Dian Anggraeni

EVALUATION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DISCLOSURE OF PT SOLUSI BANGUN INDONESIA TBK CILACAP PLANT BEFORE AND AFTER THE NAME CHANGE

Introduction

Evaluation of corporate social responsibility disclosure of pt solusi bangun indonesia tbk cilacap plant before and after the name change . Evaluate CSR disclosure of PT Solusi Bangun Indonesia Tbk (Cilacap) before & after name change. Examines implementation, reporting via GRI G4. Details compliance, sustainability report levels.

Abstract

This study evaluates CSR disclosure through the dimensions of implementation and reporting using the GRI G4 framework. The results of the study showed that (1) CSR implementation of Solusi Bangun Indonesia Tbk (SBI) Cilacap Plant of 2017 was said to be good through various programs and approaches, as proven by a Community Satisfaction Index of 84.2%; (2) CSR implementation compliance of SBI Cilacap was high because under conditions of poor financial conditions of 2018, the CSR program continued to be implemented in accordance with the rules of law. SBI Cilacap has complied with Law Number 40 of 2007 and Government Regulation Number 47 of 2012; (3) CSR implementation of SBI Cilacap, in terms of ISO 26000, was appropriate; (4) the level of sustainability reports disclosure of Holcim Indonesia of 2017, based on the GRI G4 framework as a whole reached 38%, environmental categories disclosure reached 62%, while economic and social disclosures only reached 22% and 25%. After the name changed as Solusi Bangun Indonesia of 2019, the level of sustainability reports disclosure of 2019, based on the GRI G4 framework as a whole reached 41%, environmental categories disclosure reached 62%, while economic 33% and social disclosures reached 27%. One of the focuses of this research was to evaluate the CSR implementation in a comprehensive manner through the dimensions of implementation and reporting before and after the name change. No previous studies have examined both of them simultaneously.

Review

This paper presents a focused and timely investigation into a critical aspect of corporate governance, evaluating the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure of PT Solusi Bangun Indonesia Tbk Cilacap Plant both before and after a significant name change. Its primary strength lies in its comprehensive approach, uniquely assessing both CSR implementation and reporting practices simultaneously, a methodological contribution highlighted by the authors. The study's specific focus on a single company provides valuable empirical insights into how such corporate transitions might influence CSR transparency and operational commitment, while the utilization of the well-established GRI G4 framework for reporting analysis lends credibility to its methodological design. The findings reveal a nuanced picture of CSR performance. Regarding implementation, the study commendably demonstrates PT SBI Cilacap Plant's robust commitment, evidenced by a high Community Satisfaction Index (84.2%) in 2017, compliance with Indonesian laws (Law No. 40/2007, GR No. 47/2012), alignment with ISO 26000, and critically, the sustained implementation of CSR programs even under challenging financial conditions in 2018. In terms of disclosure, the research meticulously tracks changes: before the name change (2017, as Holcim Indonesia), overall GRI G4 disclosure stood at 38%, with environmental categories at 62%, but economic and social at a significantly lower 22% and 25% respectively. Post-name change (2019, as Solusi Bangun Indonesia), a slight increase was observed, reaching 41% overall, with environmental remaining at 62%, economic improving to 33%, and social to 27%. This comparative analysis offers specific data points on the impact of the name change on disclosure breadth. While the study offers valuable insights, there are areas for potential enhancement. The abstract presents the findings largely descriptively; a deeper analytical discussion of *why* certain disclosure categories (economic and social) consistently lag behind environmental ones, both before and after the name change, would significantly strengthen the paper's theoretical contribution. Furthermore, while the study establishes a temporal comparison, a more in-depth exploration of the *strategic implications* or underlying corporate motivations behind the observed disclosure shifts, particularly the modest overall increase and the varying improvements across categories, would enrich the analysis. Future research could expand upon this by investigating stakeholder perceptions of these changes or exploring the long-term effects of such corporate rebranding on sustainability practices, potentially drawing from a larger sample size to enhance generalizability beyond a single plant.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.