Sustuinable Development

Sustainable development arise because of the assumption that the market economy is not always concerned about the environment. The difference between the market "perfect" and the environment as a fundamental reason why economic activities lead to environmental degradation. These differences led to the emergence of environmental economics, as a public policy intervention in the allocation of environmental resources through non-market activities or to correct market failures. The concept of sustainable development is a planning concept which emphasizes the principles of balance between economic, social, and cultural rights as the primary objective with the principles of environmental sustainability.

In the context of sustainable development, especially in the spatial dimension has received little attention. The importance of spatial elements derived from the mutual relations are (1) the global and local influence (2) global trends will affect local. Economic structure and environment in a specific region of an area to determine the sensitivity of the economic power and the external environment (Bergh and Nijkamp, 1999). Therefore, the study of sustainability in a multi-regional system could be useful in the spatial implications of global sustainability, both in regional and international activities.

The concept of sustainable development is essentially founded on three basic pillars, namely economic, social, and environmental. The third approach is not an approach that stands partially, but interact to influence each other. Sustainable development is the process of bringing these three development processes in a balanced way. At the local level, sustainable development requires that economic development can sustain people's lives through the use of resources locally. If the results of economic development (welfare) is to be distributed in the long run, the protection of the environment to prevent ecological damage is one way to go (ICLEI, 1996). Schematically, the relationship between the three basic pillars of sustainable development can be described as follows:

FIGURE 1.
BASIC PILLAR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In principle, the concept of sustainable development promote economic and social development and environmental protection. These three aspects should be run in a balanced and mutually supportive. Sustainable development considering that aspects of development undertaken sustain and support developments in the future. Sustainable development describes the alignment and harmony in the use of natural resources, and the resources made ​​by taking into account ongoing conservation efforts.

Sustainable development can be called if it fulfills the criteria of economic, socially beneficial, and preserve the environment. At first, the concept of sustainable development is dominated by the economic dimension. The dimensions of the environment started to receive attention in the eighties. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was the starting point in the consideration of the social dimension of sustainable development. One important result of the conference was the establishment of a commission of sustainable development (CSD - Commission on Sustainable Development). The Commission has produced an agreement to implement the concept of sustainable development as set out in Agenda 21 (Sugiyono, 2004).

The concept of sustainable development, especially economic development, is based on the available capacity of the natural resource, environmental and social character. In the past, development activities which are focused on growth and led to negative impacts of ecological deterioration and depletion of natural resources. Therefore, the management of national resources and the environment in the future should be based on an important aspect of the production and activity space for conservation and environmental health. Therefore, regional development, urban and rural, can no longer be based solely on economic development, but should be based on sustainable development (Hall and Ulrich, 2000).

Hereinafter defined sustainable development as "development that is intended to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the opportunities of future generations to meet life" (IISD, 2005). According Askary (2003) sustainable development and environmentally sound can be defined as "a conscious and deliberate effort, which integrates the environment, including resource into the development process for assure abilities, well-being and quality of life for present and future generations to come". While the concept of sustainable development by Urban 21 (2000) is how to improve the quality of life in a region, including the quality of the ecological, cultural, political, institutional and socio-economic components without leaving a burden (depletion of natural resources and increasing debt) on the next generation.

On the other hand, Munro (1995) states that sustainable development is a set of activities that can improve the lives of people in various aspects and the increase can be maintained. Meanwhile, world commission for environment and development (WECD) defines sustainable development as development that is intended to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In other words, sustainable development is defined as development that prioritize the use of resources that do not jeopardize the future use (WECD, 1987). Not only that, the sustainability here should include the three basic principles of the above, one can not only fulfilled. In its development, sustainable development is also intended to seek innovative strategies to change the institutional structure and policies and changes in the behavior of the individual to the global level (IISD, 2005).

In order for development to be sustainable it ideally benefits must be sustainable and continuously maintained. This means that development must meet a variety of objectives in a balanced way, both economic, environmental, and social (WCED, 1987; Munro, 1995; Meadows, 1999; IISD, 2005).

1. Economically Sustainable
Economically sustainable principles relating to costs and benefits, rather the benefits should outweigh the impact. Sustainable economic system must be able to produce goods and services continually, to keep management and other levels of government.

2. Socially Sustainable
Socially sustainable means reflects the interaction between development and the social norms prevailing in society. An activity is socially sustainable if it can integrate with social norms or not contrary to the public tolerance to change. Socially sustainable system must be able to achieve uniformity of distribution, the provision of social services including health and education, as well as accountability and participation.

3. Environmentally Sustainable
Ecologically sustainable, it implies to keep humans and other species that interact with it, now and in the future, so as to improve the quality of life. Environmentally sustainable system must be able to maintain stable resources, avoiding excessive exploitation of renewable resource systems, and maintain the natural resources that can not be updated so that it can be used optimally. In other words, development should not destroy the ecosystem that now exists, instead the species should be conserved for future purposes.

In development and implementation of sustainable development, the role of local government is very fundamental. As a self-regulating system, a local government consisting of a control system (government) and an object (or the community). The local government will play a role as an institution that has legitimacy and is responsible for the development and implementation of sustainable development through the policy-making process does. In an effort to generate policy-oriented cities to achieve sustainable conditions, local governments will need a set of indicators that will provide direction and guidance to local authorities about whether the policies that have been implemented are on the ideal track. Development of indicators of sustainable development is one of The set action towards more sustainable development.

Operationalization or implementation of the concept of sustainable development requires indicators to assess its effectiveness, in this case to know whether an activity, program or policy can be said to be sustainable (sustainable) or unsustainable (unsustainable). These indicators will provide advice to the government regarding the actions to be taken to overcome the problems faced. Need for indicators that are specifically developed to look at the internal management of local governments in determining whether a city has implemented a policy of sustainable development. Although global commitment to sustainable development implementation formally developed after the declaration of Johannesburg in 2002, but the efforts of indicators of sustainability have started much earlier.

Ideal criteria for the sustainable development indicators (Warren, 1997):

1. Indicators should reflect a basic or fundamental long-term economic and social environment for generations to come;
2. Easy to understand and clear: simple, understandable and accessible to the public;
3. Can be quantitatified;
4. Sensitive to changes in the location or group of people;
5. Predictive and anticipatory;
6. Have a reference or threshold value;
7. Relatively easy to use;
8. Aspects of quality: the methodology used to construct the indicators should be clearly defined with accurate, scientifically and socially acceptable, and
9. Sensitive to the Time: if applied every year to show the trend indicator representative.

Factors Influencing Environmental Accounting Information System Design

An entity's environmental strategy indicates both the entity's dedication and motivation to incorporate environmental stewardship in its daily activities; this may affect both external and internal reporting demands of an environmental accounting information system. A firm only interested in legitimizing its actions to society or appeasing its stakeholders (Islam and Deegan, 2008) may outfit their information system differently than a firm that finds it economically beneficial to aggressively pursue an environmental stewardship strategy (Clarkson et.al., 2008). Also, governmental and not-for-profit entities may have different considerations from for-profit firms when developing their environmental strategies since no profit motive exists (Ball, 2005; Herbohn, 2005). Even within governmental agencies, strategies will vary depending on whether an objective relates to environmental stewardship of the agency's actions or establishment and enforcement of environmental regulations (Cormier et.al., 2004) for a model on corporate environmental reporting, which considers company management assessments of stakeholder influences on a company's environmentally related actions).

Stakeholders' power (or lack thereof) to influence an entity's actions can impact the entity's environmental objectives and strategies (Aerts and Cormier, 2009; Darnell et.al., 2009; Magness, 2006; Neu et.al., 1998). Communications from an entity's management concerning environmental issues may positively or negatively impact the development of a system, as noted in a number of case studies (Ball, 2005; Dey, 2007; Herbohn, 2005). Thus, an entity's strategy towards environmental stewardship will impact the environmental accounting information system developed, and the types and level of management communications on environmental issues moderate this effect.

Experimental methods can contribute to the literature by focusing on these factors in ways that extend the archival and case study findings. Specifically, the reported associations within these studies can be extended with experiments to better understand why the associations exist. Environmental strategies can be manipulated in a laboratory setting (e.g. stakeholder appeasement strategies, pro-environmental versus pro-economic strategies, etc.) to help determine which entity strategies result in certain manager decisions that influence the ways that environmental data are implemented into an accounting information system. Stakeholder influences can be manipulated (e.g. strong external pressures, weak interactions with the entity, etc.) and studied to observe how decision makers respond to these pressures when forming the entity's environmental strategy. The model suggests that the environmental strategy employed determines the way in which an entity's environmental information system is implemented.

Environmental accounting information systems
After considering how stakeholder influences and an entity's environmental strategy molds the implementation of an environmental information system, the model emphasizes considering data organization and data quality in designing experiments on environmental accounting information systems. Relative to traditional accounting information, environmental accounting information comprises lower levels of user familiarity (Gray and Bebbington, 2001), which may hinder effective processing of this non-traditional data. This unfamiliarity may very well be contributing to the resistance organizations experience when an environmental accounting initiative struggles to make progress (Ball, 2005; Dey, 2007; Herbohn, 2005).

Experiments can explore any potential underlying psychological mechanisms that may contribute to organizational resistance (Ball, 2005) or cognitive difficulties (Kaplan and Wisner, 2009) associated with effectively using environmental data. The current literature is mainly silent on providing these types of explanation; experiments have the potential to extend the literature by determining why certain behaviors and decisions are observed.

To provide an example of psychological factors that may be important to explore in an environmental accounting context yet does not receive much attention in the extant literature, consider the following about the nature of environmental data. The organizational display of environmental data, and their combination with non-environmental metrics, warrants a particular and unique concern to decisions involving environmental information because of the unfamiliarity and potential complexity of this non-traditional data. Different types of data organization and different levels of data quality are well-known factors that impact the cognitive processing of information (Schkade and Kleinmuntz, 1994), so it is important to understand these cognitive influences on the capturing and presentation of environmental data in the implementation of accounting information systems. A better understanding of why behaviors and decisions occur would be helpful in determining how to mitigate factors such as cognitive biases in the processing of environmental information. Data organization and data quality are further explored below.

Data organization
The organization component of displayed data relates to the data visual structure (Schkade and Kleinmuntz, 1994). For example, a traditional way to organize a balanced scorecard's data is to classify and present the data in four perspectives (financial, customers, internal business processes, and learning and growth). When new data are considered to be included in the scorecard, there is debate on whether the new data organization should result in a new, fifth perspective, or whether the data should be embedded within the traditional perspectives. In Kaplan and Wisner's (2009) study, these "new data" are environmental metrics. In their experimental design, the data organization's manipulation includes a four-perspective scorecard in which environmental data embed within the traditional four perspectives, or a five-perspective scorecard in which a standalone fifth perspective isolates and groups environmental data together.

Another way to analyze data organization in an evaluative context includes considering its evaluation mode. In separate evaluation (SE) mode, alternatives are presented and evaluated sequentially. In joint evaluation (JE) mode, alternatives are presented and evaluated jointly (Fischhoff et.al., 1980). For example, assume a manager must analyze evaluations from three employees who are competing for the same promotion within the firm. If the employee analyzes the candidates for promotion in SE mode, then the manager will analyze each candidate's information one at a time. She will finish analyzing the first candidate before moving on to evaluate the second candidate. However, if the manager evaluates the candidates in JE mode, then she will analyze the candidates' information together and at the same time. When alternatives are analyzed in JE mode, direct comparisons can be made between the alternatives (and thus establish a reference point) that are not available for evaluations made in SE mode.

Environmental Disclosures and Economic Performance

A second general category of archival research explores the relationships between environmental disclosures, environmental performance, and/or financial performance. Overall, the results vary in the direction and magnitude of these associations. Li et.al. (1997) find increased disclosures of environmental information when firms are more likely to pollute, when stakeholders become more aware of the firms' environmental liabilities, and when threats to obtaining regulatory costs decline. Cho et.al. (2006) find that companies with higher political lobbying efforts have increased environmental disclosures and lower environmental performances, suggesting a management strategy to influence environmental regulatory procedures. Patten (2002) finds a negative correlation between environmental disclosures and environmental performance, and the correlation is more pronounced among firms in non-ESIs. Social and political pressures may explain the negative correlation. Bad environmental performance leads to pressure to disclose, and ESIs are not affected as much by this pressure because they already receive more scrutiny.

Sociopolitical pressures may also help explain findings of negative correlations between environmental footnote disclosures and both American firms' level of business outside of the USA (fear of being perceived as a polluter) and firms' earnings volatility (fear of bad news exasperating low-earnings periods; Karim et.al., 2006). Cho et.al. (2010) find a similar usage of disclosures when considering the language of US annual reports; the worse the corporate environmental performance, the more optimistic and vague the environmental disclosure language in the entity's annual report.

Al-Tuwaijri et.al. (2004) find different results from Patten (2002) when they consider endogeneity among environmental performance, financial performance, and environmental disclosures. They find positive links, suggesting that environmental stewardship and economic success do not have to be adversarial objectives (see Frooman (1997) and Orlitzky et.al. (2003) for meta-analysis providing general support for a positive relationship between corporate socially responsible behavior and financial performance). Ruf et.al. (2001) use stakeholder theory to explain a broader positive link between corporate social performance and financial performance, suggesting that firms better serve their shareholders when they address other stakeholder concerns. Indeed, environmental disclosures on company web sites suggest that companies perceive environmental issues as a competitive advantage instead of a regulatory burden (Jose and Lee, 2007). In contrast to the above results, Murray et.al. (2006) find no relation between UK companies' stock returns and their environmental and social disclosures. However, there was a positive relationship between a company's level of disclosures and the consistency of their financial returns (i.e. high disclosure levels correlated with consistently high returns, and vice versa).

In another study on market reactions, Blacconiere and Northcut (1997) show that the market-valued environmental disclosure information surrounding US environmental regulations in 1986 (the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act). Specifically, chemical companies with pre-1986 environmental disclosures received better market reactions compared to companies with environmental cost information disclosed by the EPA relating to the legislation and indicating greater environmental cost risks. Investors seem to view corporate disclosures as an indicator of the company adequately mitigating environmental cost risks such as regulatory burdens. This finding supports Blacconiere and Patten's (1994) earlier analysis of a different critical event - the 1984 Union Carbide chemical leak incident in Bhopal, India. In this study, investors also appeared to respond more favorably (i.e. not as negatively) to chemical companies that disclosed environmental information more thoroughly before the incident occurred. Magness (2010) echoes this favorable response to prior environmental disclosures in a study on investor reactions to an accident in the Canadian mining industry. In this study, investors react particularly favorable (i.e. moderate negative reactions) to companies disclosing that they have upper level company involvement in environmental issues. In a sample of pulp and paper companies, Clarkson et.al. (2004) show that environmental capital expenditures yield gains for low-polluting companies, but not their high-polluting counterparts. Also, investors utilize data on companies' environmental performances to assess future environmental liabilities that are yet to be recognized.

Clarkson et.al. (2008) attempt to resolve tension in the different frameworks used to explain the link between environmental disclosures and environmental performance. Specifically, they conclude that US companies involved in ESIs have a positive relationship between voluntary environmental disclosures and environmental performance. These findings support economic theories of discretionary disclosure and not social-political frameworks such as legitimacy theory. However, for companies experiencing pressure for better environmental performance by external stakeholders, the social-political frameworks do provide a structure for predicting disclosures of environmental information when the company has not made a hard commitment to disclose the information.

Overall, archival environmental accounting studies have tested, with much success, the legitimacy framework's ability to support the pattern of environmental disclosures observed among companies. One consequence of the evidence supporting legitimacy theory results in the possibility that firms disclose environmental information simply to gain permission from society to operate. Thus, if society is appeased by only a firm's level of information disclosure (i.e. words but not necessarily action), then improved environmental performance cannot be a guaranteed outcome. This may explain the studies that found no association (Walden and Stagliano, 2003) or failed to find a positive (Patten, 2002) correlation between environmental disclosures and environmental performance. However, other studies reviewed find a positive relationship between disclosure and performance (both environmental and financial), which would support more economic-based disclosure paradigms (i.e. firms disclose because they can back up their information claims, thus it is their competitive advantage to disclose) compared to socio-political frameworks such as legitimacy theory (Clarkson et.al., 2008). Model miss-specification, e.g. not considering endogeneity among the variables, may be driving these conflicting results (Al-Tuwaijri et.al., 2004), so this debate would benefit from more research.

Advantages of archival research methods include analyzing data from a broad portion of the test population, so results can be fairly generalized to the whole population. Since financial data usually captures consistent and high-quality information, archival methods are a good approach to addressing financial environmental accounting inquiries. However, an archival study can only suggest correlations between two variables because the variables are not manipulated and isolated (i.e. "turning one dial at a time") (Shadish et.al., 2002). Thus, the archival method cannot show causation as well as why an association between variables exists.

Summary of CSR Study

Dilihat dari sudut pandang paradigma penelitian serta tujuan penelitian yang hendak dicapai beberapa penelitian dalam studi CSR, menggunakan dua pendekatan yaitu positivistik dan non positivistik. Penelitian positivistik digunakan menjawab tipe masalah penelitian yang bertujuan untuk menjelaskan what is (explaining what is), sementara penelitian non positivistik merupakan bentuk penelitian diskriptif yaitu bertujuan untuk menjelaskan fenomena (social world) atau describe what is dan penelitian normatif untuk mesdiskripsian bagaimana seharus satu objek (describeing what should be).

Freedman dan Jaggi (1974) mengelompokkan peta penelitian berkaitan dengan pertanggungjawaban sosial perusahaan terhadap lingkungan, menjadi: (1) keterkaitan antara pengungkapan sosial dengan kinerja sosial; (2) keterkaitan antara kinerja sosial dengan kinerja ekonomi; (3) keterkaitan antara kinerja ekonomi dengan pengungkapan sosial; dan (4) keterkaitan antara kinerja ekonomi dengan kinerja sosial.

Adam. C.H, (2002) menyatakan, bahwa berangkat dari perkembangan penelitian terdahulu riset tingkat pengungkapan sosial di broken down menjadi tiga wilayah, yaitu: (1) kaitannya dengan karakteristik perusahaan (corporate characteristics); (2) kaitannya dengan faktor-faktor kontektual umum (general contextual factors); dan (3) keterkaitannya dengan faktor-faktor internal (internal contextual factors). Pembidangan daerah perkembangan akuntansi sosial (social accounting) tersebut, berkaitan dengan motif ekonomi dan sosial, tekanan pihak diluar serta upaya membangun image perusahaan didepan stakeholders-nya.

Mathews (1995) melengkapi pola pikir social responsibility dan motif manajemen yang dikaitkan dengan kaidah information usefullness, bahwa terdapat tiga argumen dasar peran akuntansi konvensional dalam rangka membantu pengambilan keputusan spesifik, khususnya tentang pengungkapan sukarela, antara lain: (1) keterkaitan dengan pasar modal, hal ini didasarkan pada premis bahwa pengungkapan pertangungjawaban sosial memiliki pengaruh positif terhadap kinerja pasar; (2) keterkaitan dengan legitimasi manajemen; dan (3) keterkaitan kontrak (the notion of social contract) antara perusahaan terhadap masyarakat sekitar yang merupakan representasi dari company’s moral accountability.

Arieh A. Ulmann (1985) setelah melakukan review riset selama 10 tahun menemukan bahwa peta pengembangan penelitian dibidang pertanggungjawaban sosial dibedakan, atas: (1) keterkaitan antara social disclosure terhadap social performance; (2) keterkaitan social performance terhadap economics performance; dan (3) keterkaitan social disclosure terhadap economics performance. Untuk lebih rinci temuan tersebut dijelaskan dalam tabel sebagai berikut:
Tabel. 1
Rangkuman Perkembangan Riset
Di Bidang Social Responsibility (Social Accounting)

Tipe Hubungan	Peneliti	Hasil	Keterangan
Social Performance - Social Disclosure	Belkoui dan Karpik (1989)	positive significance	Social disclosure diukur dengan CEP Index
	Abbot dan Monsen (1979)	positive significance
	Ulmann (1983)	no association
Social Disclosure - Social Performance	Bowman dan Haire (1975)	positive significance	14 perusahaan, social disclosure diukur dengan kalimat yang ada dalam annual report
	Abbott dan Monsen (1979)	positive significance	23 perusahaan, untuk mengukur social disclosure menggunakan Ernst&Ernst
	Freedman & Jaggi (1982)	no association	31 perusaahan, quality & quantity of disclosure in annual report
	Ingram & Fraizer (1980)	no association	40 perusahaan, social disclosure diukur dengan pollution index
	Fry & Hocke (1976)	negative not sig.	135 perusahaan, quality & quantity of disclosure in annual report
	Preston (1978)	no association	41 perusahaan, social disclosure from Ernst & Ernst index
	Wiseman (1982)	positive not significance	26 perusahaan, quality & quantity of disclosure in nannual report
social disclosure – economics performance	Abbott & Monsen (1979)	positive sign.	450 perusahaan, social disclosure diukur dengan score based on Ernst & Ernst, dan ecocomics performance diukur dengan ROE 1964 -1974
	Bowman (1978)	positive sign.	46 perusahaan, social disclosure diukur dengan percent of prose in aanual report, economics performance diukur dengan ROE 1972-1974
	Bowman & Haire (1975)	U. Shape correlation highest ROE for middle disclosure	82 perusahaan, social disclosure diukur dengan percent of prose in annual report, economics performance diukur dengan ROE 1969-1973
	Freedman dan Jaggy (1982)	no association	109 perusahaan yang memiliki kepekaan terhadap penciptaan pollusi, social disclosure diukur dengan quality & quantity of pollution disclosure in nannual report, economics performance diukur dengan ROA, ROE, Cash Flows/E, EBIT/A, EBIT/E
	Fry & Hock (1976)	negative sign.	109 perusahaan dari 15 industri, social disclosure diukur dengan quality & quantity of pollution disclosure in nannual report, economics performance diukur dengan earnings
	Ingram dan Frizer (1983)	negative not sign.	79 perusahaan dari metal, oil, chemical industries, social disclosure diukur dengan computerized content analysis of annual report, economics performance diukur dengan factor analysis 0f 48 acoounting rations
	Preston (1978)	Berpengaruh lemah	Fortune 500 firm, social disclosure diukur dengan quantity of disclosure in 2 years between 1972 dan 1975, economics performance diukur dengan ROE 1975
	Anderson & Francle (1980)	Positive correlation for certain months for disclosure vs nondisclosure	314 of 1872 Fortune 500 firm, social disclosure diukur dengan overall disclosure and type of disclosure based Ernst & Ernsr, economics performance monthtly average residual differences 7/1972-6/1973
	Belkoui (1976)	Positive yet temporary correlation	50 nperusahaan dan pengungkapan pada tahun 1976, social disclosure diukur dengan pollution disclosure in nannual report, economics performance diukur dengan monthly average residual, 12 months prio & after disclosure
	Ingram (1978)	Tidak terdapat pengaruh pada portofolio means, memiliki pengaruh positif pada market segmen	287 of 1970-1976 Fortune 500 firm, social disclosure diukur dengan various types of disclosuire in annual report, economics performance diukur dengan monthly portofolio return 9 months prior and 3 months after fiscal year end
	Shane & Spicer (1983)	Significant net price decrease 1 & 2 days prior release, largest decrease for worst pollution	72 0f 103 firm from CEP sampel, social disclosure dukur dengan CEP pollution performance index, economics performance diukur dengan standardized abnormal means-adjusted daily return for 6 days around release date of Council on economics priority study
Social Cost, Social Performance, Economics Performance, & Social Disclosure	Memed Sueb (2001)	Terdapat pengaruh social cost terhadap social performance	Perusahaan yang mengikuti Prokasih, dimana social cost dan social performance merupakan data primer berupa pendapat responden yang termuat dalam kuesioner

Peregesran paradigma pengelolaan perusahaan dari shareholders orientation? dianggap menjadi pemicu pergeseran orientasi pengelolaan perusahaan, yaitu semakin tingkat perhatian dan keterbukaan akan hak dan tanggungjawab, termasuk perhatian terhadap lingkungan, kedua dampak negative externalities industrialisasi telah merasuk dalam berbagai dimensi kehidupan baik pisik maupun psikis. Hal itu, menjadikan stress sosial, radiasi, pencemaran, dis-harmoni hubungan antara perusahaan dan stakeholders terutama external stakeholders sehingga mengancam illigitasi stakeholders terhadap perusahaan.

Melihat konteks seperti itu, perusahaan harus menggeser pengelolaan oerusahaan denga memperhitung faktor-faktor sosial dan kemasyarakatan yang diwujudkan lewat corporate social responsibility. Secara teoretis, fenomena itu dijelaskan secara logis dalam teori stakholders (stakeholders theory) yang mana antara perusahaan dan stakeholders berada dalam garis lurus yaitu saling mempengaruhi dan dipengaruhi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung. Untuk menghindari dis-legitimasi, perusahaan perlu menjaga congruensi tujuan perusahaan dengan pengharapan stakeholders (legitimacy theory), seperti dengan mengadakan kontrak sosial (social contract) berupa meningkatkan praktik corporate social responsibility.

corporate social responsibility dalam tataran praksis ternyata memiliki muatan strategis, dilihat dari sisi perusahaan mengandung motif baik bersifat sosial maupun ekonomi. Dampak riil dalam operasional perusahaan memiliki muatan untuk meningkatkan kinerja perusahaan baik kinerja sosial (social performance) maupun economics performance.

Cakupan tingkat signifikansi social responsibility ternyata mengundang deru perhatian semua pihak baik oleh praktisi maupun akademisi. Untuk itu, perkembangan kajian corporate social responsibility merambah dalam berbagai ranah baik dikaitkan dengan konteks perusahaan, external stakeholders, motif yang terkandung didalamnya, managerial motive, stakeholders motive, information usefullness dan information content dan sejenisnya. Melihat konteks seperti itu, riset dibidang corporate social responsibility memiliki peran penting dalam perkembangan ilmu dibidang akuntansi yaitu perkembangan akuntansi sosial dan lingkungan.

(Sumber: Noorhadi, 2011)

Role and Development of CSR Reasearch (Social Accounting)

Satu karakter dasar dalam pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan adalah meruang dan mewaktu. Hal itu juga yang menjadi paradigma positivistics dalam membangun teori. Lacatos berpendapat bahwa ilmu pengetahuan harus dapat ditolak. Untuk itu, ilmu pengetahuan berkembang sejalan dengan perkembangan pola pikir manusia.

Akuntansi, sebagai social science juga mengalami perkembangan sebagaimana karakternya yang open endded terhadap ilmu sosial lainnya. Fenomena pergeseran paradigma pengelolaan perusahaan dari shareholders orientation ke stakeholders orientation memiliki peran penting dalam sejarah perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan dibidang akuntansi. Wujud riil perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan akuntansi dalam adopsi sistemik terhadap perkembangan isu corporate social responsibility tersebut adalah akuntansi sosial (social accounting).

Social Accounting adalah “......the ordering, measuring, and analysis of the social and economic consequences of governmental and enterpreneural behaviour”. (Freedman dalam Siegel dan Marconi, 2003). Dengan demikian fokus akuntansi sosial disamping goverenmental entities juga business entities yang memiliki dampak terhadap lingkungan baik pisik psikis. Lingkungan bisnis disini termasuk natural recources.

Dilihat dari horison waktu, tahun 1960 merupakan awal dari issu akuntansi sosial yang mengemuka berbarengan dengan pentingnya perusahaan mengedepankan praktik “good citizen”. Jargon good citizen mengemuka ketika semua pihak sadar akan arti penting kualitas produk, perlindungan kesejahteraan dan kesehataan karyawan, kontribusi perusahaan terhadap community, issu pemanasan global (Siegel dan Marconi, 2003). Siegel (2003) berpendapat bahwa agar perusahaan tetap survive maka harus menjaga kesehatan lingkungan masyarakat dimana mereka berada, menjamin kesehatan para karyawan dan menjamin equality antara pengorbana financial oleh konsumen dalam memprerolah produk perusahaan dengan jaminan kualitas dan kesehatan produk tersebut.

Antara tahun 1960-an sampai dengan 1970-an dapat dikatakan sebaga era perhatian sosial oleh masyarakat, dimana masyarakat (people) mulai muncul tuntutan tentang corporate social responsibility (Siegel, 2003). Robert Beyer (managing partner of Touche Ross in New York) menunjukkan:

Restrictions on the use for “free” air and water are also matter of social accounting. Society is now examining cost that have always existed. Cost in terms of life and death, damage buidings and art works, foliag, and all other noxious effects of pollution. The only difference is that these costs are being transferred to the extent that is fiasible-from the cpmmunity at large to those who cause them and benefit from them”.

Dengan demikian issu corporate social responsibility (CSR) tak dapat dilepas dari sejarah kejadia empiris yang semakin dis-harmoni. Tahun 1960-an Rache Carson menerbitkan buku “Silen Spring” yang didalamnya mengupas tantang persoalan lingkungan yang diwacanakan global. Dalam buku tersebut megupas banyak tentang kemerosotan lingkungan gobal yang sekarang terkenal dengan global worning. Sejak itu permasalah lingkungan semakin menggelobal dan menjadi perhatianb luas.

Konferensi Stockholm tahun 1972 mencatat kejadian monumental berskala internasional tentang lingkungan. Saat itu, semua pihak menyadarai akan semakin menurunya kuaslitas lingkungan. Dalam konferensi tersebut menghasilkan resolusi monumental yaitu terbentuknya Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) yang merupakan badan khusus PBB yang menangani masalah lingkungan.

Tahun 1983 PBB tergugah untuk ikut menangani masalah lingkungan dengan membentuk World Commission on Environment and Development. KTT Bumi Rio de Janeiro yang merupakan konferensi lingkungan sedunia diselenggarakan oleh PBB mengusung topik lingkungan. KTT Bumi ini menghasilkan kesepakan mendasar agar semua pihak sekecil apapun, baik atau buruk terhadap ramah lingkungan. Konferensi ini juga menekankan pentingnya semangat kebersamaan dalam mengatasi berbagai masalah terkait solusi saling berbenturannya antara kelompok yang melakukan pembangunan ekonomi dengan kelompok yang berkepentingan dalam melakukan upaya-upaya konservasi lingkungan.

Menelisik berbagai kejadian monumental kelas internasional tersebut, bukan berarti tanpa alasan. Berbagai kesepakatan tersebut dilatarbelakangi oleh semakin merosotnya lingkungan yang dipicu oleh industrialisasi. Sebagai contoh riil pada skala nasional adalah kasus Free Port, Lapindo, Caltex, Newmon, pencemaran lingkungan didaerah industri, radiasi, emisi debu, kebisingan, keincangan sosial dan sejenisnya. Problematika lingkungan tersebut, masyarakat harus menanggung berbagai pengorbanan sosial (social cost) sementara mereka adalah bukan pihak yang diungtungkan terkait industrialisasi. Dampak yang paling akhir adalah munculnya berbagai penyakit dan munculnya komplain (protes) stakeholders terhadap perusahaan. Hal itu akan mempengaruhi existensi operasional perusahaan dan bahkan sampai pada penutupan usaha.

Melihat konteks signifikansi keberpihakan sosial oleh unit business, kurun dekade terakhir issue corporate social responsibility menjadi kajian menarik baik dalam skala nasional maupun internasional, oleh praktisi maupun akademisi. Bukti empiris menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan telah membuka diri baik secara sukarela (motive approach) maupun karena tekanan dan anjuran pelaksanaan aturan (system approach) untuk melaksanakaan berbagai bentuk aktivitas sosial (keberpihakan sosial).

Tak kalah penting, perkembangan riset dibidang social responsibility tumbuh dan berkembang melampaui diberbagai lini kajian. Deegan (2002) melakukan meta analisis terhadap riset dibidang social responsibility yang merupakan bagian dari ranah riset dibidang akuntansi sosial (social accounting) bahwa riset dibidang akuntansi sosial khusuis dalam topik social responsibility telah masuk diberbagai dimensi masalah yang dikesploitasi. Tabel berikut ini memberikan gambaran masalah yang dipertanyakan dalam riset selama puluhan tahun, antara lain:
Tabel 1.
Perkembangan Riset di bidang Social Responsibility (Social Accounting)

Research Problem & statement	Researches
What are companies report	Ernst & Earnst (1970), See Teoh & Thong (1984), Andrews et al (1989), Guthrie & Parker (1990), Harte & Owen (1991), Lynn (1992), Adams et al (1995), Gidsons & Guthrie (1995), Niskala & Pretes (1995), Deegan & Gordon (1996), Gamble et al (1996), Choi (1999), Bell and Lehman (1999), Newson & Deegan (2002)
Can social & environmental disclosure practices be linked to other attributes of performance, such as economics perfoprmance, or to factors such as industry membership, country of origin (and culture), or size	Ingram & Frazier (1980), Trotman & Bradley (1981), Ulmann (1985), Cowen et al (1987), Fayers (1998), Newson & Deegan (2002)
How do particular stakeholders react to social and environmental disclosure	Ingram (1978), Buzby & Falk (1978, 1979), Anderson dan Frankle (1980), Jaggi & Freedman (1982), Shane & Spicer (1983), Freedman & Jaggi (1986, 1988), Epstein & Freedman (1994), Blacconiere & Patten (1994), Tilt (1994), Deegan & Rankin (1997)
What are accountant attitudes to social & environmental Accounting	Bebbington et al (1994), Deeegan et al (1996)
What is the correspondence between corporate social and environmental disclosure and actual corporate performance	Wiseman (1982), Rockness (1985)
Whar are roles of taxation instruments in relation to environmetal protection	Baumol (1975), Lockhart (1997), O’Riordan (1997)
How is accounting education embracing the area, and what are sme of the impediments to including social & environmental issue with the accounting education programs of universities and professional accounting bodies	Blundell & booth (1988), Gray et al (1994), Gibson (1997), Gordon (1998), Gray & Collison (2001)
How should organisations account for their social and environmetal performance	C.C Abt Associates (1972), Milne (1991), USEPA (1996), Bebbington & Gray (1997), Mathews (2000)
What theories best explain how we do report, or perhaps, how we should report social and environmental information	Ramanathan (1976), Cooper & Sharer (1984), Benston (1982, 1984), Belkoui & Karpik (1989), Mathews (1993, 2000), Gray et al (1996), Lehman (1999), Deegan (2000)
How Should (and perhaps, why should) management accounting system embrance social and environmental issues	Stone (1995), Bennett and James (1997, 1998), Ditz et al (1996), Lehman (1999), Deegan (2000)
What motivates managers to make particular social & environmental disclosure	Guthrie & Parker (1989), Patten (1992), Roberts (1992), Degaan & Gordon (1996), Deegan & Rankin (1997), Adams et al (1998)
What is the role, or scope, of social and environmental verifications, attentations, or audits (and these can all take on various forms)	Bauer & Fenn (1973), Grojer & Stark (1977), Brooks (1980), Geddes (1991), Gray & Collison (1991), Gray et al (1991), Zadek (1993), Gallhofer & Haslam (1995), Power (1997), Owen & Swift (1999), Ball et al (2000), Owen et al (2000), Gray (2002)

Theoritical Framework Building Pada CSR Research

Ranah penelitian berparadigma positivistics bertujuan untuk mengembangankan ilmu pengetahuan secara gradual, spontong-spotong. Akumulasi dari ilmu pengetahuan tersebut menjadi satu bangunan ilmu pengetahun yang utuh. Masalah penelitian dibangun atas dasar berbagai sumber, seperti meta analisis terhadap riset sebelumnya (riset gap), lewat pengamatan fenomena empiris yang kontradiksi dengan logika teori, serta kesenjangan fenomena empiris yang memiliki implikasi potensial dalam memberikan manfaat kehidupan praksis masyarakat luas sehingga perlu pemecahan.

Logika kerja penemuan masalah penelitian berparadigma positivistics (deductive hipotetico testing) yang dibangun atas dasar deviasi fenomena empiris, masalah empiris dikontradiksikan dengan teori yang melandasinya (core theory). Dengan demikian, penelitian kuantitatif tak dapat terhindarkan dari membangun kerangka pemikiran teoretik penelitian yang sekaligus merupakan ekstraksi ide dasar (orisinalitas) dari satu penelitian, mengingat penelitian kuantitatif bertujuan untuk melakukan verifikasi ataupun valsifikasi teori (pengujian teori).

Membangun kerangka pemikiran teoretik (theoretical framework), secara operasional tak lain adalah ekstraksi dari berpikir logis, integratif, koheren dalam menghubungkan antara masalah penelitian, tujuan penelitian, grand theory yang melandasai dan peta perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan yang sedang dikaji dengan recent study. Untuk itu, membangun kerangka pemikiran teoretik tak dapat dilepaskan dari upaya melakukan meta-analisis terhadap riset sebelumnya. Meta-analisis terhadap riset sebelumnya memiliki fungsi untuk mengetahui dan mendudukkan posisi dan pengembangan pengetahun lewat riset yang dilakukan terhadap teori yang sedang diuji (kontribusi teoreitik dari riset).

Sama halnya ketika mencermati perkembangan riset dibidang pergeseran pengelolaan perusahaan dari shareholders orientation kearah stakeholders orientation yang diekspresikan lewat semakin meningkatnya perhatian perusahaan terhadap praktik corporate social responsibility yang tak dapat dilepaskan dari deviasi masalah dilapangan. Wujud deviasi fenomena empiris adalah semakin meningkatnya negative externalities baik pisik maupun psikis, sehingga memunculkan social cost yang harus ditanggung oleh masyarakat (stakeholders).

Kasus Free Port di Papua yang merupakan kasus monumental berskala nasional, dimana 42 juta hektar dengan aneka ragam hayati terancam eksosistemnya, tak terkecuali suku-suku di Papua yang kehipupanya sangat bergantung pada alam (nomadis) kini kehilangan alam tempat mereka bergantung menambah sederetan dampak sosial kemasyarakatan. Ironisnya, satu gunung bernama Etrsberg yang merupakan tempat leluhur suku Amungme (menurut kepercayaan mereka) tak luput dari eksploitasi, sehingga mereka menjadi marah dan tersinggung serta merasa terjajah hak asasi keyakinannya. Belum lagi, kasus Newmond di Sulawesi, Caltex di Riau, Lapindo di Sidoarjo yang setiap hari menyemburkan lumpur panas ± 156.000 m3 perhari, jika diangkut dengan truk untuk direlokasi membutuhkan lebih dari 10.000 truk. Kejadian tersebut telah menenggelamkan 20 pabrik dan menelantarkan sekitar 2.500 orang buruh pabrik (Wibisono, 2007) serta berbagai kasus pencemaran lain baik yang berada dilingkungan industri maupun diluar industri seperti pemanasan global dan lainnya.

Melihat konteks sebagaimana dinyatakan diatas, perusahaan tidak hanya memiliki tanggungjawab terhadap shareholders sebagaimana yang dilakukan selama ini, melainkan melebar sampai tanggungjawab pada wilayah lingkungan dan sosial yang selanjutnya disebut tanggungjawab sosial (social responsibility). Keberadaan perusahaan terhadap lingkungan (stakeholders) tidak dapat dipisahkan, mereka saling mempengaruhi dan dipengaruhi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung (stakeholders theory). Untuk itu, perusahaan memiliki tanggung jawab atas segala ekses, terutama adalah ekses yang bersifat negatif. Karena, sebagaimana dijelaskan dalam political theory perusahaan harus menggunakan kekuasaan dengan penuh tanggungjawab termasuk tanggungjawab atas ekses negatif yang timbulkan (negative externalities).

Wujud tanggungjawab perusahaan terhadap stakeholders dapata dilakaukan lewat mekanisme social contract dengan stakeholders yaitu kesukarelaan dan komitmen perusahaan untuk meningkat pelaksanaan tanggungjawab sosial (social responsibility) serta meningkatkan keterbukaan terhadap khalayak umum (stakleholders) dalam bentuk social disclosure lewat berbagai media.

Dilihat dari sudut pandang perusahaan, corporate social responsibility memiliki muatan strategis terutama daya dukung keunggulan kompetitif yaitu memposisikan diri ditengah stakeholders. Sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam teori legitimasi (legitimacy theory) eksistensi perusahaan yang berada ditengah masyarakat, perusahaan memiliki tanggungjawab untuk menjaga congruence-si antara keberadaan perusahaan terhadap pengharapan masyarakat (Deegan, 2002). Gap legitimacy terjadi ketika terjadi incongruence-si antara keberadaan perusahaan dengan pengharapan stakeholders, pada saat itu dapat memunculkan reaksi (protes) masyarakat terhadap perusahaan (Deegan, 2002). Belkoui dan Karpik (1989) menyatakan bahwa gap legitimacy memunculkan reaksi stakeholders yang dapat mengganggu stabilitas dan going concern perusahaan. Untuk mengurangi gap legitimacy tersebut perusahaan dapat meningkatkan pareto optimal yaitu dengan melakukan social contract berupa peningkatan social responsibility (SR).

Dilihat dari sudut pandang ekonomi, praktik social responsibility mengadung seperangkat motif yaitu social motive dan economics motive. social motive (motive grounds) berorentasi pada keberpihakan perusahaan terhadap sosial kemasyarakatan baik yang bersifat phisik maupun psikis. social motive ditujukan untuk keberpihakan sosial murni sehingga tidak diharapkan untuk mempreoleh kontraprestasi langsung (direct impact) terhadap kinerja keuangan (ekonomi) perusahaan. Sementara economics motive dimaksudkan untuk memperoleh feed back terhadap kinerja ekonomi perusahaan, seperti menciptakaan keunggulan kompetitif perusahaan, menjaga going concern, promosi perusahaan, menjalin hubungan jangka panjang terhadap konsumen dan sejenisnya.

Melihat konteks signifikansi corporate social responsibility tersebut diatas, akhirnya menjadi issue menarik baik dikalangan praktisi maupun akademisi. Hal itu juga menjadi bagian tak terpisahkan dalam debut perkembangan ilmu akuntansi. Wujud adopsi sistemik dan akhirnya menjadi perkembangan pada disiplin ilmu akuntansi sebagai sosok social science adalah semakin berkembang akuntansi sosial (accounting social) dan kajian pengungkapan sosial (social disclosure). Wujud riil multiplier effect terhadap ilmu akuntansi adalah semakin maraknya riset akuntansi sosial, seperti social cost, social disclosure, environmental accounting, information content dalam social disclosure dan sejenisnya. Untuk memberikan ranah pemahaman, peran dan fungsi riset social responsibility terhadap perkembangan teori-teori dalam akuntansi dijelaskan dalam tawaran pengembangan kerangka teoretik corporate social responsibility, sebagai berikut:
Gambar. 1
Pengembangan Kerangka Pemikiran Teoretik
Dalam Riset Dibidang social responsibility

Sumber: Dikembangkan dari Gary O’Donovan (2002), Patrick Medley (1996), Meyer and Rowan (1977), Elkington (2007)

Gambar tersebut di atas memberikan tawaran kerangka pikir teoretis ranah pengembangan riset dibidang akuntansi sosial (social responsibility). Secara sosilologis, perusahaan merupakan kumpulan komunits orang yang memiliki tujuan yang sama, dimana keberadaanya tak dapat dilpaskan dengan lingkungan sekitar (stakeholders). stakeholders merupakan pihak yang mempengaruhi dan dipengaruhi baik langsung maupun tidak langsung perusahaan (stakeholderstheory .1). Untuk itu, perusahaan harus bertanggungjawab dan menggunakan segenap kekuasaannya secara bertanggungjawab baik dampak positif maupun negatif terhadap lingkungan (political theory).

Sebagai pihak yang menjadi bagian dari lingkungan masyarakat yang lebih luas, perusahaan harus menjaga harmonisasi hubungan tersebut, yaitu dengan meningkatkan tanggungjawab terhadap stakeholders. Legitimasi theory (2) menjelaskan bahwa agar perusahaan memperoleh legitimasi stakeholders, perusahaan perlu menjaga dan memelihara kesesuaian (congruence) antara pengharapan stakeholders dengan tujuan operasional perusahaan. Wilayah (bidang) Y adalah areal pengharapan stakeholders, wilayah Z adalah wilyah pengarapan operasional perusahaan, sedang wilayah X adalah wilayah kesesuaian antara harapan perusahaan dengan harapan stakeholders. Semakin besar wilayah X berarti semakin tinggi tanggungjawab sosial perusahaan dan pada saat itu legitimasi stakeholders juga semakin besar, begitu pula sebaliknya.

Upaya yang perlu dilakukan perusahaan untuk mengelimasi gap legitimasi adalah dengan memperlebar wilayah X lewat menepati standar etika (ethics value) dan sekaligus dijadikan pijakan operasional perusahaan (3) yaitu dengan melakukan kontrak sosial (social contract .4) yang secara operasional dengan meningkatkan tangungjawab sosial (social responsibility. 5). Hal itu sejalan dengan prinsip triple button line bahwa perusahaan tidak hanya bertanggung jawab untuk mengejar profit, namun juga bertangungjawab atas keselerasan, keserasian dan keseimbangan terhadap planet dan people.

Satu kandungan menarik yang dimunculkan praktik social responsibility (baik dari perspektif perusahaan maupun stakeholders) yaitu kandungan motif baik yang bersifat sosial maupun ekonomi (6,7). Hal terpenting dalam motif tersebut bahwa meskipun motif sosial (social motive) ditujukan untuk kepentingan sosial ansih bagi perusahaan, namun dalam dunia praksis ternyata memiliki implikasi positif terhadap kinerja perusahaan. Untuk itu, meningkatkanya corporate social responsibility yang mengandung dua motif (social motive dan economics motive) memiliki manfaat besar dalam mendukung perusahaan menjadi surfive (organizational survival) (8) .