-
EFFECT OF FIRM CHARACTERISTICS, FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISCLOSURE
INTENSITY OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS LISTED IN THE INDONESIA STOCK
EXCHANGE
Mega Rizki Amelia Accounting, Faculty of Economy
Gunadarma University [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) closely associated with
the society and the company. The implementation of Corporate Social
Responsibility by the company can be realized with the disclosure
of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure) that are
socialized to the public in the company's annual report. There are
differences in the level of disclosure that is generated of each
company. The difference is caused by the presence of characteristic
and financial performance of different companies. This study aimed
to analyze the effect of firm characteristics (i.e., firm size,
board of commissioners), companys financial performance (i.e., ROA,
EPS, leverage) and company's environmental performance toward
corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity. The object of
this study is the manufacturing companies listed in the Indonesia
Stock Exchange during the period 2007-2011. Purposive sampling was
used to choose population in this case manufacturing firms. Based
on the criteria of determination of samples obtained 16 companies.
Research variables which include firm size, the size of the board
of commisioners, Return on Assets (ROA), Earning Per Share (EPS),
Debt to Equity Ratio (DER), environmental performance, and
corporate social responsibility disclosure were estimated using
standard formula. Data were analyzed using multiple linear
regression analysis. The results showed that the characteristics of
the firm (firm size, size of the board of commissioners), the
financial performance of the firm (ROA, EPS, leverage) and
environmental performance simultaneously influence the corporate
social responsibility disclosure intensity. Only three variables
(EPS, leverage and environmental performance) that partially affect
corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity. Environmental
performance is the most dominant variable in affecting the
intensity of disclosure implementation of corporate social
responsibility.
Keyword : firm size; board of commisioners; ROA; EPS; leverage;
environmental performance
-
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the demands against the company is so large because in
addition to being required to pursue profit, companies are also
required to pay attention to and involved in the fulfillment of the
welfare of the community as well as to actively contribute in
maintaining environmental sustainability. Companies sometimes
ignore the social and environmental impact brought about by the
company's economic actions to achieve the purpose of
profit-oriented material. Indeed, the operational activities
conducted by the company doing the exploitation of natural
resources and society as uncontrolled, potentially causing damage
to the natural environment. In this case the manufacturing
companies have a fairly large contributions in problems like
pollution, waste management, product safety and labor. This is
because manufacturing companies are companies which most interacts
with society. One of the frequently requested information for the
company to be disclose is information regarding corporate social
responsibility. Corporate social responsibility itself can be
described as the availability of financial information and
non-finance related organization interaction with the physical
environment and the social environment, which can be presented in
the company's annual report or a separate social report. A company
that has a good performance as well as the size of a large company
should be implement corporate social responsibility and revealed
them openly to the public because the public sees that the business
activities of the company as the largest contributors to the
problems occurred. The intensity of the disclosure implementation
of corporate social responsibility as one of the ways companies to
construct, maintain, and legitimize the contribution the company
economically and politically. The intensity of the disclosure of
corporate social responsibility implementation shows how large the
contribution they are reporting to the community, can be seen from
the obidient of the company regularly presents the annual report
and disclose all activities that have been implemented at each
company period. Based on the background above, this research is
aimed to analyze the effect of firm characteristics (i.e., firm
size, board of commissioners), companys financial performance
(i.e., ROA, EPS, leverage) and company's environmental performance
toward corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity whether
simultaneously or partially.
II. THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure
Disclosure of corporate social responsibility which is often
also referred to as social disclosure, corporate social reporting,
social accounting (Mathews, 1995) or the corporate social
responsibility (Hackston and Milne, 1996) is a process of
communicating the social and environmental impact of economic
activities of the organization with respect to specific groups of
interested parties and to society as a whole. It expands the
responsibilities of organizations (particularly firms), outside its
traditional role to provide financial report to the owners of
capital, in particular shareholders. The expansion was made with
the assumption
-
that the company had a wider responsibility than just seeking
profits for shareholders (Gray et. Al., 1987). Disclosure of
corporate social responsibility are often referred to as social
disclosure, corporate social reporting, social accounting (Mathews,
1995) or the corporate social responsibility (Hackston and Milne,
1996) as a process of social and environmental impacts of
communicating of the economic activities of the organization with
respect to specific groups of interested parties and to society as
a whole. The company tends to disclose information relating to its
activities and the impact posed by such companies. Information on
disclosure of company social responsibility standards are based on
the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). The calculation of the index
level of disclosure of corporate social responsibility is measured
by using the ratio of the number of items that the company
disclosed with the maximum number of items based on the GRI
indicators.
2.2 Firm Characteristics
Company characteristics may explain the wide variations of
voluntary disclosure in the annual report, the company's
characteristics is a predictor of the quality of disclosure (Lang
and Lundholm, 1993). Every company has different characteristics to
one entity with another entity. Company size can be determined
based on the value of market capitalization, total assets, sales,
labor, and so forth which correlates to high. The size of the
company will affect the company's funding structure. The need for
greater funding have a tendency that the company wanted the growth
in profits (Riyadi, 2006). Large companies tend to have a greater
political costs for the disclosure of information, so that will
give you information now profit lower than smaller companies. In
this research the company size based on total assets, because based
on the research of Fitriani (2001) total assets shows the size of
company more than the market capitalization. Sembiring (2005)
states that larger companies probably will have shareholders who
pay attention to social programs that created the company in its
annual report, which is a medium to disseminate information about
the social responsibility of the company's finances. Based on the
theory of Agency, the Board of Commissioners considered the
internal control mechanisms, which are responsible for monitoring
the actions of top management. Associated with the disclosure of
information by the company, most research shows that there is a
positive relationship between the different characteristics of the
Board of Commissioners with the level of disclosure of information
by the company. The relationship between the Board of Commissioners
which has been done by Sembiring (2005), Veronica (2009) who find
that the size of the Board of Commissioners has positive effect of
the intensity of the corporate social responsibility disclosure and
conversely Nur (2012) find different results that the size of the
Board of Commissioners has a negative and significant effect.
-
2.3 Financial Performances
Assessment of financial performance is one of the ways that is
done by the management in order to meet its obligations to the
owner of the company. Wahyudi (2002) stated that the company's
performance appraisal is an evaluation which is done periodically
and systematically about the achievements of the work or the office
of a labor, including the potential for its development. In the
evaluation of the financial performance of course requires certain
standards are either internal or external. External standards
refers to the competitive comparison is a comparison of the
company's main competitors. Evaluation of company that refers to an
external standard through competitive comparison which gives the
idea to develop an individual company's financial ratio analysis by
considering the ratio of the industry. One of the important
indicators used in competition is the industry's business
attractiveness (attractiveness bussines). The attractiveness of a
business can be measured by using a ratio of profitability of the
industry that will demonstrate the effectiveness of the overall
operations of the company. Profitability ratio used to measure
financial performance in this research is the Return on Assets
(ROA) and Earning Per Share (EPS).
2.4 Environmental Performance
Environmental performance is a performance company in creating a
good environment (green) (Suratno et al. 2006). The company paid
close attention to the environment as a form of corporate
responsibility and concern for the environment. Environmental
performance is made in the form of ranking by an institution
related to the environment. During this time the measurement of
environmental performance still haven't reached a final agreement,
because every country has its own way of measurement depends on the
situation and environmental conditions in the country. In
Indonesia, the environmental performance can be measured by using
the Assessment Rating Program of the company's performance in the
management of the environment. PROPER is one of the Government's
policy efforts undertaken through the Ministry of the Environment
to encourage an increase in the company's performance in the
management of the environment through the dissemination of the
obidience performance information company in the management of the
environment. The implementation of PROPER is expected to strengthen
the various existing environmental management instruments, such as
the enforcement of environmental law, and economic instruments. In
addition the implementation of PROPER can answer the needs of
access to information, transparency and public participation in
environmental management. PROPER assessment refers to the
requirements the environmental obidience set out in government
regulations related to the control of water pollution, air
pollution control, waste management, air, B3, and control of
pollution of the sea. The company's environmental performance
rating of grouped at five (5) rank colors in order to facilitate
communication with stakeholders in addressing the results of the
obidience performance of each company. Its color ranking is a form
of communicative delivery performance to the community so that it
is
-
easier to understand and remember. Five ratings used include
black, red, blue, green, and gold.
III. RESEARCH METHODS
Objects used in this research is the manufacturing firms
(processing industry). The population of this research is a
registered manufacturing company (go-public) at the Indonesia Stock
Exchange. Samples of research used in this study was 16
manufacturing companies. The observation period is 5 years from
2007 until 2011. Types of data used in this study is secondary
data. Data collection techniques used in this research was the
documentation of data sources in the form of the financial
statements in the form of a balance sheet and the consolidated
profit/loss report, the annual report in the form of a management
report, and reports the results of PROPER period as well as the
data and other information related to calculation and analysis.
Data were analyzed by Determination Analysis ( R2 ), Multiple
Regression Analysis ( R ), Partial Test and Simultaneous Test with
program SPSS version 18. The hypothesis can be formulated as
follows :
1. Simultaneously the firm characteristics that consists of FS,
BC, the firm financial performance consists of ROA, EPS, DER and
the environmental performance (EP) effect on the corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity.
2. Partially the the firm characteristics that consists of of
FS, BC, the firm financial performance consists of ROA, EPS, DER
and the environmental performance (EP) effect on the corporate
social responsibility disclosure intensity, which is formulated as
follows: FS effect on the corporate social responsibility
disclosure intensity. BC effect on the corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity. ROA effect on the corporate
social responsibility disclosure intensity. EPS effect on the
corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity. DER effect on
the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity. EP effect
on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Description
From the observation can be known that in 2007 Asahimas Flat
Glass Tbk is the company with the highest social responsibility
disclosure index which amounted to 57%. The highest index of 70%
and 71% are generated by Indocement Tunggal Prakasa Tbk in 2008 and
2009, while in 2010 and 2011 the company Holcim Indonesia Tbk
produces the highest index of 76% and 80%.
Meanwhile, the company that produces the lowest index of social
responsibility disclosure in 2007 is Citra Turbindo Tbk amounting
to 11%. Furthermore, in 2008 the company Kalbe Tbk with index 20%
and Fajar Surya Wisesa Tbk in 2009 with an index of
-
19%. In 2010 the lowest index of 25% is generated by Indofood
Sukses Makmur Tbk and in 2011 Gajah Tunggal Tbk and Indofood Sukses
Makmur Tbk with an index of 30%.
4.2 The Classic Assumption Test Results
From normality test results using One Sample Kolmogorov Smirnov,
known that the overall variable i.e firm size, size of the board of
commisioners, profitability, leverage, environmental performance
and corporate social responsibility disclosure index are normally
distributed cause of the significant values for each variable is
more than 0,05. Based on multicolinearity test, analysis of the
results obtained from the table coefficients i.e firm size has a
value of tolerance of 0,328 dan VIF value at 3,053 ; tolerance
value of board of commisioners is at 0,390 with VIF value at 2,567
; ROA has a value of tolerance of 0,606 dan VIF value at 1,651 ;
EPS has a value of tolerance of 0,702 dan VIF value at 1,424 ;
tolerance value of leverage is at 0,759 with VIF value at 1,318 ;
tolerance value of environmental performance is at 0,684 with VIF
value at 1,461. The results shows that the value of tolerance for
each variable is more that 0.1 and the value of VIF for each
variable is more than 10. It can be concluded that there is no
multicolinearity in this regression model. The result of analysis
that obtained from autocorrelation test shows that there is no
correlation between residue on a confidence level of 95% ( = 5%).
It can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation cause of the
position value of the Durbin Watson are on 1.801 < 1.969 <
2.199. Heteroscedasticity analysis results obtained by observing
the scatterplot graphs, it is known that the data points spread
above and below the number 0 on the Y axis, with the unclear
pattern. It can be concluded that there is no heterocedasticity in
this regression model.
4.3 Hypothesis Testing
The hypothesis in this research is aimed to analyze the effect
of firm characteristics (i.e., firm size, board of commissioners),
companys financial performance (i.e., ROA, EPS, leverage) and
company's environmental performance toward corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity whether simultaneously or
partially by using multiple regression. Simultaneously, the
independent variables (Firm Size, Board of Commissionners, ROA,
EPS, DER and Environmental Performance) have the coefficient of
determination value (R2) amounted to 0,680, it indicates that 68%
of the intensity of corporate social responsibility disclosure can
be explained by the variation of the six independent. While 32% is
influenced by other variables that are not observed in this study.
The results also show that this research has a significant
influence statistically with the Fvalue is 28,998 with a
significance of 0,000. From the table, it can be seen that there
are three independent variables which significantly influence the
intensity of corporate social responsibility i.e EPS, DER and EP
with a significance value is less than 0,05. EPS has a tvalue of
-2,391 which is greater than the value of
ttable at -1,993, variable DER has a tvalue of -2,164 which is
greater than the value of ttable at -1,993 and variable EP with a
tvalue 11,050 which is greater than the value of ttable at
-
1,993. The dominant influence on the disclosure of corporate
social responsibility is the environmental performance (EP), with a
value of standardization of 0.850. From the results above, it is
known that the Ha can be accepted and H0 is rejected.
4.4 Discussion
In the simultaneous testing, the influence degree of the
variable independent towards corporate social responsibility
quitely high which is 68% (Adjusted R2 = 0,680). It means that 68%
of the intensity of corporate social responsibility disclosure can
be explained by the variation of the six independent. While 32% is
influenced by other variables that are not observed in this study.
In the partial testing, the three variables i.e EPS, DER, and
environmental performance found significantly influence the
corporate social responsibility. Whereas the firm size, board of
commissioners, and ROA has no significant influence. The discussion
of each variables in partial testing can be shown as follows:
4.4.1 Firm Size
Variable size of the company has a positive influence on the
intensity of the disclosure of corporate social responsibility
implementation due to manufacturing companies in the study have a
large size enterprise views of total assets in the financial
statements of the company, so that it can implement its social
responsibility to the environment and the surrounding community. It
is associated with the economic perspective that says that the size
of the company will provide information to investors, raising the
company's value that indicates that the size of a large company and
when the company is implementing corporate social responsibility
disclosure expects will be responded positively by the market
participants. Instead, the smaller the size of the company, it will
be increasingly difficult for companies to implement social
responsibility perusahaanya to the environment and the surrounding
community because there is a limited company owned. In this
research the company size does not affect the intensity of
disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility, in
accordance with the results of the research study conducted by
Veronica (2009) and Anggraini (2006). This shows that the small
size of the company, does not guarantee the survival of the company
in the future because both companies large and small in this study
are having problems the financial distress, so that companies with
large or small size would not necessarily be intense and consistent
in expressing the implementation of social responsibility of the
company. However, these results do not support the research
conducted by Hackston and Milne (1996), Permana and Raharja (2011),
Almilia and Retrinasari (2007) which shows the size of the company
is proven to affect the level of disclosure of CSR significantly in
the annual report. The results of this research also does not
support the findings that have been made by Sembiring (2005) that
proves that the size of the company (size) effect on disclosure of
corporate social responsibility.
-
4.4.2 Board of Commissioners
Variable Board of Commissioners have negative influence on the
intensity of the disclosure implementation of corporate social
responsibility. The results of this study in accordance with the
research done by Permana dan Raharja (2012) and Noor (2012) that
the Board of Commissioners negatively against disclosure of CSR.
This indicates that the size of the Board of Commissioners that too
much will cause the occurrence of many decision-making, so that it
is less effective. According to Nur (2012) the number of the Board
of Commissioners of which there are not too many will give rise to
an agreement and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility
will be easier to come by. This research did not support the Agency
theory which States that the Board of Commissioners considered the
internal control mechanisms, which are responsible for monitoring
the actions of top management. In this study, the size of the Board
of Commissioners showed no significant influence of the intensity
of the disclosure of corporate social responsibility
implementation, this means that a large number of small boards in
companies will not affect the level of disclosure of corporate
social responsibility. Results of the study should not be confused
with the results of research conducted by Veronica (2009) and
Sembiring (2005) stating that the Board of Commissioners of
positive effect on disclosure of CSR.
4.4.3 ROA
Variable ROA (Return on Asset) have a negative influence and not
significant on corporate social responsibility disclosure
intensity, it indicates that whether great or small of ROA will not
affect the intensity of corporate social responsibility disclosure.
This is in accordance with the opinion of the Kokubu et. al (2001)
which states that the political visibility of companies depends on
the size of the company rather than on profitability. The company
which has a high profitability not necessarily doing more social
activity because the company is more oriented to get profits
(Devina, 2004). The results of this study support the research
conducted by Nur (2012) and Marpaung (2009) which found that
profitability negatively influence the disclosure of social
responsibility. The results of this discovery also supported
research conducted by Hackston and Milne (1996), Anggraini (2006),
Devina (2004) finds that there is no influence of the ROA against
the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR Disclosure).
The results of this study do not support the theory of an agency
with the premise that the larger profit gain will make companies
reveal broader social information.
4.4.4 EPS
Variable Earning Per Share (EPS) have a negative influence
towards the intensity of the disclosure implementation of corporate
social responsibility, it is associated with the theory of
legitimacy with the premise that when a company has a high level of
profits, the company (management) considers do not need to report
things that may interfere with information about the company's
financial success, which means that the magnitude of the
-
earnings per shares is not a guarantee for a company to carry
out efforts to increase disclosure of its social responsibility.
Otherwise at the time of the low level of profitability is marked
with a profit per share of the company that are not large, then the
company will further improve the efforts of implementation and
disclosure of corporate social responsibility in the hope that
users will read the report "good news" the company's performance
and see the company's achievements in the social and environmental
dimension to look at his life compared to give priority to profits,
so that will increase the value of the company especially in the
eyes of investors are more interested to invest capital on an
environmentally friendly corporation. The results of this research
support of the theory of legitimacy by showing the influence of the
negative profitability significantly to disclosure of corporate
social responsibility. The results of this study are inconsistent
with research results and Hackston Milne (1996), Veronica and Agus
(2010) Sembiring (2005) find insignificant influence profitability
against disclosure of corporate social responsibility.
Theoretically, according to the Kokubu et. al., (2001), there is a
positive relationship between economic performance of a company
with social responsibility disclosure, it is associated with the
agency theory with the premise that the larger profit gain will
make companies reveal larger social information.
4.4.5 Leverage
Variable leverage with the ratio of debt to equity (DER) as a
proxy has a negative and significant affecting the intensity of the
disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility, it is
associated with the theory of agency where the management of the
company with a high degree of leverage tends to reduce social
responsibility disclosure made in order not to become a spotlight
of the debtholders (Sembiring, 2005). The results of this study in
accordance with the research conducted by Nur (2012) who found that
there was a significant negative relationship between leverage and
disclosure of corporate social responsibility. This is in
accordance with the opinion of Karpik (1989) which States that the
higher ratio of liabilities/equity social disclosure is getting
lower due to the higher degree of leverage, then the more likely
the company will credit agreement. So companies should present a
higher profit at the moment now than profit in the future. So that
the company can present a higher profit, then the company must
reduce costs (including the costs of social information to reveal).
This research is inconsistent with research Sembiring (2005),
Anggraini (2006), Permana and Raharja (2012), and Veronica (2009)
which found that leverage does not have an impact on disclosure of
corporate social responsibility.
4.4.6 Environmental Performance
Variable environmental performance through PROPER program has a
positive influence significantly intensity against the disclosure
of social responsibility implementation, indicating that the PROPER
push manufacturing company to always carry out an increase in the
company's performance in the management of the environment so that
the stakeholders will give appreciation to companies that are
ranked well and give a boost to
-
companies that have not obtained a rating of good to always
implement the implementation responsibility of his company against
the economic interests ofsocial, and the surrounding environment.
This illustrates that good environmental performers believe that
disclosing their performance depicts the good news for the market
participants. The results of this research is directly proportional
to the theory regarding the disclosure of corporate social
responsibility itself, which is a concept whereby companies decide
voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner
environment or can be said to be a company that cares about its
environmental performance means have applied the disclosure of
corporate social responsibility with a properly proven by the high
environmental and social concern of the company. The results of
this study support the findings of research concducted by Permana
and Raharja (2012) and Suratno et al. (2006) which found a
significant effect between the performance of the environment on
the disclosure of corporate social responsibility in which
environmental performance is the company's efforts in creating an
environment that is good (green) as measured through the PROPER
model is consistent with the discretionary disclosure where good
environmental performers believe that disclosing performance the
company described the good news for the market participantseconomic
performance, while only associated positively with environmental
performance and environmental disclosure.
V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the analysis that has been done in this study, the
conclusion can be drawn as follows: 1. The firm characteristics
which consist of firm size, size of the board of commisioners,
the financial performance which consist of profitability (ROA
and EPS), leverage (DER) and the environmental performance
simultaneously influence corporate social responsibility disclosure
intensity.
2. Variables that partially affect the corporate social
responsibity disclosure intensity are EPS, leverage (DER), and
environmental performance (EP).
3. Of the three variables that partially affect corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity, environmental performance is
the most dominant variable in affecting the intensity of disclosure
implementation of corporate social responsibility.
5.2 Implications
In general, all of the variables in this study must be
considered because firm size, size of the board of commisioners,
ROA, EPS, leverage (DER), and environmental performance are
variables that simultaneously affect corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity. But it focused more on EPS,
DER and environmental performance because all three have proven
partially influence and it is known that the variable which turned
out to be the most dominant in determining the high or low of the
corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity is
environmental performance.
-
REFERENCES
Al Tuwajiri, dan Sulaiman A. 2003. The Relation Among
Environmental Disclosure, Environmental Performance, dan Economic
Performance : A Simultaneous Equation Approach. Accounting
Environment Journal. USA. 5-10.
Almilia, Luciana S. dan Ikka, Retrinasari. 2007. Analisis
Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan Terhadap Kelengkapan Pengungkapan
dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEJ.
Proceding Seminar Nasional : Inovasi dalam Menghadapi Perubahan
Lingkungan Bisnis. Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Trisakti.
Andre Christian,Sitepu. 2008. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi
Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial dalam Laporan Tahunan pada Perusahaan
Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Skripsi Fakultas
Ekonomi. Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Anggraini, Fr. Reni Retno. 2006. Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial
dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial
dalam Laporan Keuangan Tahunan (Studi Empiris pada
Perusahaan-Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di BEJ). Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi IX.
Apriwenni, P. 2009. Faktor-Faktor yang Memengaruhi Pengungkapan
Corporate Social Responsibility pada Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan
untuk Industri Manufaktur Tahun 2008. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Vol.6. No.1. 41-58. Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi IBII.
Belkaoui, Ahmed and Philip G, Karpik. 1989. Determinants of the
Corporate Decision to Disclose Sosial Information. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal. Vol. 2. No. 1. 36- 51
Coller, P., and Gregory A. (1999), Audit Committee Activity and
Agency Costs. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. Vol 18
(4-5). 311-332.
Chariri, Anis dan Ghozali, Imam. 2007. Teori Akuntansi. Edisi
Ketiga, Universitas Diponegoro.
Daniri, M.A. 2008a. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial
Perusahaan (Bag I).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/01/17/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-i/
(diakses 10 November 2012).
2008b. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (Bag II).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/02/11/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-ii/
(diakses 10 November 2012).
2008c. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (Bag III -
Finish).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/02/11/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-iii-finish/
(diakses 10 November 2012).
Darwin, Ali. 2004. Akuntabilitas, Kebutuhan, Pelaporan, dan
Pengungkapan CSR bagi Perusahaan di Indonesia. Edisi III.
September-Desember.
-
Devina, Florence. 2004. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan
terhadap Pengungkapan Social dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Go
Publik di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Fakultas Ekonomi. Tesis Fakultas
Ekonomi. Universitas Diponegoro.
Dibiyantoro, 2011. Pengaruh Struktur Modal dan Profitabilitas
Perusahaan terhadap Mandatory Disclosure Financial Statement pada
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEI. Jurnal Ekonomi dan
Informasi Akuntansi (Jenius). Vol.1 No.2. 174-199.
Ebert, R. J. and R.W. Griffin, 2003. Bisnis. Edisi Keenam. Jilid
I. Alih Bahasa Edina Cahyaning Tarmidzi. Prenhallindo. Jakarta.
Fitriani, 2001. Signifikansi Perbedaan Tingkat Kelengkapan
Pengungkapan Wajib dan Sukarela pada Laporan Keuangan Perusahaan
Publik yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi IV.
Ghozali, Imam. 2005. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan
Program SPSS. Edisi Ketiga. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Semarang.
Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI). 2007. Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines.
www.globalreporting.org/guidelines//062007guidelines.asp/ (diakses
18 Oktober 2012).
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, David M,. and Sinclair, C. Donald.
2001. Social And Environmental Disclosure, And Corporate
Characteristic: A Research Note And Extension. Journal of Business
Finance and Accounting. Vol 28. No. 3. 327-356.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. 1995b. Methodological Themes:
Constructing A Research Database of Social and Environmental
Reporting By UK Companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal. Vol. 8 No.2 78-101.
Gray, R, Owen D., dan Adams, C. 1996. Accounting and
Accountability. Prentice Hall Europe.
Gray, R,, Owen, D. dan Maunders, K. 1987. Corporate Social
Reporting : Accounting and Accountability. Prentice-Hall.
London.
Guthrie, J dan Mathews, M.R. (1985), Corporate Social Accounting
in Australia in Preston, LE. (Ed). Research in Corporate Social
Performance and Policy. Vol. 7. 251-77.
Hackston, D. dan M.J. Milne. 1996. Some Determinants of Social
and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal. Vol.9. No.1. 77-108.
Hadi, N., and A. Sabeni. 2002. Analisa Faktor-faktor yang
Mempengaruhi Luas Pengungkapan Sukarela dalam Laporan Tahunan
Perusahaan Go-Public di BEJ. MAKSI 90-104.
Hanafi, Mamduh dan Halim, Abdul. 2007. Edisi Revisi Analisis
Laporan Keuangan. Unit Penerbit Dan Percetakan AMP YKPN.
Yogyakarta.
-
Jensen, M.C and Meckling, W.H. 1976. The Agency Theory of The
Firm : Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure.
Journal of Financial Economics 3. No.4. 305-360.
Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup. 2009. Laporan Hasil
Penilaian PROPER 2008-2009. Diunduh pada tanggal 20 Oktober 2012
dari: http://www.menlh.go.id
Lang, M. and Lundholm, R. 1993. Crossectional Determinants of
Analysts Ratings of Corporate Disclosures. Journal of Accounting
Research. Vol 31. No.2 246-271.
Lindrianasari. 2007. Hubungan antara Kinerja Lingkungan dan
Kualitas Pengungkapan Lingkungan dengan Kinerja Ekonomi di
Indonesia. JAAI. Vol.11. No.2. 159-172. Universitas Lampung.
Marwata, 2001. Hubungan Antara Karakteristik Perusahaan dan
Kualitas Ungkapan Sukarela dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Publik
di Indonesia. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IV. Bandung
Matthews, M.R. 1995. Social and Environmental Accounting: A
Practical Demonstration of Ethical Concern. Journal of Business
Ethics. Vol. 14. 663-671.
Mulyadi, 2002. Akuntansi Manajemen: Konsep, manfaat dan
Rekayasa. Edisi Ketiga. Salemba Empat. Jakarta.
Naim, Ainun dan Rakhman, Fuad. 2000. Analisis Hubungan antara
Kelengkapan Pengungkapan Laporan Keuangan dengan Struktur Modal dan
Tipe Kepemilikan Perusahaan. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Indonesia.
Vol. 15 No. 1. 77-82.
Nur, Marzully. 2012. Analisa Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi
Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility di Indonesia (Studi
Empiris pada Perusahaan Berkategori High Profile yang Listing Di
Bursa Efek Indonesia). Jurnal Nominal. Vol. 1. No.2. 23-35.
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta.
Permana, Virgiwan A. dan Raharja, 2012. Pengaruh Kinerja
Lingkungan dan Karakteristik Perusahaan Terhadap Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan
Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEI). Diponegoro Journal of
Accounting. Vol.1. No.2. 1-12.
Rakhiemah, Aldilla Noor dan Dian Agustia. (2009). Pengaruh
Kinerja Lingkungan Terhadap Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Disclosure dan Kinerja Finansial Perusahaan Manufaktur yang
Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi
XII. Palembang.
Reverte, Carmelo. 2009. Determinants of Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms. Journal
of Business Ethics. Vol. 88. 351-366.
Sarumpaet, Susi. 2005. The Relationship Between Environmental
Performance and Financial Performance of Indonesian Companies.
Jurnal Akuntansi & Keuangan. Vol. 7. No.2. 89-98. Fakultas
Ekonomi. Universitas Kristen Petra.
-
Sembiring, E.R. 2005. Karakteristik Perusahaan dan Pengungkapan
Tanggung Jawab Sosial Study Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Tercatat
di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi VIII. Solo
Suratno, Ignatius Bondan., Darsono, dan Mutmainah, S. 2006.
Pengaruh Environmental Performance terhadap Environmental
Disclosure dan Economic Performance (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan
Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta Periode 2001-2004).
Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IX. Padang.
Wallace, R.S.O, Kamal Naser and Areceli Mora. The Relationship
Between the Comprehensiveness of Corporate Annual Report and Firm
Characteristics In Spain. Accounting and Bussiness Research.
Vol.25. 41-53. Winter 1994.
Yuliani, Rahma. 2003. Pengaruh Karakteristik dan Perusahaan
terhadap Praktek Pengungkapan Sosial dan Lingkungan di Indonesia.
Tesis Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.
Verrechia, 2006. Discretionary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting
and Economics. Vol.5(3). 179-194.
Veronica, Theodora Martina. 2009. Pengaruh Karakteristik
Perusahaan terhadap Pengungkapan Tanggungjawab Sosial pada
Perusahaan Sektor Pertambangan yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia. Jurnal Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Gunadarma.
-
APPENDIX SPSS Output Results
NORMALITY TEST
MULTICOLINEARITY TEST
Coefficientsa Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant)
FS ,328 3,053 BC ,390 2,567
ROA ,606 1,651 EPS ,702 1,424 DER ,759 1,318 EP ,684 1,461
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI
AUTO CORRELATION TEST
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test CSRDI ROA EPS FS DER BC
EP
N 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Normal Parametersa,b Mean ,3965 ,1289 577,2301 29,5725 ,9226
6,0875 3,4750 Std. Deviation ,12684 ,10672 837,27626 1,14367 ,67687
2,29581 ,61572
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,107 ,129 ,236 ,096 ,165 ,146
,342 Positive ,107 ,129 ,206 ,096 ,165 ,146 ,342 Negative -,047
-,117 -,236 -,077 -,130 -,105 -,241
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ,956 1,155 2,114 ,863 1,478 1,302 3,061
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,320 ,139 ,000 ,446 ,025 ,068 ,000
a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data.
Model Summaryb
Model
Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2
Sig. F Change
1 ,704 28,998 6 73 .000 1.969
-
HETEROSCEDASTICITY TEST
MULTIPLE REGRESSION TEST
F TEST
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
95,0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations
Collinearity Statistics
B Std.
Error Beta Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -,415 ,329 -1,262 ,211 -1,071 ,241 FS ,010 ,012
,092 ,823 ,413 -,014 ,035 ,187 ,096 ,052 ,328 3,053
BC -,007 ,006 -,127 -1,247 ,216 -,018 ,004 ,146 -,144 -,079 ,390
2,567
ROA -,087 ,097 -,073 -,896 ,373 -,281 ,107 ,285 -,104 -,057 ,606
1,651
EPS -2,750E-5 ,000 -,182 -2,391 ,019 ,000 ,000 ,026 -,269 -,152
,702 1,424
DER -,030 ,014 -,158 -2,164 ,034 -,057 -,002 -,309 -,246 -,138
,759 1,318
EP ,175 ,016 ,850 11,050 ,000 ,144 ,207 ,803 ,791 ,703 ,684
1,461
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI
ANOVAb Model Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression ,895 6 ,149 28,998
,000a
Residual ,376 73 ,005 Total 1,271 79
a. Predictors: (Constant), FS, BC, ROA, EPS, DER, EP b.
Dependent Variable: CSRDI
-
COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION (R2)
T TEST
Model Summaryb Model
R R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson
R Square Change F Change df1 df2
Sig. F Change
1 .839a .704 .680 .07173 .704 28,998 6 73 ,000 1,969 a.
Predictors: (Constant), FS, BC, ROA, EPS, DER, EP b. Dependent
Variable: CSRDI
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t
Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1(Constant) -,415 ,329 -1,262 ,211 FS ,010 ,012 ,092 ,823 ,413
BC -,007 ,006 -,127 -1,247 ,216 ROA -,087 ,097 -,073 -,896 ,373 EPS
-2,750E-5 ,000 -,182 -2,391 ,019 DER -,030 ,014 -,158 -2,164 ,034
EP ,175 ,016 ,850 11,050 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI
