

Establish good relationships with society

6

Promote law enforcement

7

Integrate human rights into company’s policy

8

Copyright

9

Children rights fulfillment

 

Customer —economy

1

Creating sustainable market

2

Sustainable consumption

3

Responsible promotion/advertisement

4

Customer ’s satisfaction index

5

Excellent after-sales services

6

Easy marketing access

7

Product quality

8

Continuous improvement

9

Product reliability

 

Customer —social

1

Brand or product labeling

2

Education and awareness

3

Response to customer ’s complaints

 

Customer —environment

1

Involving customers in maintaining the environment

2

Re-withdrawal packaging

3

Innovation of green products

 

Customer —well-being

1

Customer ’s protection and privacy

2

Customer ’s health and safety

 

Learning & development—economy

1

Good governance

2

Employee’s technology access

3

Acknowledge the rights of the community

 

Learning and development—social

1

Training and research for human rights

2

Employee’s training and education

3

Corporation agreement with employees

4

Training and education on anti-corruption

 

Learning and development—environment

1

Initiative in using renewable energy

2

Initiative in using renewable materials

3

Initiative in preventing pollution /waste

4

Initiative in ecosystem recovery

 

Learning and development—well-being

1

Obedience to society ’s norm

2

Comprehensive research about the stakeholder

3

Anticipate working accidents

4

Commitment to public

5

Carrier development

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Perdana, K., Gunawan, J. (2017). Proposed Integrated Measurement Standard to Measure Sustainability Performance: Evidence From Indonesia. In: Capaldi, N., Idowu, S., Schmidpeter, R. (eds) Dimensional Corporate Governance. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56182-0_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics