Keywords
disparitas pelayanan publik
limitasi akses teknologi
How to Cite
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggali aspek kontekstual yang memengaruhi implementasi program CSV. Dengan pemahaman yang dalam mengenai CSV dan elaborasi terhadap konteksnya, penelitian kualitatif eksploratif dengan desain studi kasus ini berusaha mendalami program CSV Kamojang Desa Digital yang dijalankan oleh PT Pertamina Geothermal Energi (PGE) Area Kamojang dari perspektif perencana dan pelaksana program. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun CSV merupakan mandat PT Pertamina (Persero), implementasinya mengalami translasi sehingga menghadirkan konsepsi yang memiliki distingsi dengan gagasan aslinya. Dari tiga subprogram yang diteliti, hanya Geotato dan Rangers App yang dapat dikategorikan sebagai CSV dengan model redefinisi rantai nilai perusahaan. Terdapat tujuh konteks yang berhasil diabstraksi, yakni kapasitas perusahaan dalam berjejaring, kepatuhan terhadap regulasi, budaya CSV perusahaan, kapabilitas menciptakan inovasi, dinamika produktivitas komoditas lokal, kendala kompetensi, dan keberlanjutan ekologis. Ketujuh konteks tersebut terkait dengan konteks pembangunan desa di Indonesia yang mengalami disparitas dalam pelayanan publik dan limitasi akses terhadap teknologi modern.
Kata kunci: konteks CSV, disparitas pelayanan publik, limitasi akses teknologi
Abstract
This study aims to explore contextual aspects that affect the implementation of the CSV program. Conceptualizing of CSV and its context, this exploratory qualitative research with a case study design has investigated the Kamojang Desa Digital CSV program run by PT PGE Area Kamojang from the planners’ and implementers’ perspectives. The results show that, although CSV is a mandate from PT Pertamina (Persero), its implementation is examined through translation that presents distinctive conception of the original idea. Of the three subprograms, only Geotato and Rangers App can be categorized as CSV with redefinition of the value chain model. Seven contexts have been abstracted: company capacity in networking, regulatory compliance, corporate CSV culture, capability to create innovation, dynamics of local commodity productivity, competency constraints, and ecological sustainability. Those are related to the context of village development in Indonesia, which is experiencing disparities in public services and limited access to modern technology.
Keywords: CSV context, public service disparities, technological access limitations
References
Abuhav, I. (2017). ISO 9001:2015—A complete guide to quality management systems. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.
AccountAbility. (2015). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard.
Aggarwal, V. S., & Jha, A. (2019). Pressures of CSR in India: An institutional perspective. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12, 227–242.
Beschorner, T. (2013). Creating shared value: The one-trick pony approach. Business Ethics Journal Review, 106–112.
Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2011). A How-to Guide for the New Corporate (R)evolution. FSG.
Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 565–596.
Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2018). Business & society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (Tenth edition). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Corazza, L., Scagnelli, S. D., & Mio, C. (2017). Simulacra and sustainability disclosure: Analysis of the interpretative models of creating shared value: Simulacra and sustainability disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24, 414–434.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “Creating Shared Value.” California Management Review, 56, 130–153.
Creswell, J. W. (2016). Research design: Pendekatan metode kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan campuran (Edisi Keempat). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of Ideas. In Translating organizational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: A theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 231–267.
Fonseca, A., Abreu, I., & Silvestre, W. J. (2021). Investigating context factors in the strategic management of corporate sustainability integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128002
Høvring, C. M. (2017). Caught in a communicative catch-22? Translating the notion of CSR as shared value creation in a Danish CSR frontrunner. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26, 369–381.
Howard-Grenville, J., Nash, J., & Coglianese, C. (2008). Constructing the license to operate: Internal factors and their influence on corporate environmental decisions. Law & Policy, 30, 73–107.
Hsieh, N. (2017). The responsibilities and role of business in relation to society: Back to basics? Business Ethics Quarterly, 27, 293–314.
Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study: CSR in developing countries. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 32–61.
Khan, M., Lockhart, J., & Bathurst, R. (2020). A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate social responsibility reporting: A mixed-method study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121739.
Kim, R. C., Saito, A., & Avvari, V. M. (2020). Interpretation and integration of “Creating Shared Value” in Asia: Implications for strategy research and practice. Asian Business & Management, 19, 379–406.
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2020). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (Sixteenth edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Menghwar, P. S., & Daood, A. (2021). Creating shared value: A systematic review, synthesis and integrative perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23, 466–485.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Ozanne, L. (2010). The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 279–298.
Moon, H., & Parc, J. (2019). Shifting corporate social responsibility to corporate social opportunity through creating shared value. Strategic Change, 28, 115–122.
Mühlbacher, H., & Böbel, I. (2019). From zero-sum to win-win—Organisational conditions for successful shared value strategy implementation. European Management Journal, 37, 313–324.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.
O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 121–145.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972–1001.
Pfitzer, M., Mahne, H., & Kramer, M. (2020). The social ecosystem dilemma—And how to fix it: A how to guide for corporations. FSG.
Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E., Hills, G., Pfitzer, M., Patscheke, S., & Hawkins, E. (2012). Measuring shared value: How to unlock value by linking social and business results. Cambridge: FSG.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 17.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy. (2020). Laporan Tahunan Terintegrasi PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy 2019.
PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy. (2021). Laporan Tahunan PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy 2020.
PT Pertamina (Persero). (2021). Laporan Keberlanjutan PT Pertamina (Persero) 2020.
Roszkowska-Menkes, M., & Aluchna, M. (2018). Institutional isomorphism and corporate social responsibility: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Positive Management, 8, 3.
Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218–242). Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage Publications.
Suripto, S. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and creating shared value: A preliminary study from Indonesia. International Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 1, 23–36.
Tencati, A., Misani, N., & Castaldo, S. (2020). A qualified account of supererogation: Toward a better conceptualization of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30, 250–272.
Vishwanathan, P., van Oosterhout, H. (J. ), Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., Duran, P., & Essen, M. (2020). Strategic CSR: A concept building meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 57, 314–350.
Voltan, A., Hervieux, C., & Mills, A. (2017). Examining the win-win proposition of shared value across contexts: Implications for future application. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26, 347–368.
von Liel, B. (2016). Creating shared value as future factor of competition. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Yang, T.-K., & Yan, M.-R. (2020). The corporate shared value for sustainable development: An ecosystem perspective. Sustainability, 12, 2348.
Yin, J. (2017). Institutional drivers for corporate social responsibility in an emerging economy: A mixed-method study of Chinese business executives. Business & Society, 56, 672–704.