The Power of Stakeholders in the Management Compliance with Environmental Responsibility Issues in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/bbr.v10i3.5574Keywords:
stakeholders, management compliance, environmental responsibilityAbstract
The objectives of this research were to find which the dominant stakeholders that pushed management to comply with the environmental responsibility and to examine the effect of environmental performance on financial performance. This research adopted Ullman’s three-dimensional framework to explain the stakeholders’ power. Stakeholders’ power was proxied by the power of shareholders, government, and customers. Then, PROPER rating measured the environmental performance. All Indonesian listed companies in all industrial sectors incorporating in the PROPER program were selected as the research sample. It resulted in 462 observations in the period of 2002-2017. PROPER was a company performance assessment program in environmental management. The Indonesian government initiated it through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. This research also included various control variables (firm size, firm age, level of competitiveness, and leverage). Ordinary Least Square (OLS) was used to analyze data. The results show that the government’s power and customer’s power consistently influences the managers to comply with environmental issues. Meanwhile, the powers of the shareholder do not influence it. In the case of financial performance, the result supports the prior researchers that the higher rates of environmental performance are, the higher the powers of shareholders and customers will significantly be improved.
Plum Analytics
References
Abdullah, S. N., Ismail, K. N. I. K., & Nachum, L. (2016). Does having women on boards create value? The impact of societal perceptions and corporate governance in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 466-476
Ararat, M., Black, B. S., & Yurtoglu, B. B. (2017). The effect of corporate governance on firm value and profitability: Time-series evidence from Turkey. Emerging Markets Review, 30(March), 113-132.
Arbelo, A., Pérez-Gómez, P., Rosa-González, F. M., & Ramos, L. (2014). Eco-efficiency: Environmental performance vs economic performance. Management Studies, 2(4), 239-253.
Ayuba, H., Bambale, A. J. A., Ibrahim, M. A., & Sulaiman, S. A. (2019). Effects of financial performance, capital structure and firm size on firms’ value of insurance companies in Nigeria. Journal of Finance, Accounting & Management, 10(1), 57-74.
Barakat, A. (2014). The impact of financial structure, financial leverage and profitability on industrial companies shares value (Applied study on a sample of Saudi industrial companies). Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(1), 55-66.
Barbu, E. M., Dumontier, P., Feleagă, N., & Feleagă, L. (2014). Mandatory environmental disclosures by companies complying with IASs/IFRSs: The cases of France, Germany, and the UK. The International Journal of Accounting, 49(2), 231-247.
Bushee, B. J., Jung, M. J., & Miller, G. S. (2017). Do investors benefit from selective access to management? Journal of Financial Reporting, 2(1), 31-61.
Carballo‐Penela, A., & Castromán‐Diz, J. L. (2015). Environmental policies for sustainable development: An analysis of the drivers of proactive environmental strategies in the service sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 802-818.
Chang, K., & Zhang, L. (2015). The effects of corporate ownership structure on environmental information disclosure-empirical evidence from unbalanced penal data in heavy-pollution industries in China. WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control, 10, 405-414.
Chen, J. H., & Wu, S. I. (2015). A comparison of green business relationship models between industry types. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(7-8), 778-792.
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
Cumming, D., Hou, W., & Lee, E. (2016). Business ethics and finance in greater China: Synthesis and future directions in sustainability, CSR, and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 601-626.
Daunfeldt, S. O., & Halvarsson, D. (2015). Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders? Evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 361-383.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-136.
Elijido-Ten, E. (2007). Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 164-184.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Gallego-Álvarez, I., & Quina-Custodio, I. A. (2016). Disclosure of corporate social responsibility information and explanatory factors. Online Information Review, 40(2), 218-238.
Hourneaux Jr, F., Hrdlicka, H. A., Gomes, C. M., & Kruglianskas, I. (2014). The use of environmental performance indicators and size effect: A study of industrial companies. Ecological Indicators, 36(January), 205-212.
Journeault, M. (2016). The influence of the ecocontrol package on environmental and economic performance: A natural resource-based approach. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 28(2), 149-178.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143(January), 37-46.
Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Swain, S. D. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 20-37.
Li, D., Cao, C., Zhang, L., Chen, X., Ren, S., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Effects of corporate environmental responsibility on financial performance: The moderating role of government regulation and organizational slack. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1323-1334.
Lundgren, T., & Zhou, W. (2017). Firm performance and the role of environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 203(December), 330-341.
Lu, Y., & Abeysekera, I. (2014). Stakeholders’ power, corporate characteristics, and social and environmental disclosure: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64(February), 426-436.
Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. (2015). Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 123-136.
Martín‐de Castro, G., Amores‐Salvadó, J., & Navas‐López, J. E. (2016). Environmental management systems and firm performance: Improving firm environmental policy through stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(4), 243-256.
Meixell, M. J., & Luoma, P. (2015). Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain management: A systematic review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(1/2), 69-89.
Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437-459.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Nawrocki, D., & Carter, W. (2010). Industry competitiveness using Herfindahl and entropy concentration indices with firm market capitalization data. Applied Economics, 42(22), 2855-2863.
Nejati, M., Amran, A., & Hazlina Ahmad, N. (2014). Examining stakeholders’ influence on environmental responsibility of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and its outcomes. Management Decision, 52(10), 2021-2043.
Pervan, M., Pervan, I., & Ćurak, M. (2017). The influence of age on firm performance: Evidence from the Croatian food industry. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business and Economics, 2017, 1-9.
Ramanathan, R., He, Q., Black, A., Ghobadian, A., & Gallear, D. (2017). Environmental regulations, innovation and firm performance: A revisit of the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(July), 79-92.
Rivera, J. M., Muñoz, M. J., & Moneva, J. M. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate stakeholder commitment and social and financial performance. Sustainable Development, 25(6), 482-494.
Roberts, R. W., & Mahoney, L. (2004). Stakeholder conceptions of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(3), 399-431.
Sarumpaet, S. (2005). The relationship between environmental performance and financial performance of Indonesian companies. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 7(2), 89-98.
Sarumpaet, S., Nelwan, M. L., & Dewi, D. N. (2017). The value relevance of environmental performance: Evidence from Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(4), 817-827.
Ullman, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-557.
Wang, H. M. D., & Sengupta, S. (2016). Stakeholder relationships, brand equity, firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5561-5568.
Xie, X., Huo, J., Qi, G., & Zhu, K. X. (2016). Green process innovation and financial performance in emerging economies: Moderating effects of absorptive capacity and green subsidies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(1), 101-112.
Zrelli, H., & Belloumi, M. (2015). Environmental stakeholders, environmental strategies, and productivity of Tunisian manufacturing industries. Middle East Development Journal, 7(1), 108-126.
Zhongfu, Y., Jianhui, J., & Pinglin, H. (2011). The study on the correlation between environmental information disclosure and economic performance-with empirical data from the manufacturing industries at Shanghai Stock Exchange in China. Energy Procedia, 5, 1218-1224.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
