PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 275
THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE VALUE OF COMPANIES WITH PROFITABILITY AS VARIABLE MODERATING
(Case Studies on Companies Listed on The Indonesia Stock Sxchange
Year2016-2018)
Mujennah
Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Indonesia (STIEI) Banjarmasin
Budi Artinah
Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi
Indonesia (STIEI) Banjarmasin
Abdul Kadir
Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Indonesia (STIEI) Banjarmasin
ABSTRACT
Go Green is one of the concepts that industrial companies run today, because in addition to aiming for profit, companies in Indonesia are obliged to make a positive contribution to society, be it social responsibility and responsibility to the environment. With a good GCG concept, it will be able to increase the value of the company, namely the balance of the environment of better cooperation between internal parties (commissioners, directors) and external parties (stakeholders, GMS). The higher the value of the company, the stronger the investor's confidence in the company so that the more shares they will give so that the greater the profitability (profit) generated. Based on that description, researchers want to test the influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on the value of companies with profitability as moderating variables. The samples used were 11 mining companies that disclosed information about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Sustainability Report in the period 2016-2018. The results of this study reveal that CSR has a significant effect on PBV, ROA has a significant effect on PBV, ROA has a significant effect on CSR and ROA as a moderation variable proven to strengthen the relationship between CSR and PBV so that it has a significant effect.
Keywords : CSR, ROA, PBV, Mining Company, SEM Pls
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
Go Green is one of the concepts that industrial companies run today, because in addition to aiming for profit, companies in Indonesia are obliged to make a positive contribution to society, be it social responsibility and responsibility to the environment. Corporate Social Responsibility is a form of sustainable dovelopment for the company to survive. The company's confidence to implement CSR is supported by The Law of the Republic of Indonesia Article 74 No. 40 of 2007 concerning PT, social and environmental responsibility. The company's commitment in implementing CSR in line with the objectives of Good Corporate Governance includes responsibility, transparency and
accountability. CSR is considered a form of good corporate responsibility (GCG) towards Stakeholders because it is not only based on economic performance, but also reveals the company's performance in terms of good sociality networking, supporting a clean environment and sustainable development. With a good GCG concept, it will be able to increase the value of the company, namely the balance of the environment of better cooperation between internal parties (commissioners, directors) and external parties (stakeholders, GMS). The higher the value of the company, the stronger the investor's confidence in the company, so the more shares they will give so that the greater the profit generated. Profitability can be measured using a profitability ratio that will show how effectively the company operates, resulting in profits for the company through ratios such as ROA (Return on Assets), ROE (Return on Equity), and NPM (Net Profit Margin) (Brigham and Houston, 2010). CSR disclosure is likely to be influenced by several factors, one of which is profitability. Hackston and Milne (1996) stated that a company with high profitability should carry out corporate social responsibility transparently. Therefore, this research was conducted to determine the effect of CSR on the value of the company by using profitability as a moderating variable. The study also wanted to look at how profitability influences as a moderating variable in strengthening or weakening the relationship between CSR and company value, profitability as a moderating variable is used in research because theoretically the higher the level of profitability achieved by the company then the stronger the relationship of social disclosure with the value of the compan
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 276 1.2 Research Objectives
Based on the formulation of the above problems, the objectives of this research are as follows:
1) Knowing the effect of CSR on the Company's Value on Companies listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange (BEJ) in 2016-2018?
2) Knowing the effect of Return On Assets (ROA) on the value of the company (PBV)?
3) Knowing the effect of Return On Assets (ROA) on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
4) Knowing the influence of moderating variables in mediating between CSR and Enterprise Value (PBV)?
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Stakeholder Theory
The concept of corporate social responsibility is commonly known as stakeholder theory meaning as a collection of policies and practices related to stakeholders, values, fulfillment of legal provisions, community and environmental awards, and business commitment to contribute to sustainable development.
The understanding of stakeholder theory according to (Freeman,1984) is a group of people or individuals identified as being able to influence the company's activities or may be influenced by the company's activities
2.2 Agency Theory
The concept of accountability can be explained using agency theory, where in a broad sense accountability can be understood as the obligation of the trustees in this case the government (agent) to provide accountability, present, report, and disclose all activities and activities that are its responsibility to the trustees in this case the community represented by the DPRD (principal) who has the right and authority to hold accountable.
The agency theory concept supports performance accountability variables in this study.
2.3 Coorporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
According to WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) Corporate Social Responsibility is defined as a sustainable business commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development by improving the quality of working lives of their employees and their work and local communities and the wider community to improve quality of life through good business and development.
According to csr forum (Wibisono, 2007) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined as a business that is conducted transparently and openly and based on moral values and upholds respect for employees, communities and the environment.
2.4 Corporate Social Responsibility Objectives
According to Budimanta, Prasetijo and Rudito (2004:72- 73) expected from Corporate Social Responsibility activities is that corporate relationships with stakeholders are no longer management only, but at the same time collaboration, which is done in an integrated and focused on the development of partnerships. This partnership is no longer an organizational buffer, but also creates shared opportunities and benefits, for long-
term goals and sustainable development. The social responsibility initially given by the company to the welfare of other stakeholders, will ultimately feed back to the corporate. This partnership creates a shared profit sharing and does not create negative competition that affects the sustainability of the company.
According to the classification there are four CSR benefits to the company (Corporate social responsibility, 2008):
a) Brand differentiation
In an increasingly competitive market, CSR can provide a distinctive, good, and ethical corporate image in the public eye that in turn creates customer loyalty.
b) Human resources
CSR programs can help in the hiring of new employees, especially those with high qualifications. During interviews, prospective employees with high education and experience often ask about the CSR and business ethics of the company, before they decide to accept the offer. For older employees, CSR can also improve perception, reputation and dedication in working.
c) License to operate.
Companies that run CSR can encourage the government and the public to give business "permits" or "blessing." Because it is considered to have met the standards of operation and concern for the environment and the wider community.
d) Risk management
Risk management is a central issue for every company.
The reputation of a company built over the years could collapse in an instant by corruption scandals, employee accidents, or environmental damage. Building a culture of "doing the right thing" is useful for companies in managing business risks. the company.
2.5 Corporate Social Responsibility Category
There are 13 categories of implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility, according to Grunig and Hunt (1984:53-54), namely: Economic Impact, Quality of Product, Consumer Relations, Environmental Impact, Energy Conservation, Employee Relations, Investment, Community Relations, Community Relations, Other Community Relations, Government Relations
2.6 Hypothesis Formulation
2.6.1 Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on Company Value (PBV)
The implementation of Corporate Sosical Responsibility is able to increase the value of the company as outputs from sales and profitability through loyalism of consumers who are awakened by implementing social responsibility in its development. National Consumers eagur and Fleisman Hillar International Communications on May 31, 2006 quoted from Egwuonwu (2010) show that two-thirds of correspondents prefer to buy company products that they consider socially responsible, especially companies that treat their employees well. The company's goal is to maximize the value of the company by maximizing shareholder wealth by maximizing the share price. Based on Signaling Theory, if the company discloses CSR then indicates that the manager has good information about the company. Hopefully the information
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 277
can be captured by investors and able to increase the value of the company.
The results of research from Rio Muhammad, et al (2016), Rimba Kusumadilaga (2010), and Hammi Chyntia (2013) suggest that CSR has a positive and significant effect on the value of prusahaan while according to Zahro and Wahyuning Ambar (2015) stated that CSR has no effect on the value of the company based on the results of previous research, it can be formulated the first hypothesis to be tested in this study, namely
H1 : Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) affects the value of the company
2.6.2 Influence of Profitability as a Moderating Variable in the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility
According to Brigham and Houston (2006), profitability is the end result of a number of corporate management policies and decisions. According to Nofrita (2013), it can be said that the profitability of the company is the company’s ability to generate net profit from activities carried out during an accounting period.
Investors invest in the company to get a return, which consists of yield and capital gain. The higher the ability to earn profit, the greater the return that investors expect, thus making the value of the company better.
Zahro Saedah and Wahyuning Ambar Setianingrum (2015) in his research suggest that profitability as a moderating variable affects the value of the company. Based on the results of previous research, it can be formulated a second hypothesis that will be tested in this study, namely
H2 : Profitability as a Moderating variable affects the value of the company
2.6.3 Influence of Profitability (ROA) on company value (PBV)
According to Brigham and Houston (2006), profitability is the end result of a number of corporate management policies and decisions. Investors invest in the company to get a return, which consists of yield and capital gain. The higher the ability to earn profit, the greater the return that investors expect, thus making the value of the company better. In this study, Return On Asset (ROA) as a profitability ratio that can reflect the size of a company's value. The higher the ratio value, the better the value of the company. Return On Asset (ROA) is used to determine the company's ability to earn profit, assets, equity, etc. The amount of profit gained from a company's performance will affect the financial statements that will be presented by the company.
management's effectiveness and efficiency can also be assessed by looking at how big the profit level is. From this theory the author reveals a hypothesis as follows
H3 : Profitability (ROA) affects the value of the company (PBV)
2.6.4 Influence of mediation variables (ROA) in mediating the relationship between CSR and Company Value (PBV)
Rimba (2010) from the results of his research revealed that CSR disclosures have a significant effect on the value of the company. Profitability as a moderating variable cannot affect csr disclosure relationships and company value. Because investors are interested in investing in companies whose level of disclosure of liability is getting higher. While Hanni, Maita, Surya (2013) in his
research came to the conclusion that CSR has a positive and significant influence on the value of the company driven by a high level of CSR disclosure, the greater the CSR disclosure, the greater the value of the company. The study's hassil differences convinced the authors to formulate the following hypothesis:
H4 : Influence of mediation variables (ROA) in mediating the relationship between CSR and PBV
Figure 1 Frame of mind
RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Data Collection Methods
The method of data collection in this study is quantitative data. The quantitative data is financial data and data on sustainability reports such as financial ratios in financial reports, closing price stocks, and related data on variables in this study.
3.2 Population and Sample
The analysis unit in this study is a coal mining company registered in IDX for the period 2016-2018 which is also a population. One of the requirements in the annual financial report for the period 2016-2018 which publishes sustainbaility report (Sustainbaility Report) Sampling techniques used for this study is purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is a sampling that matches the specified criteria. The following are some of the criteria in sampling in this study are mining companies that disclose information about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Sustainability Report. Here are 11 companies that have
complied with the criteria set by the mining sector, as follows:
TabLe 3.2
Company Sample No. Stock c0de Name of company
1. Adro Pt adaro indonesia, tbk 2. Atlas Pt. Atlas resources, tbk 3. Bssr Baramulti suksessarana, tbk
4. Bumi Bumi resources tbk
5. Byan Bayan resources, tbk
6. Dewa Darma hewa,tbk
7. Hrum Harum energy tbk
8. Itm, tbk Indo tambangraya mega tbk 9. Kkgi, tbk Resources alam indonesia 10. Myoh, tbk Samindo resources, tbk 11. Toba, tbk Toba bara sejahtera, tbk
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
3.3 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
3.3.1 Dependent variables
ROA (M)
CSR (X) PBV (X)
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 278
PBV = Market price per share Book Value Per Share
Net Profit
ROA = --- x 100%
Total Assets Dependent variables are variables that are affected or as
a result of free variables or non-free variables (Y)" (Sugiyono, 2011:4) i.e. the value of companies listed on IDX for three years 2016 to 2018. In this study, the value of the company was measured using Price to Book Value (PBV) which is one of the variables an investor considered in determining which shares to buy. For companies that run well, this ratio generally reaches above one, indicating that the stock market value is greater than its book value. The greater the PBV ratio the higher the company is assessed by the relative financiers compared to the funds that have been invested in the company. High price to book value will make the market believe in the company's future prospects. It is also what the owners of the company want, because the high value of the company indicates the prosperity of shareholders is also high.
According to (Brigham and Houston, 2006:112), the company's value can be formulated as follows:
3.3.2IndependentVariables
An independent variable is a variable that affects or is the cause of its change or the onset of dependent variables or free variables (X). This study used two moderating variables, namely dividend policy projected using Dividend Payout Ratio (DPR) and Corporate Social Responsibility calculated by adjusting 91 indicators in GRI G4.
Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility is an informaii disclosure relating to corporate responsibilities in the company's annual report. Disclosure is measured by calculating and adjusting 91 indicators in GRI G4. The steps in corporate social responsibility disclosure are: Create a list of social disclosures by number. Create a previously compiled disclosure.item table. Divides the number of items
disclosed in the annual report by the number of disclosure items.
Sembiring (2005) states that in obtaining data on social responsibility disclosure (CSR) using checklists in seven categories, namely environment, energy, health and safety of the workforce, others labor, products, community engagement, and general. The disclosure items in this study follow research conducted by GRI Indicators in 2018 of 91 items. Because in his research CSR disclosure items have been adjusted to the conditions in Indonesia. So there are 91 disclosure items which are still adjusted to each sector. The score for each checklist is a score of 0, if the company does not disclose the item on the question list and score 1, if the company discloses the item on the question list.
Furthermore, the score of each item is summed to get the overall score of each company. The formula for calculating CSRDI is as follows.
3.3.3 Dummy Variables
Profitability is measured using ROA (Return on Asset), by dividing net income by total assets. This research uses the basic return on asset (RETURN On Asset = ROA) as a proxy of profitability. ROA is measured by comparing between net income and total assets.
3.4 Data Analysis Methods
The data analysis method uses descriptive statistics with Smart PLS and SEM PLS software. Descriptive statistics are statistics used to analyze data by descripting or describing the collected data as is without intending to make conclusions that apply to the public or generalizations (Sugiyono, 2008).
3.4.1. Partial Least Square (PLS) Test
PLS as a powerful method of analysis because it does not assume the data should be with a measurement of a certain scale, a small number of samples (Ghozali, 2008). Partial at least square is a predictive technique that can handle many independent variables, even if there is multicholinearity between those variables (Ramzan and Khan, 2010). PLS's goal is to help researchers to obtain latent variable values for predictive purposes.
The PLS analysis used in this study was conducted using the SmartPLS program (v.3.2.7). According to the hypothesis that has been formulated, the analysis of inference statistical data is measured using SmartPLS software ranging from Outer Model (Measurement Model), Inner Model (Structural Model), hypothesis testing and structural equation analysis model.
A. OUTER MODEL (Measurement Model)
According to Abdillah and Jogiyanto (2015), the outer model or measurement model describes the relationship between the indicator block and its latent variables. This model specifically connects latent variables with their indicators or it can be said that the outer model defines how each indicator relates to other variables. In the outer model there are two types of models that are formative and reflexive indicator models. Reflective models reflect that each indicator is a measurement of errors imposed against latent variables. The cause-and-effect direction is from latent variables to indicators thus the indicators are a reflection of variations of latent variables (Henseler, Ringle & Sinkovicks, 2009). Reflexive models are often referred to as principal factor models which means that manifest variables are influenced by latent variables.
The tests performed on the outer model are:
1) Convergent Validity
Rated based on loading factor (correlation between item score or component score with construct score). The indicator is considered valid if it has an AVE value (Average Variance Extranced) above 0.5 or shows the entire outer loading dimension of the variable has a loading value of $ 0.5 so it can be concluded that the measurement meets the convergent validity criteria 𝑪𝑺𝑹𝑫𝑰𝒋= 𝑿𝒋
𝑵𝒋
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 279
(Ghozali, 2008). Ave value is the average percentage of variant scores extracted from a set of latent variables estimated through loading standarized indicators in the process of iteration of alogaritma in PLS (Jogiyanto, 2009). Use of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) as a convergent validity testing criterion obtained through formula (Ghozali, 2014:74):
(𝛴𝜆𝑖²)𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝐹
𝐴𝑉𝐸 = ……….……(3.4.1)
(𝛴𝜆𝑖²) 𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝐹+ 𝛴𝜃𝑖𝑖 2) Discriminant Validity
Judged on the basis of cross loading, the model has sufficient discriminant validity if the cross loading value between the construct is greater than the cross loading value between the construct and the other construct in the model (Jogiyanto, 2009).
3) Composite Reliability dan Cronbach’s Alpha
According to Jogiyanto (2009), reliability tests use Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability values. Cronbach's Alpha measures the lower limit of a construct's reliability value while Composite Reliability measures the true value of a construct's reliability. However, Composite Reliability is rated better in estimating the internal consistency of a construct. A construct or variable is said to be reliabel if it gives cronbach's Alpha value of 0.7 and Composite Reliability > 0.7. The formulas used to test composite reliability are:
(𝛴𝜆𝑖)²𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝐹
𝜌ϲ = ………...…(3.4.3) (𝛴𝜆𝑖)²𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝐹+ 𝛴𝜃𝑖𝑖
B. INNER MODEL (Structural Model)
According to Abdillah and Jogiyanto (2015) the structural model (Inner Model) is a structural model for predicting causality relationships between latent variables. In evaluating the structure of the model in this study used Coefficient of
Determination (R2) and Path Coefficient (β). It is used to see and reassure the relationship between the constructs made (Jogiyanto, 2009). The inner model equation model is as follows:
ƞ = 𝛽0 + 𝛽ƞ + г𝜉 + ……….(3.4.3)
In the Inner Model there are tests conducted in this study are as follows:
1) Coefficient of Determination (R-Square)
The determinant coefficient on the construct is called the R-square value. The determinant coefficient measures how large variations of dependent latent variables are described by independent latent variables. According to Chin (1998), the R- Square value is 0.67.
2) Coefficient Path
A coefficient path is a coefficient of a path or the size of a relationship or the influence of a latent construct, performed by bootstrapping procedure. Path Coefficient is a research method used to test the strength of direct and indirect relationships between various variables. Path Coefficients results obtain t- statistics and p-values to determine the effect of exogenous variables on endogenous variables and to know which variables
can moderate or amplify/weaken the influence between exogenous variables against endogenous variables.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4. Testing and Discussion
4.1 Descriptive Statistical Tests
Descriptive statistical methods are statistics used to analyze data by describing or describing the collected data as is without intending to make conclusions that apply to the public or generalizations (Sugiyono, 2014:207). Here are the results of the average calculation and presentation:
a) Return On Asset (ROA)
Depicted in the form of a graph can be seen the average profit of the company for five years is as follows :
Average ROA in 2016 -2018
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
In 2016, the highest value owned by BSSR is BARAMULTI SUKSESSARANA, Tbk. which is 14.9 and the lowest owned by ARII (PT. ATLAS RESOURCES, Tbk) amounted to -7.72. BYAN (BAYAN RESOURCES, Tbk) achieved the highest ROA for two periods from 2017 to 2018. In 2017 and 2018, the highest value of ROA by BYAN is pt company. BAYAN RESOURCES, Tbk amounted to 38.03 and 37.12. While the lowest was ARII (PT ATLAS RESOURCES, Tbk) with an acquisition of -1.88 in 2018. From the return on asset (ROA) for three years, namely in 2016 – 2018, it can be the average company that has the best profitability performance through the best Return On Asset indicator and which is the lowest, the highest average ROA in 2016 obtained by BSSR companies was 14.9 while the lowest value in 2016 was arii company which is -7.72 then if the highest value is greater than the average value of ROA of 5.77 in 2016 means bssr company can be said to be good. The highest average ROA in 2017 obtained by BYAN company was 38.03 while the lowest value in 2017 was ARII company which is -5.11 then if the highest value is greater than the average value of ROA of 10.38 in 2017 means BYAN company can be said to be good. The highest average ROA in
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
ROA
2016 2017
2018 AVERAGE
Linear (AVERAGE) Linear (AVERAGE)
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 280
2018 obtained by BYAN company is 37.18 while the lowest value in 2018 is ARII company which is -1.88 then if the highest value is greater than the average value of ROA of 10.68 in 2018 means BYAN company can be said to be good and ARII company is said to be bad.
b) Company Value (PBV)
Average PBV in 2016 -2018
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
In 2016 and 2017 the highest PBV at BAYAN
RESOURCES companies was 10.77 and 6.42 and the lowest value on DARMA HEWA was 0.37 and 0.32 then with average scores of 2.14 and 2.57. BAYAN company can be said to be good and DARMA HEWA is said to be bad. In 2018 the highest Pbv value in BAYAN RESOURCES companies was 5.87 and the lowest value on DARMA HEWA was 0.32 then with an average value of 2.02 BAYAN RESOURCES companies can be said to be good and DARMA HEWA is said to be bad.
In 2017 and 2018, the highest value was owned by BYAN (PT BAYAN RESOOURCES, Tbk) at 6.42 in 2017 and 5.87 in 2018. and the lowest in 2017 was DEWA (PT DARMA HEWA, Tbk) with an acquisition of 0.32 and in 2018 the company (PT DARMA HEWA, Tbk) of 0.32. From the table above for three years namely in 2016 – 2018, it can be the average company as a whole that has the best Company Value is BYAN (PT BAYAN RESOOURCES, Tbk) and the lowest is DEWA (PT DARMA HEWA, Tbk). If depicted in graphic form for three years can be seen as follows:
Average PBV in 2016 – 2018, volatile increase and decrease shown in the chart above in each company. THE BYAN company seen in 2016 was the highest to reach 10.77 compared to the following years. And the companies that experienced the lowest declines were DEWA in 2017 and 2018 where the percentage was less than 1.00.
c). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Average CSR in 2016 -2018
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
The average CSR value in 2017 is 0.43, the company PT BUMI RESOURCES, Tbk (BUMI) can be said to be good while PT ATLAS RESOURCES, Tbk (ARII) is said to be bad. In 2017 and 2018, the highest value was owned by PT BUMI RESOURCES, Tbk (BUMI) at 0.69 and the lowest was PT ATLAS RESOURCES, Tbk (ARII) with an acquisition of 0.16.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) average in 2016 – 2018, volatile increase and decrease shown in the chart above in each company. The companies that have experienced the increase are ADRO, BSSR, BUMI, HRUM, and DEWA. The company that is in decline is ARII. Meanwhile, those with stable earnings are BYAN, TOBA, MYOH, KKGI, ITMG. IN BUMI companies increased in 2018, while ARII companies experienced the lowest decline in 2016 to close to 0.15 and increased in 2018. If depicted in graph form for three years can be seen as follows: Before testing to get results as well as data analysis, descriptive statistical
analysis is first performed, to see a brief description of the variables related to this study. As explained, the study involved two independent variables namely CSR with 91 indicators in 5 CSR categories. Dependent variables are company values (PBV) and Return
On Assets (ROA) moderation variables. The population in this study was a company registered with IDX in 2016 - 2018.
Here are the descriptive statistical results of the data processed according to the criteria previously presented, then obtained the results of minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values. Based on the results of the analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) variables after descriptive statistical tests, within a period of 3 years obtained a mean value of 0.00, a median value of 0.256, a maximum value of 1,915, a minimum value of - 2,026 and a standard deviation value of 1,000. Company value variables (PBV) within a period of 3 (three) years can be obtained a mean value of 0.00, a median value of -0.347, a maximum value of 2.92, a minimum value of -0.795 and a standard deviation value of 1,000. The Return On Asset (ROA) variable after a descriptive statistical test, within a 3-year period is obtained a mean value of - 0.00, a median value of -0.163, a maximum value of 2,830, a 0
2 4 6 8 10 12
ADRO ARII BSSR BUMI BYAN DEWA HRUM ITMG KKGI MYOH TOBA AVERAGE
PBV
2016 2017 2018 AVERAGE
CSR ROA PBV
Mean 0,00 -0,00 0,00
Median 0,256 -0,163 -0,347
Std. Deviation 1,000 1,000 1,000 Minimum -2,026 -1,298 -0,795
Maximum 1,915 2,830 2,92
0 0,5 1
CSR ID
CSR 2016 AVERAGE CSR 2017 AVERAGE CSR 2018 AVERAGE AVERAGE
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 281
minimum value of -1,298 and a standard deviation value of 1,000.
Before testing for results and data analysis, descriptive statistical analysis was first performed, to see a brief description of the variables associated with the study. As explained, the study involved two independent variables namely CSR with 91 indicators in 5 CSR categories. Dependent variables are company values (PBV) and Return On Assets (ROA) moderation variables.
The population in this study was a company registered with IDX in 2016 - 2018. Here are the descriptive statistical results of the data processed according to the criteria previously presented, then obtained the results of minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation values. With, the average CSR value in 2016 is 0.42 then, BUMI RESOURCES (BUMI) companies can be said to be good while ATLAS RESOURCESS (ARII) is said to be bad with an average CSR value of 0.15. In 2017, the highest value was owned by PT BUMI RESOURCES, Tbk (BUMI) with an acquisition of 0.68 and the lowest owned by PT ATLAS RESOURCES, Tbk (ARII) with an acquisition of 0.16
Source: Processed Data, (2020) 4.2.2. Partial Least Square (PLS) Test
Data processing techniques use regression methods with Partial Least Square (PLS), using two pls line analysis models namely structural models or inner models and measurement models (Measurement Models) or
Outer Model.
a). Outer Model or Measurement Model Test Results Before conducting hypothetical testing to predict relationships between variables in structural models, it must be done first evaluate the measurement model for verification of indicators and latent variables that can be tested next.
Structural Models with PLS
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
1) Convergent Validity
To test convergent validity can be used outer loading or loading factor values. The loading factor value limit used in this study is 0.70. If there is a reflective indicator that does not meet
0.70 then it must be eliminated or removed from the measurement model. An indicator is declared to meet convergent validity in either category when the outer loading value is $0.70. Outer Loading should be 0.70 for theory test and 0.50-0.70 for exploration research. The reflective indicator in the study is only found in the profitability variable that is Return On Asset (ROA) has a loading factor above 0.70 which is 0.810. Other variables are not included in the reflective indicator. From the results of data processing using SMARTPLS 3 obtained another loading value of
>0.5 i.e. for CSRI, CSRII, CSRIV, CSRIX, CSRVI, CSRVII, CSRXII, CSRXIV of 0.901, 0.911, 0.884, 0.920, 0.803, 0.765, 0.917, 0.732, and 0.931, for PBVI, PBVII,, PBVIII of 0.971, 0.961, and 0.781 0.566 ROA and ROAI, ROAII, and ROAIII of 0.146, 0.918 and 0.912 for variable moderation of 1,055. Each latent variable has a loading factor above 0.70 which indicates the indicator can represent the company's value variable construct. So, all indicators contained in this study should be maintained, no indicators should be eliminated or eliminated.
Outer Loading Variabel Indikator Outer
Loading
CSR CSR I 0,901
CSR CSRII 0,911
CSR CSRIV 0,844
CSR CSRIX 0,920
CSR CSRVI 0,803
CSR CSRVII 0,765
CSR CSRXI 0,917
CSR CSRXII 0,732
CSR CSRXIV 0,931
PBV PBVI 0,971
PBV PBVII 0,961
PBV PBVVIII 0,781
ROA ROAI 0,146
ROA ROAII 0,918
ROA ROAIII 0,912
CSR*ROA
PBV
M1 1,055
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
2) Discriminant Validity
According to Vincenzo (2010), Discriminant Validity is a useful cross loading value factor to know if the construct has adequate discretion by comparing the loading value on the intended construct should be greater than the loading value with the other construct. Thus, an indicator that is stated to have good discriminant validity is an indicator of a variable that has a greater cross loading value compared to other variables. The results of the discriminant validity (cross loading) test of each research indicator are as follows: The results of the cross loading value data available
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 282
in the table above, show that each indicator has a greater cross loading value on the variable than the indicator itself compared to other variables. The resulting cross loading value states that the indicators contained in this study have had good discriminant validity on their own variables. Discriminant validity can also be known by looking at the Average Variant Extracted (AVE) value for each indicator with a value limit of >0.50.
Table Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Variabel AVE
CSR 0,749
Profitabilitas 0,566 Nilai Perusahaan 0,825
CSR*ROA 1.055
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
3) Reliability Test
Reliability according to Abdillah and Hartono (2015), shows the consistency and stability of a research instrument in measuring a concept or construct. To perform the reliability test must use Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability values. A construct is said to be reliable, if the value of Cronbach's Alpha should be $0.70 and the Composite Reliability value should be
$0.70. The Adjusted R Square value for PBV is 0.810. All high reliability variables can be seen from the Composite reliability and Cronbach Alpha values above 0.70 (fornell and Lacker, 1981;
Nunnaly, 1978). AVE value above 0.5 (fornell and Lacker, 1981).
In the full collinearity test model the value criteria is to be lower than 3.3 (Kock, 2013). The model does not contain multicolonias because the VIF value is all below 5 except for ROA *CSR.
Predictive value is good because the value is all positive above zero.
Based on Table 4.12, the variables contained in this study have a composite reliability value above 0.70 which can be concluded that the variable is in accordance with the provisions of composite reliability value where CSR obtains a value of 1000 and other variables such as Company Value. Profitability gets a value of 1,000 as well as moderation variables with independent variables such as CSR*ROA, so it can be said that the variable has good reliability.
Table Composite Reliability Construct Reliability and Validity
Variabel Composite Reliability
CSR 0,964
(ROA) 0,750
(PBV) 0,934
CSR*ROA 1.000
Source: Processed Data, (2020) Table Cronbach’s Alpha Variabel Cronbach’s Alpha
CSR 0,961
(ROA) 0,567
(PBV) 0,894
CSR*ROA 1.000
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
The output above shows the value of Cronbach's Alpha CSR variable gets a value of 0.961 and the other variables get a value of 1,000 it can be concluded that on each variable it is consistent in measuring its construct because it has a value ≥ 0.70.
Except for roa has a value of 0.567<0.70.
b). Inner Model or Structural Model Test Results
The first step of evaluating structural models is to check for colinearity between constructs and model predictive capabilities (Sarstedt, et.al., 2017). In this study will be explained about variance inflation factor (VIF) test results, determination coefficient (R-Square), and Coefficient Path.
1) Multicolliniearity Test (Variance Inflation Factor)
SmartPLS uses Variance Inflation Factor to evaluate cholinearity. Multicholinearity is a phenomenon in which two or more free variables or exogenous constructs are highly correlated resulting in bad model prediction capabilities (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). The VALUE of VIF should be less than 5, because if more than 5 indicates the presence of inter-constructedlinearity (Sarstedt, et al., 2017). The results of the VIF score in this study are below the value of 5, so it can be concluded that the indicators contained in this study do not occur multicholinearity. From the output results state that the Model does not contain multicollaonierity because all VIF values are below 5. The rule of thumb is the same as the full collinearity test which is a maximum of 3.3 (Kocj, 2013). This criterion has been met which is VIF worth 1,710 so that there is no vertical colinearity problem.
2) Determination Coefficient Test (R-Square)
The determinant coefficient (R2) is a way to assess how much endogenous construct can be explained by an exogenous construct. The determination coefficient value (R2) is expected to be between 0 and 1. R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 indicate that the model is strong, moderate and weak (Sarstedt, et al, 2017). R- square results of Corporate Social Responsibility variables, and Company Values (after being processed with moderation variables) using the PLS program:
Table R-square
Variabel R-square R-square Adjusted
CSR 0,154 0,06
PBV 0,929 0,899
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
Based on Table 4.15 in this study shows the value of R- square construction of the Company Value of 0.929 which means that 92.9% of corporate social responsibility variables, profitability, (after being processed with moderation) affect the Company Value can be explained by the Corporate Value variable.
Looking at the R-square value obtained in the absence of a moderation variable of 0.929 which can be said to belong to a strong category for the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables. The higher the R-square value, the greater the ability of these independent variables to explain dependent
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 283
variables so that structural equations are better. R-square value with moderation variables in this study of 0.929 for endogenous latent variables in structural models indicates the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables fall into the good category. In accordance with the statement regarding the category issued by Sarstedt, et.al., the result of r-square value of 0.929 belongs to the high category.
3) Path Coefficients or Coefficients of The Path
Measurement of the path of coefficients between constructs to see the significance and strength of the relationship and also to test the hypothesis. The value of path coefficients ranges from -1 to +1. The closer the +1 value, the stronger the relationship between the two constructs. Closer -1 relationships indicate that they are negative (Sarstedt, et.al., 2017). Estimate for Path Coefficients, is the coefficient value of the path or the size of the relationship/influence of the latent construct. Performed with the Bootstrapping procedure. Evaluation of path coefficients is used to show how strongly the effect or influence of independent variables is on dependent variables. The result of the Path Coefficients evaluation is that p-values are used to see how much independent variables affect dependent variables. Once done path coefficients then bootstrapping. Then obtained results to analyze the testing of influence between variables. The p-values of each variable are as follows:
Table P-Values Variable P-Values
CSR*PBV 0,0844
Moderating Effect 0,0292
ROA*CSR 0,0487
ROA*PBV 0,0536
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
c). Hypothetical Test results
Hypothetical test results begin by looking at the output results using the PLS program which is the value on the coefficient path. The significance of the influence between independent variables and dependent variables can be generated by looking at the parameter coefficient value and the t-statistical significance value. The method used in the PLS program is the bootstrapping method against the sample. Use the bootstrapping method of each coefficient. Testing by bootstrapping can also minimize the abnormality of research data. So, bootstrapping is usually tested after coefficient path testing. After testing can be produced p- values that can be seen to test the hypothesis in the study
Table Path Coefficient H Variab le Original
Sample t- statistik
P-Value Conclusio n H1 CSR PBV 0,091 2,197 0,0844 Accepted H2 ROA PBV 0,813 3,056 0,0292 Accepted H3 ROA CSR 0,393 3,695 0,0487 Accepted H4 Moderating ROA*CS 0,333 2,619 0,0436 Accepted
Effect R
*PBV
Source: Processed Data, (2020)
The coefficient path test results in the table above will be used for hypothetical testing. Judging by the path coefficients, if t-statistic > 2,197 at the error rate of 5%, then the hypothesis is accepted (affecting independent variables on dependent variables). Hierarchical analysis (cenfetelli and Bessellier 2009, p 694; Kock and Lynn 2012, p.563). Stating below indicator reliability with paramater significant weight has Role Of Thumb P-values <0.10 (level 10%) and P-values <0.05 (level 5%) Results show that the original csr sample estimate value against PBV (Company Value) is negative at 0.0917 and significant at 0.05 (2.97 >2.1 8) and P- value 0.084 < 0.1. The original sample estimate return on assets (ROA) value against pbv (Company Value) is positive at 0.813 and significant at 0.05 (3.056 > 2.18) and P-value 0.0292 > 0.05. The original sample estimate return on assets (ROA) value of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was 0.393 and insignificant at 0.05 (3.695 < 2.18) and P-value 0.0487< 0.05. The original sample estimate of variable Moderating tehadap PBV (Company Value) was 0.333 positive and insignificant at 0.05 ( 3.619 > 2.18) and P-value 0.0436
<0.05.
1. Hypothesis 1 (Effect of CSR on Company Value)
The first hypothesis (H1) states that CSR has no effect on the Company's Value (PBV). The results of the parameter coefficient test between profitability and company value indicate that the original sample estimate value is positive at 0.091 indicating that the direction of the relationship between CSR and company value (PBV) is positive, with a t-statistical value of 2,917 significant at 0.05. The t-statistical value is greater than 2.18 and the P-value is 0.084 where it is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the first hypothesis (H1) is accepted.
The results of the first hypothesis test (H1) prove that CSR variables influenced the value of the company (PBV) in the period 2016-2018. The test results in this study prove the higher the CSR then the higher the value of the company.
2. Hypothesis 2 (Effect of Return On Assets (ROA) on Company Value (PBV)
The second hypothesis (H2) states that the test results of the parameter coefficient between ROA to company value (PBV) indicate that the original sample estimate value is positive at 0.813 indicating that the direction of the relationship between leverage and company value is positive with a significant t- statistical value of 3,056 at 0.05. The t-statistical value is greater than 2.18 and the P-value is 0.029 where the value is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the second hypothesis (H2) is acceptable or not rejected.
3. Hypothesis 3 (Effect of ROA on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
The third hypothesis (H3) states that ROA affects Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The results of the parameter coefficient test between ROA and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) showed the original sample estimate value
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 284
was negative at 0.393 indicating that the direction of roa and CSR relationship with company value is positive with a significant t- statistical value of 0.393 at 0.05. The t-statistical value of 3,695 is greater than 2.18 and the P-value is 0.0487 where the value is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the third hypothesis (H3) is acceptable or not rejected, which means any increase in the ROA applied by a company will result in an increase also on the CSR. There are still many companies that are inconsistent in implementing CSR activities or carrying out social responsibility within their company, whereas if CSR or social responsibility is applied to a company it is very affecting in the increase in the value of the company.
The results of the third hypothesis test (H3) prove that roa variables had a significant effect on CSR projected with PBV in the period 2016-2018. The third hypothesis in this study is in accordance with the research conducted by RIO Muhammad, et al (2016) states that CSR, profitability (ROA) and interaction between CSR and profitability (ROA) simultaneously have a significant effect on the value of the company. Profitability has a significant positive effect on the value of the company and the results of the interaction between CSR and profitability have no significant effect on the value of the company. This is in accordance with the results of research from RIO Muhammad, et al (2016) stating that CSR, profitability (ROA) and interaction between CSR and profitability (ROA) simultaneously (simultaneously) have a significant effect on the value of the company. Profitability has a significant positive effect on the value of the company.
4. Hypothesis 4 (Influence of moderating variables in mediating between CSR and on Company Value)
The fourth hypothesis (H4) states that variable moderating has a significant effect on CSR and Company Value (PBV). The results of the parameter coefficient test between the moderating variable (ROA) against the CSR and the company value indicate that the original sample estimate value is positive at 0.393 indicating that the direction of the ROA relationship as a moderating variable between CSR and company value (PBV) is positive, with a t-statistical value of 2,619 significant at 0.05. The t-statistical value is greater than 2.18 and the P-value is 0.0436 where the value is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the fourth hypothesis (H4) is acceptable or not rejected.
The results of the fourth hypothesis test (H4) prove that CSR variables that affect the value of the company are projected with pbv in the period 2016-2018. The increasing value of CSR is always followed by the increasing value of the company, because the value of the company is determined only by the ability of the company to generate profit Such positive impacts such as being able to improve the welfare of the community, maintained environment and create a better quality of life of the community.
For example, BUMI RESOURCES Tbk company, manages the surrounding environment with waste management, energy efficiency and biodiversity preservation. All these activities are carried out to keep the environment awake and minimize the adverse impact on the community. The increase in the value of the company does not necessarily come from the profitability of a company that is always increasing, but the value of the company can also increase if the social responsibility with care for the environment is considered more attentive to the company's future
performance so that it will be judged positively by investors. A positive corporate image will make the company more valuable and more promising in providing a stable rate of return so as to attract investors and increase the value of the company.
Cover
5.1. Conclusion
The purpose of this research is to determine the influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on the Value of the Company with profitability as a moderation variable. The study sample was 11 companies registered with IDX in the period 2016 to 2018. The data is examined using financial statements, annual reports and sustainability reports. Based on the results of the research and discussions already contained in CHAPTER IV, the conclusions that can be drawn from the results of this study are as follows:
1. Hypothesis 1 (The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Company Values)
The results of the first hypothesis test (H1) prove that CSR variables influenced the value of the company (PBV) in the period 2016-2018. The test results in this study prove the higher the CSR then the higher the value of the company. With a P-value of 0.044 where the value is smaller than 0.05
2. Hypothesis 2 (Effect of Return On Assets (ROA) on Company Value (PBV)
The second hypothesis (H2) states that the test results of the parameter coefficient between ROA to company value (PBV) indicate that the original sample estimate value is positive at 0.813 indicating that the direction of the relationship between leverage and company value is positive with a significant t-statistical value of 3,056 at 0.05. The t-statistical value is greater than 2.18 and the P-value is 0.029 where the value is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the second hypothesis (H2) is acceptable or not rejected. Profitability has a significant positive effect on the value of the company.
3. Hypothesis 3 (Effect of ROA on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
The results of the third hypothesis test (H3) prove that ROA variables had a significant effect on CSR projected with PBV in the period 2016-2018. P-value of 0.0487 where the value is smaller than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the third hypothesis (H3) is acceptable or not rejected, which means any increase in the ROA applied by a company will result in an increase also on the CSR.
4. Hypothesis 4 (Influence of moderating variables in mediating between CSR and on Company Value)
The results of the fourth hypothesis test (H4) prove that CSR variables that affect the value of the company are projected with pbv in the period 2016-2018. With a P-value of 0.0436 where the value is smaller than 0.05, it can thus be concluded that the fourth hypothesis (H4) is acceptable or not rejected. The increasing value of CSR is always followed by the increasing value of the company, because the value of the company is determined only by the ability of the company to generate profit
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 285
Such positive impacts such as being able to improve the welfare of the community, maintained environment and create a better quality of life of the community. For example, BUMI RESOURCES Tbk company, manages the surrounding environment with waste management, energy efficiency and biodiversity preservation. All these activities are carried out to keep the environment awake and minimize the adverse impact on the community.
5.2 Advice
1) On the part of investors it is advisable to take careful scrutiny and consider the shares of the company to be purchased because with the investor will definitely want a better prospect for his company in the future.
2) For researchers it is further recommended to use a broader variable or financial ratio and reproduced in a study to see the results of many sides of the ratio to the company's value as well as expand the company's sample or distinguish the company's sample from previous research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Ambar Setianingrum, Wahyuning (2015). “Pengaruh Corporate Social Responsibility Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Dengan Profitabilitas Sebagai Variabel Moderasi (Studi pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2011-2013), Semarang : Universitas Negeri Semarang
[2] Agustina, Silvia. 2013. “Pengaruh Profitabilitas dan Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility terhadap Nilai Perusahaan (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia)”.
Artikel Penelitian. Padang : Fakultas Ekonomi UNP.
[3] Barnea, Amir and Rubin, Amir. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics. 97:71–86, (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 November 2013.
[4] Belkaoui, A. dan Karpik, P.G. (1989), “Determinants Of The Corporate Decision To Disclose Social Information”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, (Online), 2 (1): 36-51, (http//www.emeraldinsight.com), diakses 29 Desember 2013.
[5] Budimanta, A, Prasetijo, A, dan Rudito, B. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility : Jawaban Bagi Model Pembangunan Masa Kini. Jakarta ; Indonesia Center for Sustainable Development (ICSD
[6] Cultip, Scott M. Center, Allen H, Broom, Glen M. 2000.
Effective Public Relations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
[7] Graffikin, M. 2008. Accounting Theory Research, Regulation and Accounting Practice. An Imprint of pearson Education Australia (GAF).
[8] Indrawan, Danu Candra. 2011. “Pengaruh Corporate Social Responsibility terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan”. Skripsi.
Semarang : Fakultas Ekonomi UNDIP.
[9] ISO 2600. Corporate Social Responsibility. (Online), (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm), diakses 15 November 2013.
[10] Jo, H. dan Harjoto, M, A. 2011. Corporate Governance and Firm Value:The Impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, (Online), 103:351–383, (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 November 2013.
[11] Li, W. dan Zhang, R. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility, Ownership Structure, and Political Interference: Evidence fromChina. Journal of Business Ethics. (Online), 96:631-645, (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 November 2013.
[12] Lucianda, J. dan Siagian, L, G. 2012. The influence of company characteristics toward Corporate Social Responsibility disclosure. Makalah disajikan dalam The 2012 International Conference on business and Management, 6-7 September di Phuket, Thailand.
[13] Kotler, Philip dan Lee Nancy. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibiliy : Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons.Inc.
[14] Market Supervisory Agency Regulation (BAPEPAM Number KEP-38/PM/1996 and Regulation Number VIII.G.2.
(Online), (http://www.bapepam.go.id), diakses 15 November 2013.
[15] Nur, M. dan Priantinah, D. 2012. Analisis 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, 1 (1): 22- 34.
[16] Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan No. 1 (RevisI 2009) tentang Penyajian Laporan Keuangan. (Online), (http://staff.blog.ui.ac.id), diakses 15 Desember 2013.
[17] Politon, S, O. dan Rustiyaningsih, S. 2013. Karakteristik Perusahaaan dan Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Go Publik. Jurnal Riset Manajemen dan Akuntansi, 1 (1): 1-9.
[18] Rodgers, W., Choy, Hiu, . dan Guiral, A. 2013. Do Investors Value a Firm’s Commitment to Social Activities?.
Journal of Business Ethics, (Online), 114:607–623, (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 November 2013.
[19] Rumanti, Sr.Maria Assumpta. 2002. Dasar-Dasar Public Relations, Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta : Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
[20] Ruslan, Rosady. 2001. Etika Kehumasan, Konsepsi dan Aplikasi. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
[21] Ruslan, Rosady. 2005. Kiat & Strategi Kampanye Public Relations. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
[22] Ruslan, Rosady. 2008. Manajemen Public Relations &
Media Komunikasi. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
[23] Sembiring, R.E. 2005. Karateristik Perusahaan dan Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial: Study Empiris Pada Perusahaan yang Tercatat di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Makalah disajikan dalam Simposium Nasional Akuntansi VIII,15–16 Oktober di Solo.
[24] Siregar, S.V. dan Bachtiar, Y. 2010. Corporate social reporting: empirical evidence from Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of Islamic and Management, (Online), 3 (3): 241-252, (http//www.emeraldinsight.com), diakses 29 Desember 2013.
[25] Suharto, Edi. 2006. Membangun Masyarakat Memberdayakan Rakyat: Kajian Strategis Pembangunan
PROCEEDING OF SHEPO 2020
(International Conference On Social Sciences & Humanity, Economics, And Politics) 286
Kesejahteraan Sosial dan Pekerjaan Sosial (edisi ke-2).
Bandung: Refika Aditama
[26] Suharto, Edi. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibiliity:
What is And Benefits for Corporate. Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan: Apa itu Dan Apa Manfaatnya Bagi Perusahaan.
(Online), (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 November 2013.
[27] Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas. (Online), (http://www.bapepam.go.id), diakses 15 November 2013.
[28] Utami, S. dan Prastiti, S, W. 2011. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan terhadap Social Disclosure. Jurnal Ekonomi Bisnis, 16 (1): 63-69.
[29] Value of sustainability reporting.A study by Ernst &
Young LLP and theBoston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. 2013. Boston College Carrol School of Management.
[30] Yuan. Y. 2011. Research on the Influential Factors of CSR Information Disclosure. Management and Enginering, (Online), 11-16, (http://proquest.com), diakses 15 Desember 2013.
[31] Yuliana, R. 2008. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan Terhadap Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dan Dampaknya Terhadap Reaksi Investor. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 5 (2): 245-276.
Referensi Website:
http://globalreporting.org www.idx.go.id
