Etika Bisnis dan

Profesi Pertemuan

Ke-7

“MENGELOLA RISIKO ETIKA DAN PELUANG”

Dosen Pengampu: Dr. Dra. Gayatri, M.Si., Ak., CA., ACPA

Kelompok 04

1. Putu Budhiyasa 1981621003

2. I Wayan Angga Sudiartama 1981621007
3. I Putu Ari Darmawan 1981621008
4. I Ketut Surya Negara 1981621013

PROGRAM MAGISTER AKUNTANSI

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA

UNIVERSITAS UDAYANA

2021
 MENGELOLA RISIKO ETIKA DAN PELUANG

1. Tujuan:
Mengembangkan Pemahaman tentang bagaimana mengidentifikasi, menilai, dan
mengelola risiko etika dan peluang secara efektif.

2. Identifikasi Penilaian Risiko Etika dan Peluang

A. Risiko Etika dan Peluang dalam Penilaian perusahaan
Risiko Etika dan Peluang
Didasari oleh adanya pengakuan atas kebutuhan akuntabilitas korporat kepada
pemangku kepentingan telah menjadikan suatu kebutuhan tata kelola modern yang
merefleksikan pentingnya memenuhi kepentingan pemangku kepentingan.
Dalam konteks ini perhatian risiko etika dan peluang yaitu jika risiko tidak memenuhi
harapan pemangku kepentingan menyebabkan potensi kertugian dukungan untuk tujuan
perusahaan, dan ketika kenyataan melebihi harapan maka memberikan peluang untuk
menggalang dukungan. Peluang dan ancaman ini berdasarkan pada keunggulan
kompetitif atau perhatian kepetingan pemangku kepentingan.
Keterbatasan dari Pendekatan Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Tradisional
Merupakan bentuk penerapan manajemen risiko. Kerangka ERM ini dikembangkan
oleh Committee of Sponsoring Organization (COSO) yang menilai bagaimana
mencapai tujuan suatu entitas pada 4 dimensi, masing-masing dimensi melibatkan 8
kelompok yang saling terkait. Kajian COSO ERM ini akan memeriksa kode etik,
kesadaran karyawan, tekanan memenuhi tujuan tidak realistis, kesediaan manajemen
untuk menggantikan kontrol yang sudah ada, kepatuhan kode dalam bekerja,
pemantauan efektivitas sistem pengendali internal, program whiste blowing dan
tindakan perbaikan sebagai respon pelanggaran kode etik.
Manajemen risiko tradisional terfokus pada masalah-masalah dari perspektif dampak
keuangan mereka pada pemegang saham, dan bukan pada dampak non finansial pada
pemangku kepentingan. Dampak lainnya terjadi ketergantungan keliru pada auditor
eksternal yang menduga bahwa audit ekternal yang melakukan tinjauan atas risiko,
membawa risiko menjadi perhatian manajeman dan direksi. Auditor luar meninjau
pengendalian internal perusahaan da kadang risiko bisnis mereka, mandat audit normal
eksternal memerlukan perhatian jika risiko akan menjadi materi yang akan
menghasilkan posisi keuangan perusahaan. Tanggungjawab tinjauan risko ini
seharusnya dilakukan oleh direksi dan eksekutif.

Tabel Kerangka Keja COSO

Dimensi
Komponen Strategis Operasi Pelaporan Kepatuhan
Lingkungan Eksternal
Menetapkan Tujuan
Identifikasi Kejadian
Penilaian Risiko
Aktivitas penengendalian
Informasi dan komunikasi
Pengawasan

Identifikasi Serta Penilaian Risiko Etika dan Peluang

Tahapan identifikasi risiko etika adalah:
1. Identifikasi pemangku utama perusahaan menggunakan teknik pemberian peringkat
kepentingan pemangku.
Pada tahap ini menggunakan kerangka kerja urgensi, legitimasi, dan kekuasaan serta
pengaruh dinamis. Selain itu juga mengkonfirmasi proyeksi interaksi pemangku
kepentingan representatif dengan pemangku kepentingan yang punya kepentingan
dengan menunjukkan kepedulian dan membuka dialog untuk membangun
kepercayaan.
2. Mempertimbangkan kegiatan koorporasi dan menilai risiko dari tidak memnuhi atau
peluang yang melebihi harapan.
Pertimbangan ini memperhitungkan input yang relevan, output, kualitas dan variabel
kinerja lainnya. Menggunakan enam nilai hypernom: kejujuran, keadilan,
belaskasihan, integritas, prediktibilitas, dan tanggungjawab.
3. Melibatkan penyusunan laporan yang dihasilkan oleh proses diatas.
 Laporan menyajikan mempertimbangkan risiko dan peluang didasarkan kepada:
kelompok pemangku kepentingan, produk atau jasa, tujuan perusahaan, nilai
hypernom, dan pemicu reputasi

Manajemen Risiko Etika dan Peluang

Hubungan Pemangku Kepentingan Efektif
Untuk menentukan hubungan ini dikembangkan model oleh Savage (1991) yang
berfokus pada hubungan potensi pemangku kepentingan menimbulkan ancaman bagi
organisasi atau untuk bekerja sama dengannnya.
Potensi ancaman pemangku kepentingan
Tinggi Rendah
Tipe 4 berkah campuran Tipe 1 Mendukung
koorporasi

Tinggi
pemangku kepentingan

Strategi: Kolaborasi Strategi: Melibatkan

Tipe 3 Tidak mendukung Tipe 2 Marginal
Rendah
Potensi

Strategi: Membela diri Strategi: Mengawasi

Tipe 1: Kemungkinan Pemangku kepentingan menjadi ancaman rendah, dan tingkat

kerjasama dengan mereka tinggi sehingga keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan dalam
keputusan diharapkan menjadi lebih tinggi.
Tipe 2: Kemungkinan Pemangku kepentingan menjadi ancaman rendah, dan tingkat
kerjasama dengan mereka rendah. Sehingga pilihan strateginya adalah mengawasi
harapan mereka jika kondisi berubah.
Tipe 3: Ancaman tinggi dan kerjasama rendah maka akan terjadi kondisi yang sangat
tidak mendukung dan memungkinan terjadi perang
Tipe 4: Ancaman yang tinggi dengan kerjasama yang tinggi maka lebih baik pemangku
kepentingan diajak berkolaborasi agar mereka tetap menjadi pendukung.

Tanggungjawab Sosial Perusahaan dan Kewarganegaraan Koorporat

Koorporasi secara hukum bertanggungjawab kepada pemegang saham, nanun pada
kenyataan mereka juga bertanggungjawab pada berbagai pemangku kepantingan untuk
menggalang dukungan untuk mencapai tujuan strategis. Diwujudkan dalam bentuk CSR
(Coorporat Social Responsibility) dengan elemen penting yaitu:
a. Tujuan organisasi untuk CSR
Organisasi mempertimbangkan tujuan strategis baik sebagai operasi maupun warga
koorporasi. Pertimbangan ini dengan memahami langkah-langkah yang tersedia
pada CSR, sehingga perancang sistem akan menyesuaikan aspirasi dengan langkah-
langkah yang akan memungkinkan pengawasan dan penguatan sehingga dicapai
tujuan strategis yang etis dan menghormati kepentingan para pemangku
kepentingan.
b. Membangun Kerangka Tanggungjawab Sosial Perusahaaan
Untuk membantu keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan dalam perencanaan dan
keputusan perusahaan, mengatur kegiatan dan pelaporan, dan audit aktivitas dan
laporan.
c. Mengukur Kinerja CSR
Melalui peninjauan kerangaka CSR yang menyaring kegiatan untuk investor etika
baik investor individu maupun institusi dengan tujuan sosial. Ukuran kinerja ini
dikelompokkan dalam kategori:
• kode atau pernyataan bimbingan, tingkat kemutakhiran, dan penegakkan
• Penciptaan pekerjaan: keseluruhan dan dalam kaitan dengan kelompok
minoritas
• Hubungan masyarakat dan pemangku kepentingan lokal
• Pengobatan karyawan
• Program manajemen lingkungan
• kinerja lingkungan
• Etika pemanfaatan sumber dan perdagangan
d. Monitoring CSR
Memantau bagaimana korporasi berbuat secara selktif dengan mengacu pada studi
eksternal. Pemantauan ini melalui perbandingan yang dapat membantu:
• Tujuan Strategis faktor kunci keberhasilan
• Organisasi serupa
• Alternatif praktik terbaik untuk perbandingan
• Standar terpublikasi
 • Statistik dan rata-rata industri
• Manajemen dengan target tujuan
• hasil yang diperoleh pada periode sebelumnya
e. Pelaporan CSR
Laporan ini merupakan hasil dari pengukuran kinerja CSR, dan akan melaporkan
kinerja yang akan dibuat secara internal saja atau secara umum tetapi laporan harus
terfokus pada tujuan kinerja program.
• Laporan publik menajdi lebih umum memberikan manfaat:
• Meningkatkan kesadaran akan isu-isu etis dalam organisasi
• Memberikan dorongan bagi karyawan untuk mematuhi tujuan etis
• Menginformasikan pemangku kepentingan eksternal
• Meningkatkan citra perusahaaan

f. Assurance Audit Laporan CSR

Merupakan bentuk audit dari hasil laporan CSR, melalui cara ini penyusunan
laporan bisa dilakukan oleh pihak perusahaan sendiri, namun hasil laporan harus
dapat dibuktikan kebenarannya dan mewajibkan pengungkapan publik atas hasil
kinerja lingkungan.
g. Pikiran Penutup
Akuntabilitas strategi perusahaan untuk pemangku kepentingan, manajer, dan
akuntan profesional telah jelas sehingga mendorong organisasi atau perusahaan
untuk mengembangkan konsep yang efektif tentang kewarganegaraan koorporat dan
program yang efektif dari tanggungjawab sosial.

Etika Di Tempat Kerja

Munculnya etika ini didasari oleh semakin tingginya kesadaran sosial dan tekanan dari
kelompok-kelompok aktivis yang telah didokumentasikan memiliki dampak yang
signifikan pada operasi internal dan eksternal organisasi. Tinjauan langsung berbagai
komponen di lingkungan tempat kerja.
a. Hak Karyawan
Perkembangan kesadaran akan hak-hak karyawan harus dihormati relatif
dibandingkan dengan hak-hak majikan. seperti majikan tidak lagi bisa memerintah
 karyawan untuk membuat pencemaran, mengambil risiko kesehatan dan
keselamatan orang lain. Beberapa hak telah menajdi dilindungi oleh undang-undang
baru, sehingga praktek perusahaan harus lebih sensitif terhadap tekanan pemangku
kepentingan. Beberapa hal yang menjadikan harapan baru atas hak karyawan:
• Hak privasi dan martabat
Berdampak pada adanya batasan yang jelas antara hak pribadi, atasan dan
publik, adanya prosedur yang sesuai melalui pemberitahuan atau persetujuan
karyawan, tidak adanya pelecehan dan seksual
• Perlakuan yang Adil
Diskriminasi menjadi tidak etis dan dianggap ilegal, sehingga karyawan merasa
mempunyai hak atas kebijakan yang adil.
• Lingkungan yang Sehat dan Aman
Hilangnya budaya memaksa karyawan bekerja melebihi jam kerja atau
menghukum karyawan melalui evaluasi kinerja.
• Kemampuan untuk menjalankan suara nurani seseorang
Sebagai bentuk perlawanan adanya konsep loyalitas buta yang telah membuat
karyawan merasa kehilangan hak untuk menjalakan suara nuraninya. Munculnya
dorongan perubahan witle blowing menjadi untuk lebih berani berbicara dalam
organisasi.
b. Kepercayaan dan Maknanya
Tidak mungkin manajer dan karyawan bersedia mengikuti pemimpin yang tidak
bisa dipercaya atau tidak etis. Jika karyawan memiliki kepercayaan maka meraka
akan berpartisipasi sepenuh hati dalam melakukan restrukturisasi bahkan yang
melibatkan perampingan. Untuk menjaga kepercayaan diperlukan langkah
organisasi membuat komitmen yang terjamin untuk memberi karyawan status secara
penuh, memberikan pengaturan kontrak yang adil. Kelanjutan manfaat bisa menjadi
cara menjaga kepercayaan tenaga kerja kontingen atau paruh waktu dengan dengan
pemahaman besar.
c. Keseluruhan Manfaat
Terdapat pandangan tentang "cara karyawan memandang perlakuan perusahaan
terhadap mereka menentukan apa yang mereka pikirkan tentang program etika
 perusahaan". Memperlakukan karyawan dengan tepat tidak hanya etis, tetapi penting
untuk menjalankan program etika organisasi dalam mencapai tujuan strategis.
d. Kecurangan Kejahatan Kerah Putih
Salah satu tantangan yang dihadapi semua organisasi adalah prospek tindakan
kecurangan dan kejahatan kerah putih. Eksekutif diharapkan dapat memastikan
bahwa mereka akan melakukan semua langkah untuk membimbing, mempengaruhi,
dan mengendalikan karywan yang mungkin cenderung terlibat dan auditor eksternal
harus mewaspadai potensi potensi masalah yang akan terjadi.
e. Memahami Motivasi Penipu (hirearki Kebutuhan Maslow)
Hierarki kebutuhan maslow yang menyatakan kebutuhan individu dapat
dikategorikan dan akan ditanggapi berdasarkan piramida hubungan Rasionalisasi,
Motif dan peluang.
f. Memahami Rasionalisasi Kecurangan (Tujuh Rasionalisasi)
Tujuh rasionalisasi tindakan tidak etis
1) Menolak tanggungjawab
2) Menolak dari cedera
3) Penolakan menjadi korban
4) Kencaman menjadi pengecam
5) Banding ke loyalitas yang lebih tinggi
6) Semua orang melakuka,
7) Mendapatkan hak pribadi
8) Peluang melakukan Kecurangan
g. Peluang melakukan kecurangan
Adanya peluang untuk melakukan kecurangan dengan tingkat rasio yang dapat
diterima untuk ditangkap dan mendapat hukuman yang berat.
h. Pembelajaran
Kerangka kerja diperlukan ketiga perusahaan merencanakan untuk melembagakan
insentif baru, sistem penghargaan. Kerangka kerja ini akan menilai apakah metode
motivasi yang digunakan. Sehingga dalam rangka untuk memastikan adanya
kesadaran dan pengetahuan yang memadai tentang kerangka kerja, penggunaan
mereka harus dibahas dalam sesi pengawasan supervisor yang sensitif/ peka.
Operasi Internasional
Perusahaan menempatkan operasi di suatu negara denga tujuan akses ke tenaga kerja
murah, biaya perlindungan lingkungan lebih rendah, kurangnya birokrasi, dan diundang
politisi daerah.
Ketika perusahaan beroperasi di pasar luar negeri, maka harus mempertimbangkan
berikut:
a. Dampak terhadap ekonomi lokal dan budaya mereka
Perusahaan multinasional harus berhati-hati untuk tidak memiliki dampak tidak
menguntungkan dari aspek lokal dari:
• Pasar tenaga kerja: tingkat upah, ketersediaan pasokan
• Bahan baku dan pasar input lainnya
• Politik dan proses hukum
• Adat dan sosial keagamaan
Jika perusahaan mengabaikan kebiasaan sosial setempat maka perusahaan akan
mendapatkan kesulitan untuk mendapatkan kerjasama untuk kegiatan mendatang,
perusahaan sesuai ukurannya dapat mendominasi daerah lokal yang mungkin
bertentangan dengan pemerintah daerah, pengadilan atau pemilihan umum yang
akan mendatangkan kerugian di titik tertentu.
b. konflik antara budaya domestik dan budaya asing
Mungkin masalah yang paling sulit jika para pemangku kepentingan utama
perusahaan berbeda dengan yang ada di daerah lokal tersebut, perbedaan tersebut
diantaranya:
• Persetujuan penyuapan (asia tenggara)
• Penggunaan pekerja anak (Republik dominika, asia tenggara)
• Penggunaan tenaga kerja budak
• kondisi tenaga kerja yang tidak sehat
• Perlakuan terhadap perempuan
• Dukungan dari rezim represif melalui operasi lokal (aparteid, Cile, sudan)
• kurangnya kebebasan berserikat
• Menghormati lingkungan
• Berurusan dengan anggota keluarga adalah sesuatu yang diharapkan, tidak
dihindari
 Berbagai contoh konflik yang terjadi jika para pemangku kepentingan utama
perusahaan tertangkap telah menyinggung nilai-nilai lokal dunia:
• Boikot pakaian yang dibuat dalam situasi kerja ofensif seperti Kathy lee, nike,
reebok
• Frustasi akibat bencana penyimpangan kapal minya Brent Spar Shell di Laut
Utara
• Boikot produk Nestle karena mendistribusikan produk makanan bayi dengan air
tercemar di Afrika selatan
• Aktivis investor Amerika utara mengerjar banyak perusahaan tambang karena
praktik perlindungan lingkungan yang rendah
• Boikot daging sapi karena di produksi di wilayah hutan amazon
Konflik-konflik ini sangat merugikan perusahaan berupa waktu produktif yag
hilang, biaya persidangan, dan yang paling besar dampaknya pada kerusakan
reputasi perusahaan.
c. Penyuapan dan pembayaran untuk memfasilitasi
Praktik ini biasanya digunakan untuk mempercepat hasil. Uang pelicin atau suap
merupakan sesuatu yang bermasalah yang melawan hukum dan juga:
Menambah biaya operasi
Meruntuhkan praktik pembelian berdasarkan prestasi
Ketidakmungkinan menegakkan kinerja (mendapatkan kontrak) setelah suap dibayar
Menunjukkan karyawan bahwa suap bisa diterima meski melanggar kode etik
Menunjukkan para pencari uang suap untuk meminta
Akibatnya banyak perusahaan multinasional melarang uang suap melalui penetapan
kebijakan. Konflik budaya yang jelas dengan melarang pemberian hadiah, suap atau
pembayaran memfasiltasi.
Langkah untuk menghidari konflik internasional:
1. Imaginasi moral
Pra manajer mengunakan imajinasi moral untuk merancang alternatif dalam
menjawab kebutuhan lokal, tetapi sesuai dengan norma perilaku yang
diteima. misalkan menolak menyuap dengan alasan kebijakan perusahaan,
Melakukan pembayaran suap di depan umum atau bukan secara rahasia
 2. Konsultasi sebelum tindakan
Menurut Dunn(2006) Perbedaaan budaya berkontrbusi terhadap perbedaan
sikap. Membiarkan karyawan untuk mengetahui bagaimana berurusan
dengan berbagai budaya yang dihadapi dalam oprasi internasional adalah
strategi yang berisiko tinggi. Organisasi harus meningkatkan kepekaan
karyawan mereka tentang adanya perbedaan budaya dan melengkapi dengan
pemahaman bagaimana organisasi mengatur mereka berurusan dengan isu
utama yang kemungkinan muncul.

Manajemen Krisis
Suatu krisi memiliki potensi untuk memiliki dampak signifikan terhadap reputasi
perusahaan. Menurut Lerbinger: "suatu peristwa yang membawa atau memiliki potensi
untuk membawa keburukan dan membahayakan profitabilitas masa depan,
pertumbuhan, dan mungkin keberlanjutan organisasi". Manajemen yang efektif akan
meminimalkan dampak dari peristiwa tersebut.
Pengelolaan krisis yang baik adalah pemahaman dari empat fase krisis yaitu: Pra Krisis,
Tidak terkontrol, Terkontrol, Pemulihan reputasi. Tujuan utama manajemen krisis
haruslah untuk menghindari krisis. Permasalahan-permasalahan yang teridentifikasi
menimbulkan krisis menurut Lerbinger:
• Bencana alam
• Bencana teknologi
• Perbedaan harapan antara individu, kelompok, dan perusahaan sehingga ada
konfrontasi
• Tindakan jahat oleh teroris, ekstrimis, pemerintah, dan individu
• Nilai-nilai manajemen yang tidak mengikuti persyaratan lingkungan dan sosial
• Kecurangan manajemen
• Kesalahan manajemen
Identifikasi dan penilaian cepat dari suatu krisis berperan dalam mempengaruhi hasil
secara efektif dan efisien. salah satu karekteristik krisis yaitu akaan berkembang jika
tidak ada tindakan yang diambil. Sehingga salah satu yang penting dalam penilaian
krisis adalah menghindari atau meminimalkan dampak baik secara langsung maupun
tidak langsung.
Cara memasukkan Etika dalam Manajemen Krisis:
1) Pencegahan dan Peringatan
• Kode etik: Menidentifikasi nilai-nilai, menekankan, dan mengefektifkan
• Menidentifikasikan potensi masalah etika dan indikator peringatan
• Mendorong dengan melakukan publikasi yang baik
2) Pendekatan Analitis
• Menerapkan analisis kerangka pemangku kepentingan
• Daftar periksa atau waktu khusus untuk mempertimbangkan isu-isu etika,
alternatif dan peluang
3) Keputusan itu sendiri
Nilai etika diintegrasikan dalam pengambilan keputusan
4) Keputusan atas niat etis kepada
Media, karyawan, pelanggan, pemerintah, publik dan pemangku kepantingan
 Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local stakeholder participation in
European flood risk management
Chloe Begg
Area Of Interest
Makalah ini berfokus pada implikasi dari pendekatan yang lebih partisipatif terhadap
keadilan manajemen risiko banjir Eropa (FRM). Studi keadilan lingkungan ditempatkan
dengan baik untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini karena mereka tertarik pada siapa yang
dilibatkan dan dikecualikan dari keputusan yang berkaitan dengan distribusi barang
lingkungan (sumber daya) dan keburukan (risiko)
Phenomena
Negara telah lama dianggap bertanggung jawab atas pengelolaan banjir (van Buuren,
Klijn, dan Edelenbos). 2012 ) dan oleh karena itu keputusan tentang sumber daya dan
distribusi risiko. Namun, sejumlah tekanan termasuk perubahan iklim dan pengurangan
pendanaan publik berarti bahwa telah terjadi gerakan yang meningkat oleh negara
untuk berbagi tanggung jawab atas pengelolaan banjir di berbagai tingkat masyarakat
Theoritical Foundation
Penelitian ini mennggunakan Studi Literatur
Methodology
Makalah ini mengacu pada ulasan dari 30 makalah yang berfokus secara khusus pada
proses pengambilan keputusan dalam kaitannya dengan FRM daripada alat atau
diskusi teoritis tentang partisipasi secara umum, untuk mendapatkan pemahaman
tentang bagaimana partisipasi saat ini dipraktikkan dalam keputusan terkait FRM
Data and Method
Tinjauan pustaka dari 30 makalah peer-review ini memberikan analisis keadilan dan
FRM dengan menilai praktik partisipasi yang disajikan dalam literatur terbaru tentang
keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan lokal dalam FRM di Inggris, Jerman dan Belanda

Findings

Mengakui bahwa dana terbatas dan pengalihan tanggung jawab ke tingkat lokal dapat
mengakibatkan terbukanya sumber daya dan pengetahuan tambahan, manfaat tersebut
sepertinya tidak terlihat di semua komunitas. Distribusi risiko mungkin menjadi tidak merata
karena hanya pemangku kepentingan lokal dengan kapasitas yang ada yang akan tertarik untuk
terlibat dan mereka yang tidak memiliki kapasitas mungkin dirugikan. Untuk memastikan
bahwa FRM tidak merugikan mereka yang paling rentan, pendanaan harus diatur sedemikian
rupa sehingga memberikan peluang bagi pemangku kepentingan lokal untuk berpartisipasi
dalam FRM dalam pemilihan tindakan terkait FRM serta peluang untuk menerima bantuan
ketika pemangku kepentingan lokal bertanggung jawab atas penerapan langkah-langkah FRM

Conclusion

Makalah ini menambah diskusi yang ada tentang keadilan dalam kaitannya dengan FRM
dengan mengambil 30 contoh empiris dari keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan lokal dalam
praktik terkait keputusan FRM. Ini mengeksplorasi keterkaitan antara keadilan prosedural dan
distributif dan berargumen untuk sebuah egaliter pendekatan FRM

Critical Review
 1. Grand teori yang di adopsi pada penelitian ini tidak dijelaskan secara jelas
2. Artikel ini tidak memaparkan pengembangan penelitian selanjutnya

Pengaruh Keanekaragaman Manajemen Terhadap Luas

Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan

Agus Nisfur Romdioni1 Ade Sri Ulita

Area Of Interest
Penelitian ini menguji keragaman manajemen dalam pengungkapan tanggungjawab
sosial perusahaan. Keragaman Manajemen diukur berdasarkan keragaman gender
dan keragaman kebangsaan
Phenomena
Masalah tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan di negara Indonesia muncul sebagai topik
yang kerap dibahas pada beberapa waktu. CSR diera ini dikenal publik dalam respons
perusahaan terhadap lingkungan masyarakat. Perusahaan berupaya akan membuat
citra yang apik pada masyarakat melalui kewajiban lingkungan atau tanggung jawab
sosial. Istilah tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan di Indonesia telah menjadi semakin
umum semenjak tahun 1990 dan mulai berkembang sekitar tahun 2005
Theoritical Foundation
Penelitian ini mennggunakan Teori Etika
Methodology
Dalam penelitian ini, data kuantitatif digunakan sebagai data sekunder yaitu laporan
perusahaan yang terdaftar di bursa efek Indonesia
Data and Method
Populasi dalam penelitian ini laporan perusahaan pertambangan yang listing pada
Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun 2013-2015 Sampel yang digunakan 15 perusahaan
berdasarkan metode purposive sampling. Analisa data memakai analisis regresi
berganda dengan bantuan alat analisis SPSS.

Findings

H1 : Gender berpengaruh positif terhadap luas Hasil pengujian menunjukkan gender

pengungkapan CSR berpengaruh positif terhadap luas pengungkapan
CSR

H2 : Keragaman Kebangsaan berpengaruh positif Hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa
terhadap luas pengungkapan CSR. kehadiran Dewan Komisaris serta manajer asing
dapat mempengaruhi kualitas pengungkapan
CSR.

Conclusion
Tujuan dari studi ini yakni untuk memeriksa keragaman manajemen di bidang pengungkapan
CSR.Keragaman manajerdidefinisikan oleh dua kriteria, yaitu gender dan keanekaragaman
kebangsaan. Hasil tes menunjukkan bahwa gender dan keragaman kebangsaan memiliki
dampak positif pada pengungkapan CSR

Further Research

Adapun keterbatasan memengaruhi hasil studi serta perlu menjadi bahan pengembangan atas
studi selanjutnya, disarankan kedepan untuk menambahkan emitem perusahaan dibidang lain
dan menambahkan variabel yang lain untuk dianalisis yang mempengaruhi luas pengungkapan
CSR

Critical Review

3. Latar belakang yang disajikan pada artikel ini sangat panjang

4. Grand teori yang di adopsi pada penelitian ini tidak dijelaskan secara jelas
 Local Environment
The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability

ISSN: 1354-9839 (Print) 1469-6711 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local

stakeholder participation in European flood risk
management

Chloe Begg

To cite this article: Chloe Begg (2018): Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local
stakeholder participation in European flood risk management, Local Environment, DOI:
10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119

Published online: 17 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cloe20
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119

Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local stakeholder

participation in European flood risk management
Chloe Begga,b
a
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; bDepartment of Urban and Environmental
Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH–UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing interest in the Received 12 July 2017
active involvement of local stakeholders in the management of floods in Accepted 22 December 2017
Europe. Such involvement is seen as necessary as the management of
KEYWORDS
floods becomes more complex. Management approaches now seek to Environmental justice;
include a range of potential measures to reduce risk (e.g. structural fairness; England; Germany;
defence, spatial planning and property-level protection measures). Local the Netherlands
stakeholder involvement is seen to be important because governments
lack the capacities such as knowledge and funding required to deliver
all these measures alone. This paper focuses on the implications that
more participative approaches have on the fairness of European flood
risk management (FRM). Studies of environmental justice are well placed
to address this question because they are interested in who is included
and excluded from decisions related to the distribution of
environmental goods (resources) and bads (risks). Existing literature
suggests that fair decision-making processes (procedural justice) can
lead to fair distribution or resources and risks (distributive justice). This
literature review of 30 peer-reviewed papers provides an analysis of
justice and FRM by assessing practices of participation which are
presented in the recent literature on local stakeholder involvement in
FRM in England, Germany and the Netherlands. It was found that
participation in practice generally focuses on transferring responsibility
to the local level at the expense of power. This paper discusses the
implications that this finding has for justice and synthesises potential
ways forward based on recommendations of the reviewed literature.

Introduction
Drawing on philosophical traditions of social justice, studies of environmental justice focus on who is
involved in the development of policies and decision-making processes that distribute resources and
risk (procedural justice) and evaluate whether the resources and risks are fairly distributed (distribu-
tional justice) (Walker 2012).
Flooding threatens millions of people worldwide, causes massive disruptions to lives and liveli-
hoods and does so in an uneven way (Walker 2012). Therefore, it is a suitable candidate for discus-
sions about justice. Although the advent of Hurricane Katrina can be seen to have stimulated a
discussion about justice in regard to flooding in the context of the USA (e.g. Bullard and Wright
2009; Collins and Grineski 2017; Cutter 2006; Maantay and Maroko 2009; Montgomery and Chakra-
borty 2015; Morse 2008; Sanchez and Brenman 2008; Shively 2017; van Gigch 2008; Walker 2012),

CONTACT Chloe Begg chloe.begg@ufz.de Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for
Environmental Research GmbH-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. BEGG

literature that evaluates justice in relation to FRM in the European context is comparatively sparse
(Adger et al. 2016; Johnson, Penning-Rowsell, and Parker 2007; Lindley et al. 2011; Thaler and Hart-
mann 2016; Walker 2012; Walker and Burningham 2011). This paper aims to contribute to discussions
about justice and FRM by discussing the relationship between procedural and distributive justice. It
does so by drawing on a broader literature related to local stakeholder participation in European FRM.
The state has long been perceived as being responsible for the management of floods (van
Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012) and therefore decisions about resource and risk distribution.
However, a number of pressures including climate change and reductions in public funding mean
that there has been an increasing move by the state towards sharing responsibility for the manage-
ment of floods across different levels of society (Thaler and Priest 2014). Participation in the manage-
ment of floods in Europe has become a legal requirement as a result of the European Floods Directive
(2007/60/EC). The Floods Directive has been implemented into national law by each of the European
member states. It aims to achieve a movement away from trying to manage floods through control-
ling nature by employing reactive approaches which focus on structural measures such as dikes and
water storage, towards a more proactive and holistic approach referred to as flood risk management
(FRM) (Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross 2011). This approach broadens the scope of management
options by including “non-structural measures” such as spatial planning, emergency management,
and encouraging citizens to take measures to inform, prepare and protect themselves in addition
to structural measures. The implementation of such a breadth of measures requires the involvement
of a wide range of stakeholders (Walker et al. 2010) and provides the potential for the improvement
of FRM through additional funding and knowledge (Thaler and Priest 2014).
The literature on local stakeholder participation in European FRM refers to the involvement of a
number of actors located at the local level that can affect or who are likely to be affected by the
effects of flooding. This includes local authorities, NGOs, community groups, knowledge institutions,
businesses and residents. This paper is interested in local stakeholder participation in both decisions
related to the selection of measures, and in the implementation of the measures that are selected. By
discussing the implications that the opportunities for local stakeholder participation have on the way
that resources and risks are distributed, it is possible to map out the interrelationship between pro-
cedural and distributional justice across a range of geographical contexts. Based on the findings from
a review of 30 studies which focus on England, Germany and the Netherlands, I argue that FRM, as
practised to-date in Europe, is reproducing and potentially deepening patterns of injustice. The find-
ings provide a basis for a discussion about how participation could be employed to improve the fair-
ness of FRM.
In order to describe the way in which I intend to evaluate justice in relation to FRM, the following
section provides an overview of the conceptual framework. I then provide an overview of the method
used for conducting the literature review before presenting the findings in regards to examples of
how participation is employed in practices of FRM in three European contexts. Based on these
results, I discuss the implications that these examples of local stakeholder participation have on
justice before discussing how local stakeholder participation could be used in order to improve
justice.

Conceptual framework
This section presents an overview of the study’s conceptual framework used to discuss procedural
justice and distributional justice.
There are no agreed-upon definitions of justice (Walker 2012). Often the terms justice, fairness and
equality are used interchangeably in the literature (Johnson, Penning-Rowsell, and Parker 2007). In
this paper, I make the distinction between the terms as follows: on the one hand, the terms
unequal and uneven describe distributions of decision-making power, resources and risk, whilst on
the other hand, the terms fairness and justice provide a language for evaluating these distributions.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 3

There are a number of influential philosophical traditions of social justice which can be drawn
upon when discussing whether flood management is fair or not (i.e. utilitarianism, liberalism, and ega-
litarianism). Utilitarians aim at maximising the aggregate happiness of individuals (Johnson, Penning-
Rowsell, and Parker 2007; Mill 2010). For flood management, this means that the benefits offer the
greatest gain for the society (Thaler and Hartmann 2016). Liberalists place their faith in the free
market (Hayek 1991). This promotes individual responsibility instead of state intervention in the man-
agement of floods (Thaler and Hartmann 2016). Egalitarians focus on the equal distribution of
resources across individuals (Rawls 1971; Sen 1992). In regard to flood management, this means
that resources should be targeted at the most vulnerable individuals in society (Johnson, Penning-
Rowsell, and Parker 2007).
It may not be possible to ensure that the exposure to flood risk is distributed evenly as floods are
natural and unpredictable events which occur in some places rather than others rather than being
intentionally spreadable across space (Walker 2012). However, it is possible to ensure that resources,
such as government support and finances, for managing risk are fairly distributed. Decision-makers
are faced with the challenge of having to decide which factors to take into account when distributing
tax payer’s money to improve FRM. Studies of social vulnerability have made a strong case for the
need to not just take exposure and the broad impacts of floods (e.g. financial damage and death
– although these factors are also important) into account when developing adaptation policy but
also how people at risk perceive, cope with and adapt to those impacts (Kuhlicke et al. 2011;
Lindley et al. 2011; Tapsell et al. 2010). Studies of flood justice and vulnerability have found that
flood exposure does not always result in flood vulnerability (Lindley et al. 2011; Walker and Burningham
2011). Instead, it is the communities that are exposed and deprived that were found to be most vul-
nerable due to limited capabilities to prepare, respond and recover to flooding (Collins and Grineski
2017; Lindley et al. 2011; Tapsell and Tunstall 2008; Walker and Burningham 2011). Therefore, existing
studies of flood justice and vulnerability provide a strong argument for the need for risk mitigation pol-
icies which make sure that the most vulnerable are not disadvantaged by the decisions being made.
This line of argumentation reflects an egalitarian approach to risk management. Based on this
approach, this paper assesses the extent to which attempts to distribute resources for flood manage-
ment prioritise those who are most vulnerable (Rawls 1971) and whether the most vulnerable have the
capabilities required to cope with and adapt to flood-related impacts (Sen 1992).
In order to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are prioritised in decisions related to the
distribution of risk and resources, there is a strong argument for the involvement of those at risk.
In the environmental justice literature procedural justice is linked to power, authority and influence
(Bell and Carrick 2017; Green and Penning-Rowsell 2010; Walker 2012) and the right of those, who can
effect or who are affected by a decision, to be involved in that decision (Lake 1996; Johnson, Penning-
Rowsell, and Parker 2007; Shrader-Frechette 2002). The basic argument behind procedural justice is
that environmental decision-making procedure is fair only when power is shared equally among
(potential) participants (Bell and Carrick 2017). Moreover, it is argued that an unfair decision-
making process is unlikely to promote the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens
(Bell and Carrick 2017; Walker 2012). Furthermore, the way that resources are distributed differen-
tiates the capacities to participate (Schlosberg 2007).
Hunold and Young (1998) put forward five principles of procedural justice which promote (1)
inclusive and (2) fair processes which involve participants at each stage of the decision-making
process with the aim to (3) eliminate disparities and (4) promote joint decision-making between par-
ticipants which also (5) acts as the final decision. Similar versions of such inclusive and deliberative
participation are also promoted in the wider literature on participation in European FRM. The litera-
ture on local stakeholder participation in FRM emphasises the importance of coproducing solutions
at an early stage of decision-making processes (Doorn 2016; Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross 2011;
Roth and Winnubst 2014; Rouillard et al. 2014), which actively involves both decision-makers and
local stakeholders to ensure that roles and responsibilities are meaningfully discussed and agreed
upon by all parties (Doorn 2016; Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016). However, as I will show,
4 C. BEGG

empirical evidence which supports the normative beliefs that local stakeholder participation leads to
benefits such as improved decision outcomes and legitimacy in practice is lacking. The ability of local
stakeholders to become involved is argued to be an important factor which affects the influence that
they can have on decision-making processes (Renn, Webler, and Wiedemann 1995). As this paper will
show, perceptions of responsibility and the capacities available to local stakeholders to become
involved influence both procedural and distributive justice. Moreover, lack of procedural justice is
unlikely to lead to distributive justice for those who are most vulnerable.

Methods
There are a number of examples of participative activities in a range of European countries. This paper
draws on a review of 30 papers which focus specifically on decision-making processes in relation to
FRM rather than tools or theoretical discussions about participation in general, in order to gain an
understanding of how participation is currently practised in FRM-related decisions. A broad literature
search was conducted using the Web of Science database. Search terms used included “flood* sta-
keholder participat*”, “flood* stakeholder engage*”, “flood stakeholder involve*”, “flood* responsib*”
and “flood* governance”. This approach returned 335 peer-reviewed journal articles which were
initially selected based on the relevance of their title and abstract. After going through this
process, articles were selected based on their specific focus on examples of local stakeholder partici-
pation in current decision-making processes in regards to European FRM. They were then refined
again based on the countries that were most often studied. For this reason, this article focuses on
England, Germany and the Netherlands, as the literature reviewed provided the most examples in
these countries (17 focused on England, 9 on Germany and 10 on the Netherlands – some studies
focused on more than one country). The following section provides some examples of how local sta-
keholder participation is taking place in three European countries and drawing out similarities across
the three contexts.

Results
This section presents the results of the literature review by mapping out the opportunities and experi-
ences of local stakeholder participation in regard to the selection and implementation of FRM
measures (see Table 1). These results provide the basis for discussions about justice and FRM.

England
The review highlighted that, in England, the state’s resilience agenda promotes participation so that
communities have the capacity to “absorb, recover and adapt” and live with floods (Mees et al. 2016,
7). Thaler and Priest (2014) argued that this way of managing floods has become desirable due to
repetitive flooding and austerity measures. As a result, Wehn et al. (2015a) describe a situation
where the state is actively trying to change the way that citizens perceive their responsibility,
aiming for a culture of responsibility for FRM rather than “service receivers” (also see Butler and
Pidgeon 2011). For example, shifts in the planning of structural flood-defence measures from a
“design-defend-implement” approach to a “discuss-design-implement” approach are said to reflect
this change (Wehn et al. 2015a).
Decisions related to funding allocation for structural flood-defence measures, for example, are
conducted in a participatory setting. Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) which are
organised by the Environment Agency and made up of expert appointees (including conservation,
farming, and landowning interests) and local authority representatives are required to allocate
funding “according to both Government priorities, based on criteria contained in an ‘outcome
measure’ (OM) scoring system, and local priorities” (Benson, Lorenzoni, and Cook 2016, 329). This
scoring system is employed through the use of a cost–benefit analysis (Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 5

Table 1. Overview of the findings based on Hunold and Young’s (1998) principles of procedural justice.
Principle of Procedural
Justice England
1. Inclusive processes Local stakeholders are encouraged
to take responsibility for flood
preparedness and protection.
2. Fair processes which Local stakeholder involvement is
involve participants encouraged at the planning
at each stage of the stage (e.g. Neighbourhood
decision-making Plans) and required at the
process implementation stage (e.g.
Partnership Funding, personal
protection and preparedness
measures).
3. Elimination of Whether or not communities
disparities receive structural flood-defence
is decided using a cost–benefit
analysis. Partnership Funding
takes deprived areas into
account when calculating
funding.
4. Promotion of joint Local stakeholders can become
decision-making involved as long as they adhere
between participants to decision-making structures
defined by the state.
5. Influence the final Top-down planning processes
decision limit the power that some local
stakeholders have to influence
the decision (e.g. local interest
groups and individuals).
Germany
Opportunities for local
stakeholder involvement in
planning-related decisions
are provided. All those at risk
are required by law to take
measures to protect and
prepare themselves.
The extent of local stakeholder
involvement depends on the
specific project and the
power that the local
stakeholder has to influence
the decision.
Whether or not communities
receive structural flood-
defence is decided using a
cost–benefit analysis. Local
stakeholders who do not
have access to structural
measures are required to take
measures to prepare and
protect themselves.
Whether or not joint decision-
making takes place depends
on the individual project.
Conflict and the requirement
for external expertise;
particularly in regards to
nature-based solutions, were
often found to lead to joint
decision-making.
Top-down planning process
restricts the power of local
stakeholders to influence the
final decision. However,
when conflict arises, which
makes state plans impossible
or local expertise is required,
local stakeholders have the
opportunity influence the
final decision.
The Netherlands
Opportunities for local
stakeholder involvement in
planning-related decisions
are provided. Local
stakeholders who do not
have access to structural
measures are required to take
measures to prepare and
protect themselves.
The extent of local stakeholder
involvement depends on the
specific project and the
power that the local
stakeholder has to influence
the decision.
Whether or not communities
receive structural flood-
defence is decided using a
cost–benefit analysis. Local
stakeholders who do not
have access to structural
measures are required to take
measures to prepare and
protect themselves.
Whether or not joint decision-
making takes place depends
on the individual project.
Conflict and the requirement
for external expertise;
particularly in regards to
nature-based solutions, were
often found to lead to joint
decision-making.
Top-down planning processes
restrict local stakeholder
involvement in decision-
making processes. However,
when conflict arises, which
makes state plans impossible
or local expertise is required,
local stakeholders have the
opportunity influence the
final decision.

2015; Begg et al. 2017). Local stakeholders can become involved as long as they adhere to decision-
making structures defined by the state (Lorenzoni, Benson, and Cook 2016; Watson, Deeming, and
Treffeny 2009). Lorenzoni, Benson, and Cook (2016) argue that such state-led decision-making pro-
cesses are said to be restrictive due to the general lack of funding for flood-defence projects (Loren-
zoni, Benson, and Cook 2016). However, actors involved in the RFCC process argued that although
potentially difficult to fund, they were able to present their proposals for local projects, therefore
raising their profile locally and therefore potentially attracting additional funding (Lorenzoni,
Benson, and Cook 2016).
For a number of the articles reviewed, changes in flood-defence funding means that rather than
being reliant on state funding, local stakeholders are being encouraged to play a more active role in
the funding for flood-defence projects (Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross 2011; Thaler and Priest 2014;
Thaler and Levin-Keitel 2016; Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015; Geaves and Penning-Roswell 2015,
6 C. BEGG

2016). This responsibility is seen to be transferred to local stakeholders whilst the power to take
decisions remains in the hands of the state (Penning-Rowsell and Johnson 2015). Although the depri-
vation of areas at risk is taken into account within the funding methodology, Begg, Walker, and Kuh-
licke (2015) argue that this approach has the potential of strengthening or creating new
vulnerabilities for small communities in rural areas that do not have the assets to attract state
funding or the resources to contribute funding (also see Begg et al. 2017).
Some studies found that organised groups also have the opportunity to influence decisions
related to alternative non-structural measures (Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015; Ping et al.
2016; Wehn et al. 2015b). For example, organised groups can become involved in spatial planning
through Neighbourhood Planning (Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015). However, Neighbourhood
Plans will only be implemented if they fit within Local Plans and therefore the influence that
organised groups can have on the decision-making processes is questionable (Begg, Walker,
and Kuhlicke 2015). In addition, Flood Wardens (i.e. volunteers who support the Environment
Agency and local authorities by ensuring that flood warning measures reach the local commu-
nity) are also seen to exert influence by distributing information from the state to the community
and presenting local interests to the state (Ping et al. 2016; Wehn et al. 2015b). However, these
studies did not discuss the influence that such involvement on planning-related decisions can
have.
In addition, Wehn et al. (2015a) point out that considerable efforts have been made to
improve preparedness and encourage engagement in FRM through communication in order to
change perceptions of responsibility. For example, Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross (2011) argue
that attempts have been made by the Environment Agency – the Government Agency respon-
sible for FRM implementation – to empower citizens and communities to take responsibility
for preparing and protecting themselves by undertaking activities such as “interactive forums,
flooding road shows and targeted awareness-raising” (292). However, Ping et al. (2016) show
that although local stakeholders were aware of how to become involved in preparedness and
response activities, they were less certain about flood mitigation and recovery efforts. Addition-
ally, Mees et al. (2016) show that between 2009 and 2011 the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) – the lead Government Department responsible for FRM – provided £5.2
million in funding to support a property-level protection pilot scheme. In 2012 the Flood Resili-
ence Community Pathfinder scheme was introduced. £5 million was made available to authorities
in 13 communities to encourage local responsiveness and ownership of flood risk (Mees et al.
2016). Despite such support, it was found that these measures resulted in limited success in
regard to the uptake of personal measures (Mees et al. 2016). This suggests that the way respon-
sibilities are communicated by the state and perceived by local stakeholders needs to be
addressed in order to see improvements in the uptake of local stakeholder responsibility (see
Adger et al. 2016).
In sum, based on the findings of existing research, decisions related to the selection of FRM-related
measures in England are taken at the local level but are based on decision-making processes defined
at the national level. The goal of participation is stated as resilience, which sees authorities actively
attempting to involve local stakeholders in decisions related to the selection of FRM measures and
encouraging local stakeholders to take responsibility for the delivery of structural flood-defence
measures as well as for their own individual preparedness and protection. The rationale behind
the prioritisation of structural flood-defence measures is both utilitarian, as the cost–benefit analysis
aims to achieve maximum utility of taxpayers’ money, as well as egalitarian, as it aims to prioritise
areas that are most deprived (Thaler and Hartmann 2016). In addition, encouraging local stakeholders
to contribute funding for structural flood-defence measures as well as take responsibility for their
own preparedness and protection highlights a shift towards liberalist notions of social justice. As a
result of these management practices, the examples show that local stakeholder influence in the
selection of measures is limited and uptake of responsibility, particularly in regard to personal mitiga-
tion measures at the property level, is lacking.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 7

Germany
The review found that the institutional response to participation is quite different to that seen in
England. Floods have traditionally been managed in Germany through a focus on structural flood-
defence measures and based on a principle of ensuring that all residents have the same protection
level (protection against a flood with the statistically return period of 100 years) at the same time as
prioritising funding for structural flood-defence measures is distributed in such a way that ensures
the greatest benefits to all (Krieger 2013).
The introduction of FRM has resulted in a broader palate of potential measures to reduce flood
risk. Becker, Huitema, and Aerts (2015) explain that FRM is the responsibility of the states (Länder)
and a strict division of responsibilities across functional domains within the Länder have resulted
in top-down decision-making structures, which means that it is difficult to resolve conflicts
between differing interests (e.g. flood defence and land use). Despite emphasis placed on the sub-
sidiary principle (i.e. placing decision-making power at the lowest competent level of society poss-
ible), local administrative involvement in decisions was found to be only largely present at the
implementation stage of the decision-making process (Becker, Huitema, and Aerts 2015). However,
Becker, Huitema, and Aerts (2015) also note that the institutional setting allows each of the Länder
to develop individual policies which are tailored to their political configurations, problem structures
and local interests – this creates room for experimentation.
Heintz, Hagemeier-Klose, and Wagner (2012) recommend that both local government and NGOs
should be included in FRM planning in order to avoid conflict by creating space for discussions and
encouraging the development of long-term rather than short-term solutions. The authors argue,
however, that the public should not be included in planning but that intense communication is
required between decision-makers and the public about the measures that they wish to implement
(Heintz, Hagemeier-Klose, and Wagner 2012). Although it could be argued that decision-makers wish
to follow this recommendation in practice by communicating the legally required information to the
public at the final stages of the approval process for structural flood-defence measures (Becker,
Huitema, and Aerts 2015; Kuhlicke, Callsen, and Begg 2016), formally, in some Länder, local stake-
holders, including the public are invited to comment on plans for structural measures through
written consultation (Kuhlicke, Callsen, and Begg 2016; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013).
Decisions related to the prioritisation of structural flood-defence measures are made using a cost–
benefit analysis which takes four categories into account: expected damage, cost–benefit ratio of a
scheme, effects on water management and vulnerability (Socher et al. 2006). Kuhlicke, Callsen, and
Begg (2016) found in a study of participation in the planning of structural flood-defence measures
in Saxony that although local stakeholders are limited in their ability to influence decision-making,
rather than improving local stakeholder vulnerability to flood risk, opportunities to participate
provide the opportunity to transfer accountability to local stakeholders when things go wrong
(also see Begg et al. 2017). Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013) also found that some FRM plans in Baden-Würt-
temberg have been met with conflict from local stakeholders (i.e. those affected by the polder con-
struction) who were only involved in the later stages of the decision-making process during the
legally prescribed consultation processes (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). As a result, it has been argued
that public participation and awareness raising should take place at an early stage of the decision-
making process (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). However, Kuhlicke, Callsen, and Begg (2016) also found
that although decision-makers in Saxony argued that the early stages of planning should be more
inclusive, it was also believed that final decisions should remain in the hands of the state.
Decision-makers argued that individuals are not capable of making decisions based on facts and
in the interests of the “common good” (Kuhlicke, Callsen, and Begg 2016).
Despite these findings, there are examples of local stakeholder involvement in planning decisions.
Based on a case study of the Rhine River, which provided an example of decision-makers actively
involving a range of stakeholders, including the public, it was found that “transparent planning
and communication from the very beginning with all affected stakeholders sped up the
8 C. BEGG

implementation processes significantly and gained the first local agreement without court proceed-
ings” (Becker, Huitema, and Aerts 2015, 8). Specifically, Becker, Huitema, and Aerts (2015) found that
after the approval of two sites for retention polders failed due to strong local opposition in Rhineland-
Palatinate, a new approach was trialled which involved environmental NGOs, and investigated
several potential retention sites. After an open planning process which included extensive dialogue
with the public, particularly farmers, 10 retention sites were designated by the state (Becker, Huitema,
and Aerts 2015).
Therefore, in addition to being seen as something to avoid to ensure that state priorities are met,
conflict is also something that necessitates participation; particularly when it requires approval from
land owners. Participation with local stakeholders was also found in regard to the development of
nature-based solutions. For example, Pahl-Wostl et al. (2013) discuss a positive example of the invol-
vement of the NGO World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in decision-making processes in Baden-Württemberg,
which led to the combination of flood polders and nature restoration.
In addition, similar to England, in Germany, local stakeholders, particularly businesses and resi-
dents, are encouraged and required to take action to protect and prepare themselves (Mees, Dries-
sen, and Runhaar 2014; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). For example, residents are seen as being responsible
for their own preparedness and protection by law (The German Federal Water Act – WHG 2009).
Becker, Huitema, and Aerts (2015) provide a positive example of efforts to improve preparedness
through communication. At Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, the city flood authority
organised risk awareness programmes and emergency exercises. It is argued that as a result of
these efforts, within a few years, “additional retention areas, mobile flood protection, private mitiga-
tion measures, and a flood competence center, Hochwasser-Kompetenz-Centrum (HKC), became
operational” (Becker, Huitema, and Aerts 2015, 9). Bubeck et al. (2012) make a case for the effective-
ness and importance of encouraging residents to take personal measures. Begg et al. (2016) found
that there is evidence that residents have taken action to protect themselves in the states of
Saxony and Bavaria but these measures were not always successful in avoiding flood damage.
In sum, the examples from the literature on German FRM discussed here suggest that the state
continues to see itself as being responsible for planning of structural flood-defence measures. The
rationale behind such decision-making structures is utilitarian in the sense that structural flood-
defence measures are prioritised using cost–benefit analyses in order to gain the maximum utility
for taxpayer money (Thaler and Hartmann 2016). However, space for participation is provided for
such measures when conflicts make planning otherwise impossible. Participation is also found in
regard to other FRM measures such as nature-based solutions. In addition, local stakeholders such
as businesses and residents are increasingly seen by the state as responsible for their own prepared-
ness and protection. The rationale behind this responsibilisation shows the limits of the utilitarian
approach to social justice. The state acknowledges that structural defence cannot provide 100% pro-
tection against flood damage and that more needs to be done to ensure that local stakeholders are
able to cope with and adapt to flood-related impacts. A liberalist approach is adopted to mark the
boundaries of state-provided defence measures.

The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, flood frequency is low and FRM focuses heavily on structural flood-defence
measures. Such measures are perceived to be the responsibility of the state (Mees et al. 2016). There-
fore, although a discourse about the need to enhance personal responsibilities for FRM exists,
decision-makers are “reluctant to voice this in public because it does not correspond with the dom-
inating viewpoint of residents in flood-prone areas” (Mees et al. 2016, 8).
Participation with local stakeholders in regard to the selection of measures exists but, like
Germany, the review found that such efforts are project-based and experimental rather than
formal or institutional (Doorn 2016; Edelenbos et al. 2017; Wehn et al. 2015b). Wehn et al. (2015a)
state that formal processes focus on providing information and consultation rather than local
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 9

knowledge and needs. van Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos (2012) found that participation is becoming
more prevalent due to the realisation the serious impacts that projects can have on local stakeholders
and the will of local stakeholders to actively engage in such decisions. However, due to the structure
of the decision-making process and the fact that the state is ultimately in charge of the final decision,
opportunities for local stakeholder input were reduced by the end of the process (van Buuren, Klijn,
and Edelenbos 2012).
Some studies found that the interests of local stakeholders are most likely to be taken into account
if they reflect the interests of the state (Doorn 2016; Edelenbos et al. 2017). However, it was also found
that individuals can block or slow down projects and their implementation by “not cooperating”
(Wehn et al. 2015a, 2015b); particularly when projects involve landholders having to sell their land
(Roth and Winnubst 2014). Mees, Driessen, and Runhaar (2014) found, in their study of Rotterdam,
that responsibilities for FRM are shared between the state and local stakeholders due to the fact
that most land and real estate is privately owned and therefore participation between both parties
is required. However, in contrast, Fliervoet et al. (2016) found that partnerships are likely to occur
between the state, NGOs, businesses, knowledge institutions and farm associations in decisions
related to projects that focus on nature conservation and restoration rather than flood protection.
This is suggested to be because flood protection is seen to be the responsibility of the state, while
nature conservation and restoration receives more attention from NGOs and other actors (Fliervoet
et al. 2016).
In the Netherlands, cost–benefit analyses are used to make a distinction between areas that
should be protected by dikes and those outside of the dikes (Mees et al. 2016). Those who live
outside of the dikes are required to take action to protect themselves (Mees et al. 2016). There are
approximately 100,000 households located outside of the areas protected by dikes (Mees et al.
2016). There are examples of flood adaptation to building taking place (e.g. houses built on stilts)
but there is no evidence of widespread flood-resilient building led by the state (Mees et al. 2016).
Therefore, in the Netherlands, examples of participation exist in informal and experimental case-
specific settings in regard to FRM planning and in regard to decisions which are deemed to require
local stakeholder input by the state (e.g. nature-based solutions) or for decisions where they have
power to influence the outcomes (e.g. decisions that involve private land). Like the German
example above, the example of the Netherlands provided here shows that the state sees itself as
being responsible for structural measures and local stakeholders, particularly residents living
outside protected areas, as being responsible for their own preparedness and protection. Therefore,
like the two other country examples, the rationale behind the prioritisation of structural flood-
defence is utilitarian (Thaler and Hartmann 2016) and the requirement for those who are not pro-
tected to take action to prepare and protect themselves highlights the boundaries of state respon-
sibility as is an example of liberalist notions of social justice.
This section has provided some examples from the review of literature of the opportunities for
local stakeholder participation in decisions related to the selection and implementation of measures
in the three countries. The following section discusses the implications that these opportunities have
for justice and FRM.

Justice and FRM

This section assesses the findings of the review by employing Hunold and Young’s (1998) five prin-
ciples of procedural justice (see Table 1). Based on this assessment the effect that FRM based on the
rationales of utilitarian and liberal notions of social justice has on those who are most vulnerable to
flooding will be discussed.
Although the way in which local stakeholders are involved in decisions related to FRMdiffers
across the three contexts, a number of commonalities can also be seen. In most cases, the research
concludes that local stakeholder involvement is being sought in order to gain approval for decisions
and assist in the implementation of state-defined solutions, rather than providing inclusive and fair
10 C. BEGG

opportunities to participate in the definition of the solution. This highlights issues related to scale.
Decisions taken at the national (i.e. England and the Netherlands) or state level (i.e. Germany) limit
the influence that stakeholders at the local level can have on the outcome. One reason for this
may be because rather than striving to be egalitarian, the rationale behind the structures of
decision-making that are available to local stakeholders are based on utilitarian and liberal principles
of social justice. A utilitarian approach to the fair distribution of taxpayer funds is based on an “objec-
tive” and economically rationalised decision-making tool (i.e. a cost–benefit analysis). This approach
limits the influence that local stakeholders can have on decisions related to the selection of FRM
measures. Additionally, a liberalist approach places emphasis on local stakeholders taking responsi-
bility for their own preparedness and protection by highlighting the limitations in regard to state
capacity to assist those at risk and their responsibility to do so. As a result of these approaches,
local stakeholders are made responsible for the implementation of state-defined decisions. The
remainder of this section will show that placing responsibility in the hands of local stakeholders
regardless of whether they have the capacities required to take up that responsibility has an effect
on the way that risks are distributed.

Inclusive processes and fairness at each stage of the decision-making process

The review showed that local stakeholder involvement depends on how responsibilities are per-
ceived by both the state and local stakeholders. Local stakeholder involvement also depends on
whether they have the capacities required to take part in decision-making processes.
Van Buuren et al. (2012) argue that the state has long been perceived as being responsible for
FRM. It is argued that if changes in responsibility are going to occur, dialogue between the state
and local stakeholders is required in order to change their perceptions of responsibility (Geaves
and Penning-Rowsell 2016; van Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012). When local stakeholders are
made responsible without having the opportunity to discuss their role it assumes that local stake-
holders have the desire and agency to deliver state-defined goals (Butler and Pidgeon 2011).
Studies of local stakeholder perceptions also emphasise the importance of participation for
dealing with perceptions of responsibility (Adger et al. 2016; Begg et al. 2016). Adger et al. (2016)
found that if local stakeholders have a positive relationship with the state, they are more likely to
accept state interventions and take action to prepare and protect themselves. In addition, Begg
et al. (2016) found that vulnerable citizens, who have recently experienced severe flood damage
in Germany, did not feel responsible for FRM. They also did not believe that their actions can
make a difference in regard to the reduction of flood damage (Begg et al. 2016). However, they per-
ceive participation in FRM-related decision-making processes to be relevant (Begg et al. 2016).
There are examples of communication with local stakeholders about and support for taking
responsibility for personal preparedness and protection in England and Germany (Becker,
Huitema, and Aerts 2015; Mees et al. 2016; Ping et al. 2016). However, no examples of either com-
munication or financial support were found in the Netherlands by this review. Becker, Huitema,
and Aerts (2015) highlight positive outcomes in regard to implementing non-structural measures
as a result of communication between the state and local stakeholders in Germany. However, Ping
et al. (2016) show that despite communication in England, residents are unsure of how to mitigate
their risk and Mees et al. (2016) show that despite financial support, there is a lack of uptake in
responsibility. The difference between these two examples may be related to the opportunities for
participation as well as the relationship between the state and local stakeholders and the way that
responsibilities are perceived. These findings highlight the importance of developing trust and ensur-
ing a shared understanding of responsibility between the state and local stakeholders early on at the
planning and policy-making stage (also see Doorn 2016; Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016; van
Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012).
In addition to the acceptance of responsibility and the motivation to act, it is argued for local sta-
keholders to be able to take up responsibility for FRM access to resources (e.g. knowledge, funding
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 11

and networks) is also necessary (Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015; Thaler and Levin-Keitel 2016; Thaler
and Priest 2014). Although local stakeholder responsibility, self-organisation and action are seen to be
an important part of FRM, it is also often argued in the literature that it should not substitute state
action and support (Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015; Mees et al. 2016; Roth and Winnubst 2014).
In cases where social capacities are lacking, it is argued that state support is required (Begg,
Walker, and Kuhlicke 2015). Without support for the development of social capacities, there is the
risk that inequalities will occur; particularly, if all communities are expected to take responsibility
regardless of their capacity to do so. Thaler and Priest (2014) argue that “communities with higher
socioeconomic status are more likely to guarantee their interests … because of their high social
and cultural capital” (423). Similarly, Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke (2015) argue that without resources
and motivation, shifts in responsibility to the local level are unlikely to be taken up by local stake-
holders. In sum, as Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross (2011) conclude: “[w]ithout ‘engaged’ and ‘empow-
ered’ communities living with floods simply will not work” (292 original emphasis).
Thus, participation in the selection of FRM-related measures is a key part of developing shared
understandings of responsibility as we all ensuring that local stakeholders are motivated and have
the resources required to take responsibility for FRM.

Elimination of disparities
Ensuring that local stakeholders have the capacities required to take up responsibility is particularly
relevant when shifts in responsibility result in an uneven distribution. Research on social vulnerability
shows that the most deprived areas tend to be most vulnerable to flood impacts due to limited capa-
bilities to prepare for, respond to and recover from flooding (Collins and Grineski 2017; Lindley et al.
2011; Tapsell and Tunstall 2008; Walker and Burningham 2011). Although the cost–benefit analyses
employed in each context differs in terms of the factors that it takes into account, they all effectively
distribute funds in a way that produces winners and losers in terms of who receives structural flood-
defence. In England, Thaler and Priest (2014) argue that placing responsibility for funding in the
hands of local stakeholders may improve the efficiency of FRM but does little to deal with fair risk
distribution as communities that have the resources and networks are likely to receive protection,
while communities that do not have such capacities will be left out (see also Begg, Walker, and Kuh-
licke 2015, 2017). Interestingly, this finding is consistent in each country despite the differences in
opportunities to participate.
Begg, Walker, and Kuhlicke (2015) argue that, as a result rural communities in England may be
unfairly disadvantaged by decision-making processes. In Germany, Begg et al. (2017) showed that
small rural communities that have not received structural flood-defence measures also may experi-
ence a strengthening of vulnerabilities. Although in the Netherlands a high percentage of properties
enjoy protection from structural flood-defence measures, assistance for those 100,000 properties that
are not protected is potentially required. Therefore, state support for the uptake of responsibility is
required to address inequality.

Joint decision-making and influence

Although formal opportunities for participation are included in national policies in England, the
examples provided by the review show that the ability of local stakeholders to influence decisions
is limited. Whereas although local stakeholder participation is almost completely restricted in
terms of opportunities in formal planning in the Netherlands and Germany, the review found that
at the project level, in the Netherlands, local stakeholders are seen to have power, when decisions
involve private land (Roth and Winnubst 2014) or in Germany and the Netherlands where external
expertise is deemed to be required, for example, in regard to nature-based solutions such as
nature restoration (Fliervoet et al. 2016; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). One reason for this distinction
between England and the other examples is argued to be because providing a formal space for
12 C. BEGG

local stakeholder participation effectively shuts down opportunities for conflict (Swyngedouw 2009;
Welsh 2014). As a result, top-down decision-making places responsibility in the hands of local stake-
holders at the expense of providing them with the power to influence the final decision. Therefore,
flexibility and context-specific solutions defined at the project level may be more desirable than rigid
and prescriptive opportunities for participation defined at the national or state level.

Summary
This section has shown that utilitarian rationales for the prioritisation of structural flood-defence
measures and liberal rationales for the responsibilisation of local stakeholders often promote respon-
sibility at the expense of power. When local stakeholders are made responsible without effectively
gaining power and agency to fulfil these responsibilities, vulnerabilities arise or are strengthened.
This is because not everyone has the same ability to cope with and adapt to flood-related
impacts. In other words, procedural justice influences distributive justice. In order to overcome this
and improve the fairness of FRM, local stakeholders should be involved in the definition of FRM sol-
utions and should be provided with support in order to be able to assist in the implementation of
those solutions. This means that distributive justice also influences procedural justice (Schlosberg
2007). In order to be able to participate, resources need to be invested. The next section discusses
how these shifts might take place in practice.

Towards justice in FRM

Based on the findings of the literature review, local stakeholder participation in FRM does not reflect
the five principles of procedural justice put forward by Hunold and Young (1998). However, the exist-
ence of opportunities for inclusive decision-making is a first step in the right direction. To move
towards a more egalitarian approach to FRM by ensuring those who are most vulnerable are able
to prepare for and protect themselves against flood impacts, four general principles can be drawn
out of the FRM literature to provide a rough roadmap for dealing with issues of power, responsibility
and justice.
First, efforts should be made to involve local stakeholders in discussions about responsibility
which embrace conflict and aim at creating a shared understanding and acceptance of respon-
sibilities, rather than attempts at convincing local stakeholders to accept state-defined defi-
nitions of their responsibility (Rouillard et al. 2014). The uptake of local stakeholder
responsibility is likely to be limited if the state is perceived to guarantee safety against flooding
(Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016; van Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012). Therefore, local sta-
keholder participation in discussions about responsibility not only promote procedural justice
but also improve the likelihood that changes in perceptions about responsibility by both the
state and local stakeholders can take place (Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016; van Buuren,
Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012).
Second, the best place to discuss responsibilities, challenge the status quo and promote a shift
towards the selection and implementation of non-structural measures is at the beginning of the plan-
ning process (Doorn 2016; Geaves and Penning-Rowsell 2016; van Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012).
Discussions which foster shared understandings, deliberation and learning are recommended so that
local stakeholder inputs can effect change (Benson, Lorenzoni, and Cook 2016; Doorn 2016; Rouillard
et al. 2014).
Third, it is argued that there is a need to find a balance between top-down and bottom-up
approaches to improve FRM (Doorn 2016; Fliervoet et al. 2016; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013; Roth and Win-
nubst 2014; van Buuren, Klijn, and Edelenbos 2012). It is generally accepted that although the state
should be responsible for distributing funding, support which allows for flexibility and context-
specific solutions are recommended (Doorn 2016; Nye, Tapsell, and Twigger-Ross 2011; Pahl-Wostl
et al. 2013).
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 13

Finally, in order to ensure that local stakeholders are able to contribute to FRM, state support for
those who do not have the social capacities to become involved is required (Begg, Walker, and Kuh-
licke 2015; Mees et al. 2016; Thaler and Levin-Keitel 2016; Thaler and Priest 2014). State empower-
ment and support is essential if everyone is to have the ability to cope with and adapt to flood-
related impacts.
In sum, ensuring shared understandings of responsibility are created through early participation
and support may require state investment but without such an investment, responsibility is unlikely
to be taken up and FRM is unlikely to benefit those who are most vulnerable. In other words, without
distributive justice, which prioritises resources for participation, procedural justice, which equally
involves (potential) stakeholders is unlikely to take place. In addition, without procedural justice,
changes in FRM are unlikely to take place and the distribution of resources and risk are likely to
unfairly exclude those who are most vulnerable to flood risk.

Conclusions
This paper adds to existing discussions about justice in relation to FRM by drawing on 30 empirical
examples of local stakeholder involvement in FRM-related decisions in practice. It explores the inter-
relation between procedural and distributive justice and argues for an egalitarian approach to FRM.
Whilst acknowledging that funds are finite and shifts in responsibility to the local level could result in
the opening up of additional resources and knowledge, such benefits are not likely to be seen in all
communities. Risk distribution may become unequal as only local stakeholders with existing
capacities will be interested in becoming involved and those without capacities may be disadvan-
taged. To ensure that FRM does not disadvantage those who are most vulnerable, funding should
be organised in such a way as to provide opportunities for local stakeholders to participate in FRM
in the selection of FRM-related measures as well as opportunities to receive assistance when local
stakeholders take responsibility for the implementation of FRM measures. In addition, support is
only going to be effective if the way that responsibilities are perceived is dealt with. This means
that the state needs to be open to the discussion of alternatives to structural measures and local sta-
keholders need to accept their responsibility for the implementation of FRM measures.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Gordon Walker and Rebecca Whittle for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The
author also thanks the two anonymous reviewers for the encouraging and helpful comments that help improve the con-
tents of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Adger, W. N., T. Quinn, I. Lorenzoni, and C. Murphy. 2016. “Sharing the Pain: Perceptions of Fairness Affect Private and
Public Response to Hazards.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106 (5): 1079–1096.
Becker, G., D. Huitema, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2015. “Prescriptions for Adaptive Comanagement: The Case of Flood
Management in the German Rhine Basin.” Ecology and Society 20 (3): 1.
Begg, C., I. Callsen, C. Kuhlicke, and I. Kelman. 2017. “The Role of Local Stakeholder Participation in Flood Defence
Decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany.” International Journal of Flood Risk Management, online first.
Begg, C., M. Ueberham, T. Masson, and C. Kuhlicke. 2016. “Interactions between Citizen Responsibilization, Flood
Experience and Household Resilience: Insights from the 2013 Flood in Germany.” International Journal of Water
Resources Development 33 (4): 1–18.
Begg, C., G. Walker, and C. Kuhlicke. 2015. “Localism and Flood Risk Management in England: The Creation of New
Inequalities?” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33 (4): 685–702.
14 C. BEGG

Bell, D., and C. Carrick. 2017. “Procedural Environmental Justice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice,
edited by R. Holifield, J. Chakraborty, and G. Walker. Abingdon: Routledge.
Benson, D., I. Lorenzoni, and H. Cook. 2016. “Evaluating Social Learning in England Flood Risk Management: An
‘Individual-community Interaction’ Perspective.” Environmental Science & Policy 55: 326–334.
Bubeck, P., W. J. W. Botzen, H. Kreibich, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2012. “Long-term Development and Effectiveness of Private
Flood Mitigation Measures: An Analysis for the German Part of the River Rhine.” Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 12 (11): 3507–3518.
Bullard, R. D., and B. Wright. 2010. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim,
Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Butler, C., and N. Pidgeon. 2011. “From ‘Flood Defence’ to ‘Flood Risk Management’: Exploring Governance,
Responsibility, and Blame.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29 (3), 533–547.
Collins, T. W., and S. E. Grineski. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice, edited by R. Holifield, J.
Chakraborty, and G. Walker. Abingdon: Routledge.
Council of European Communities. 2007. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on
the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (Floods Directive) (2007/60/EC). Official Journal of the European
Communities, L288/27.
Cutter, S. L. 2006. The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe, Understanding Katrina. Perspectives
from the Social Sciences. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/.
Doorn, N. 2016. “Governance Experiments in Water Management: From Interests to Building Blocks.” Science and
Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 755–774.
Edelenbos, J., A. Van Buuren, D. Roth, and M. Winnubst. 2017. “Stakeholder Initiatives in Flood Risk Management:
Exploring the Role and Impact of Bottom-up Initiatives in Three ‘Room for the River’ Projects in the Netherlands.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60 (1): 47–66.
Fliervoet, J. M., G. W. Geerling, E. Mostert, and A. J. M. Smits. 2016. “Analyzing Collaborative Governance Through Social
Network Analysis: A Case Study of River Management Along the Waal River in The Netherlands.” Environmental
Management 57 (2): 355–367.
Geaves, L. H., and E. C. Penning-Rowsell. 2015. “‘Contractual’ and ‘cooperative’ civic engagement: The emergence and
roles of ‘flood action groups’ in England and Wales.” Ambio 44 (5): 440–451.
Geaves, L. H., and E. C. Penning-Rowsell. 2016. “Flood Risk Management as a Public or a Private Good, and the
Implications for Stakeholder Engagement.” Environmental Science & Policy 55: 281–291.
German Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetzt – WHG). 2009. Federal Law Gazette 2009. No. 51, pp. 2585 et seq.
(BGBI, I S. 2585).
Green, C., and E. C. Penning-Rowsell. 2010. “Stakeholder Engagement in Flood Risk Management.” Flood Risk Science and
Management 22: 372–385.
Hayek, F. A. 1991. The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.
Heintz, M. D., M. Hagemeier-Klose, and K. Wagner. 2012. “Towards a Risk Governance Culture in Flood Policy – Findings
from the Implementation of the ‘Floods Directive’ in Germany.” Water 4 (1): 135–156.
Hunold, C., and I. M. Young. 1998. “Justice, Democracy, and Hazardous Siting.” Political Studies 46 (1): 82–95.
Johnson, C., E. D. Penning-Rowsell, and D. Parker. 2007. “Natural and Imposed Injustices: The Challenges in Implementing
‘Fair’ Flood Risk Management Policy in England.” The Geographical Journal 173 (4): 374–390.
Krieger, K. 2013. “The Limits and Variety of Risk-based Governance: The Case of Flood Management in Germany and
England.” Regulation & Governance 7 (2): 236–257.
Kuhlicke, C., I. Callsen, and C. Begg. 2016. “Reputational Risks and Participation in Flood Risk Management and the Public
Debate about the 2013 Flood in Germany.” Environmental Science and Policy 55: 318–325.
Kuhlicke, C., A. Scolobig, S. Tapsell, A. Steinführer, and B. De Marchi. 2011. “Contextualizing Social Vulnerability: Findings
from Case Studies across Europe.” Natural Hazards 58 (2): 789–810.
Lake, R. W. 1996. “Volunteers, Nimbys, and Environmental Justice: Dilemmas of Democratic Practice.” Antipode 28 (2):
160–174.
Lindley, S., J. O’Neill, J. Kandeh, N. Lawson, R. Christian, and M. O’Neill. 2011. Climate Change, Justice and Vulnerability. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Lorenzoni, I., D. Benson, and H. Cook. 2016. “Regional Rescaling in Adaptation Governance: From Agency to Collaborative
Control in Flood Management in England.” In Climate Adaptation Governance in Cities and Regions: Theoretical
Fundamentals and Practical Evidence, edited by J. Knieling, 209–222. Chichester: John Wiley.
Maantay, J., and A. Maroko. 2009. “Mapping Urban Risk: Flood Hazards, Race, & Environmental Justice in New York.”
Applied Geography 29 (1): 111–124.
Mees, H., A. Crabbé, M. Alexander, M. Kaufmann, S. Bruzzone, L. Lévy, and J. Lewandowski. 2016. “Coproducing Flood Risk
Management Through Citizen Involvement: Insights from Cross-Country Comparison in Europe.” Ecology and Society
21 (3).
Mees, H. L., P. P. Driessen, and H. A. Runhaar. 2014. “Legitimate Adaptive Flood Risk Governance Beyond the Dikes: The
Cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam.” Regional Environmental Change 14 (2): 671–682.
Mill, J. S. 2010. Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government. Milton Keynes: Wildside Press.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 15

Montgomery, M. C., and J. Chakraborty. 2015. “Assessing the Environmental Justice Consequences of Flood Risk: A Case
Study in Miami, Florida.” Environmental Research Letters 10 (9): 095010.
Morse, R. 2008. Environmental Justice Through the Eye of Hurricane Katrina. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies, Health Policy Institute. http://70.32.93.32/sites/default/files/EnvironMorse_1.pdf.
Nye, M., S. Tapsell, and C. Twigger-Ross. 2011. “New Social Directions in UK Flood Risk Management: Moving Towards
Flood Risk Citizenship?.” Journal of Flood Risk Management 4: 288–297.
Pahl-Wostl, C., G. Becker, C. Knieper, and J. Sendzimir. 2013. “How Multilevel Societal Learning Processes Facilitate
Transformative Change: A Comparative Case Study Analysis on Flood Management.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 58.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C., and C. Johnson. 2015. “The Ebb and Flow of Power: British Flood Risk Management and the Politics
of Scale.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 62: 131–142.
Ping, N. S., U. Wehn, C. Zevenbergen, and P. van der Zaag. 2016. “Towards Two-way Flood Risk Communication: Current
Practice in a Community in the UK.” Journal of Water and Climate Change 7 (4): 651–664.
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. M. Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models
for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roth, D., and M. Winnubst. 2014. “Moving out or Living on a Mound? Jointly Planning a Dutch Flood Adaptation Project.”
Land Use Policy 41: 233–245.
Rouillard, J. J., A. D. Reeves, K. V. Heal, and T. Ball. 2014. “The Role of Public Participation in Encouraging Changes in Rural
Land Use to Reduce Flood Risk.” Land Use Policy 38: 637–645.
Sanchez, T. W., and M. Brenman. 2008. “Transportation Equity and Environmental Justice: Lessons from Hurricane
Katrina.” Environmental Justice 1 (2): 73–80.
Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shively, D. 2017. “Flood Risk Management in the USA: Implications of National Flood Insurance Program Changes for
Social Justice.” Regional Environmental Change 17 (6): 1663–1672.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 2002. Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Socher, M., H.-U. Sieber, G. Müller, and P. Wundrak. 2006. “Verfahren zur landesweiten Priorisierung von
Hochwasserschutzmaßnahmen in Sachsen.” [Procedures for the nationwide prioritization of flood protection
measures in Saxony]. Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung 50 (3): 123–130.
Swyngedouw, E. 2009. “The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental
Production.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (3): 601–620.
Tapsell, S., S. McCarthy, H. Faulkner, and M. Alexander. 2010. Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. State of the art report
from CapHaz-Net’s WP4. London: Middlesex University.
Tapsell, S. M., and S. M. Tunstall. 2008. “‘I Wish I’d Never Heard of Banbury’: The Relationship between ‘Place’ and the
Health Impacts from Flooding.” Health & Place 14 (2): 133–154.
Thaler, T., and T. Hartmann. 2016. “Justice and Flood Risk Management: Reflecting on Different Approaches to Distribute
and Allocate Flood Risk Management in Europe.” Natural Hazards 83 (1): 129–147.
Thaler, T., and M. Levin-Keitel. 2016. “Multi-level Stakeholder Engagement in Flood Risk Management – A Question of
Roles and Power: Lessons from England.” Environmental Science & Policy 55: 292–301.
Thaler, T., and S. Priest. 2014. “Partnership Funding in Flood Risk Management: New Localism Debate and Policy in
England.” Area 46 (4): 418–425.
van Buuren, A., E. H. Klijn, and J. Edelenbos. 2012. “Democratic Legitimacy of New Forms of Water Management in the
Netherlands.” International Journal of Water Resources Development 28 (4): 629–645.
van Gigch, J. P. 2008. “The Ethics of Governance Projects: Ethics in Personal and Public Lives.” Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 25 (2): 151–156.
Walker, G. 2012. Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Walker, G., and K. Burningham. 2011. “Flood Risk, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice: Evidence and Evaluation of
Inequality in a UK Context.” Critical Social Policy 31: 216–240.
Walker, G., R. Whittle, W. Medd, and N. Watson. 2010. Risk Governance and Natural Hazards. WP 2, CapHaz-Net. Lancaster:
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University.
Watson, N., H. Deeming, and R. Treffeny. 2009. “Beyond Bureaucracy? Assessing Institutional Change in the Governance
of Water in England.” Water Alternatives 2: 448–460.
Wehn, U., S. McCarthy, V. Lanfranchi, and S. Tapsell. 2015b. “Citizen Observatories as Facilitators of Change in Water
Governance? Experiences from Three European Cases.” Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ) 14
(9): 2083–2086.
Wehn, U., M. Rusca, J. Evers, and V. Lanfranchi. 2015a. “Participation in Flood Risk Management and the Potential of
Citizen Observatories: A Governance Analysis.” Environmental Science & Policy 48: 225–236.
Welsh, M. 2014. “Resilience and Responsibility: Governing Uncertainty in a Complex World.” The Geographical Journal 180
(1): 15–26.
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Pengaruh Keanekaragaman Manajemen Terhadap Luas

Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan
Agus Nisfur Romdioni1 Ade Sri Ulita 2

1Jurusan Akuntansi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis

Universitas Musamus, Indonesia
Email: romdioni_feb@unmus.ac.id

2Jurusan Akuntansi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis

Universitas Informatika dan Bisnis Indonesia
Email:adesriulita@gmail.com

Abstrak: Penelitian ini menguji keragaman manajemen dalam pengungkapan

tanggungjawab sosial perusahaan. Keragaman Manajemen diukur berdasarkan
keragaman gender dan keragaman kebangsaan.Populasi dalam penelitian ini
laporan perusahaan pertambangan yang listing pada Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun
2013-2015 Sampel yang digunakan 15 perusahaan berdasarkan metode purposive
sampling. Analisa data memakai analisis regresi berganda dengan bantuan alat
analisis SPSS. Hasil uji analisis menunjukkan bahwa keragaman gender dan
keragaman orang asing di dewan komisaris dan manajer mempengaruhi tingkat
pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan.Artikel ini menawarkan
implikasi penting bagi perusahaan harus memperhatikan proporsi keragaman
manajemen agar menghasilkan keputusan yang baik sehingga perusahaan dapat
melaporkan dan melaksanakan program CSR secara berkesinambungan dan
berkala.
Kata kunci: Gender, Kebangsaaan, keragaman, CSR

Abstract: This study examines the diversity of management in the disclosure of

corporate social responsibility. Management diversity is measured based on gender
diversity and national diversity. The population in this study reports mining companies
listing on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2013-2015 The sample used by 15 companies
is based on the purposive sampling method. Data analysis uses multiple regression
analysis with the help of SPSS analysis tools. The results of the analysis test show that
gender diversity and diversity of foreigners on the board of commissioners and managers
influence the level of corporate social responsibility disclosure. This article offers
important implications for companies to pay attention to the proportion of management
diversity in order to produce good decisions so that companies can report and implement
CSR programs on an ongoing and periodic basis.
Keywords: CSR, gender, nationality, diversity

©copyright 2019 FEB Universitas Musamus

Under the license MAJ

108
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Pendahuluan
Masalah tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan di negara Indonesia muncul
sebagai topik yang kerap dibahas pada beberapa waktu. CSR diera ini dikenal
publik dalam respons perusahaan terhadap lingkungan masyarakat. Perusahaan
berupaya akan membuat citra yang apik pada masyarakat melalui kewajiban
lingkungan atau tanggung jawab sosial. Istilah tanggung jawab sosial
perusahaan di Indonesia telah menjadi semakin umum semenjak tahun 1990 dan
mulai berkembang sekitar tahun 2005, sementara di negara lain telah
menerapkan dan menerapkan tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan pada tahun
1980. Aktivitas sosial perusahaan (CSA) dilaksanakan oleh perusahaan di
Indonesia.Faktanya, CSA mirip dengan konsep tanggung jawab sosial
perusahaan, yang mewakili karakter perusahaan dan peran serta perhatiannya
terhadap masalah lingkungan dan sosial. Memakairancangan investasi sosial
perusahaan, Kementerian Sosial didirikan mulai tahun 2003 menjadi lembaga
pemerintah yang bekerja untuk mengembangkan konsep tanggung jawab sosial
perusahaan serta advokasi bagi masyarakat perusahaan nasional.
Ketika kesadaran masyarakat tentang lingkungan berkembang, perusahaan
bukan hanya harus mengejar keuntungan namun juga bersaing untuk tanggung
jawab sosial. Diharapkan bahwa perusahaan, dengan citra perusahaan yang
apik, akan mampu mempertahankan lebih banyak pelanggan dalam kepedulian
lingkungan dan pada akhirnya meningkatkan laba perusahaan. Di Indonesia,
konsep Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (CSR) diatur oleh Undang-Undang
Republik Indonesia No. 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Dokumen
tersebut menjelaskan bahwa tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan merupakan
komitmen perusahaan untuk berpartisipasi pada pengembangan ekonomi
berkelanjutan yang mengarah pada peningkatan derajat hidup serta lingkungan
yang mendukung bagi perusahaan itu sendiri dan masyarakat secara
keseluruhan.
Meskipun peraturan diumumkan secara resmi, sebagian besar permintaan
CSR yang diungkapkan oleh Badjuri (2011) di Indonesia sangat bergantung pada
manajemen puncak perusahaan.Ini berarti kepatuhan terhadap pedoman CSR
tidak selalu mencerminkan visi dan misi perusahaan. Jika tata kelola perusahaan
memiliki kesadaran etika yang tinggi, perusahaan kemungkinan akan
menerapkan kebijakan CSR yang sesuai. Di sisi lain, kebijakan CSR hanya
bersifat dekoratif ketika kepemimpinan semata-mata berfokus pada kepuasan
pemegang saham (produktivitas tinggi, laba tinggi, nilai ekuitas tinggi) dan
kinerja pribadi.
Tripel bottom line adalah jantung dari konsep CSR. Perusahaan dapat terus
bekerja dengan menerapkan pendekatan triple bottom pada tiga aspek:
keuntungan, komitmen terhadap kesejahteraan manusia dan perlindungan
lingkungan. Perusahaan mengungkapkan langkah-langkah CSR kepada
pemangku kepentingan dalam laporan keberlanjutannya.Laporan Keberlanjutan
Perusahaan memberikan pandangan yang adil dan tidak memihak tentang
kinerja keberlanjutan lembaga atau perusahaan pelapor, termasuk kontribusi
positif dan negatif yang telah dibuat selama periode tertentu (sari, 2014).

109
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Standar atau kebijakan yang digunakan perusahaan untuk melaporkan

kegiatan mereka dan keberlanjutannya adalah Global Reporting Initiatives
(GRI).GRI mengklasifikasi prinsip-prinsip konten laporan dan memastikan
kualitas informasi yang terkandung dalam laporan keberlanjutan perusahaan.
Pembentukan kerangka kerja pelaporan yang diatur oleh GRI membagi enam
aspek laporan, yang masing-masing mencakup catatan indikator
pekerjaan.Keenam aspek atau indikator adalah indikator kinerja ekonomi,
kinerja lingkungan, kinerja praktik kerja, lingkungan kerja, kinerja hak asasi
manusia, kinerja masyarakat, dan kinerja tanggung jawab produk (Sari, 2014).
Masalah lingkungan dan sosial yang tidak dikelola dan dimaksimalkan oleh
perusahaan memiliki dampak yang signifikan, dan bahkan tujuan mendapatkan
keuntungan bisnis menjadi pengganda kerugian secara dramatis untuk
bisnis.Sebagai contoh, kehadiran perusahaan pertambangan dalam melakukan
kegiatan produksi sejauh ini terkait erat dengan konflik yang sedang
berlangsung dengan masyarakat sekitar, terkait dengan pelanggaran umum,
ketidaksetaraan sosial dan ganti rugi tanah.Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini
menguji apakah keragaman manajemen perusahaan mempengaruhi luas
pengungkapan CSR.
Ararat et al. (2010) Jelaskan definisi keanekaragaman manajemen sebagai
distribusi perbedaan antara anggota Dewan dan manajer mengenai karakteristik
perbedaan dalam setiap pendapat.Rovers (2010) juga menggambarkan
keanekaragaman dewan dan manajer dalam konteks tata kelola perusahaan
sebagai kombinasi dewan dan komisaris, dan kombinasi kualitas dan
karakteristik yang berbeda antara anggota dewan dan komisaris.
Dalam penelitian lain, keragaman yang lebih besar dari anggota Dewan dan
komisaris dapat menyebabkan alternatif dalam menyelesaikan masalah yang
sama sekali berbeda dibandingkan dengan anggota Dewan dan Komisaris yang
homogen (Kusumastuti et al., 2006). Selain itu, keragaman Direksi dan Komisaris
berikan kaistimewaan khusus perusahaan serta menambah nilai pada pemegang
saham. Williams dan O'Reilly (1998) menunjukkan keragaman manajemen yang
besar akan mengarah pada pendekatan kebijaksanaan dan kebijaksanaan yang
lebih bervariasi dan memperkaya pengetahuan, gagasan serta penghampiran
yang tersuguh untuk dewan serta manajer. Alhasil itu akan menumbuhkan
mutu hasil yang kompleks.
Direktur dan komisaris menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan menawarkan hak
dan peluang yang sama bagi semua dan tidak membeda-bedakan. Dapatkan
pemahaman yang mendalam tentang pasar serta pelanggan perusahaan, yang
akhirnya mengarah pada peningkatan legitimasi serta apresiasi perusahaan
(Rovers, 2010).Kusumastuti et al (2006) menemukan bahwa wanita sangat
berhati-hati dan lebih berhati-hati dan menghindari risiko dibandingkan dengan
pria.Ini adalah posisi wanita yang tidak terburu-buru mengambil
keputusan.Kehadiran wanita di Dewan dan manajer karenanya harus membantu
untuk membuat pertimbangan yang makin cermat serta memilih tingkat efek
yang makin rendah.Secara umum, perempuan memiliki pengetahuan dan
gagasan yang lebih terperinci mengenai analisis pengambilan keputusan.Wanita
condong menguraikan kejadian sebelum melahirkan serta mengelola keputusan

110
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

demi mempertimbangkan problem dan solusi subtitusi dengan cermat dan

aman.
Ada studi empiris wanita di Dewan Komisaris dan manajer tentang nilai
perusahaan yang menunjukkan hubungan positif (Ararat et al., 2010, Rovers,
2010).Studi oleh Carter et al (2007) menemukan korelasi positif antara keragaman
gender dan kemampuan perusahaan. Kemampuan yang apik akan memotivasi
perusahaan demi makin memanfaatkan kegiatan CSR serta pengungkapan.
Nalika (2009), Bernardi dan Threadgill (2010) telah menunjukkan dalam studinya
bahwa jumlah anggota dewan dan direktur memiliki dampak positif pada
perilaku sosial perusahaan.
Pejabat asing di dewan direksi dan manajer memberikan pendapat,
pandangan, kepercayaan, keyakinan serta pengalaman kerja yang berlainan dari
suatu negara ke Negara yang berlainan. Selain itu, kehadiran dewan serta
komisaris asing memiliki ide yang terpaut tentang peran dewan direksi dalam
kaitannya dengan fungsi pengawasan ketika mereka datang dari negara-negara
atas hak pemegang saham mayoritas (Ararat et al., 2010). Studi oleh Oxelheim
dan Randoy (2001) menunjukkan kehadiran Dewan Komisaris dan Direktur
asing menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan sudah memulai sistem globalisasi serta
peralihan informasi didalam jaringan internasional.
Kehadiran dewan direksi serta komisaris asing pada nilai perusahaan
memiliki dampak positif, seperti dikatakan Oxelheim dan Randoy (2001), Carter
et al. (2007), Marimuthu (2008), Ararat et al. (2010). Kehadiran mereka berfungsi
sebagai dasar untuk pendapat, bahasa, pandangan, kepercayaan yang berbeda
serta pengalaman kopetensi yang meningkatkan pengetahuan bisnis dan
alternatif untuk memecahkan masalah yang kompleks.Kehadiran direktur asing
juga dapat memastikan investor asing bahwa perusahaan dijalankan secara
profesional.Kehadiran anggota dewan kewarganegaraan asing menunjukkan
bahwa perusahaan telah menerapkan sistem globalisasi serta perputaran
informasi dalam jaringan internasional.Kinerja yang baik cenderung
meningkatkan pengungkapan perusahaan.Kehadiran komisaris dan manajer
asing juga dapat menyebabkan pengungkapan untuk meningkatkan kredibilitas
perusahaan (Oxelheim dan Randoy, 2001).Hasil studi empiris yang telah
dilakukanhanya mengaitkan diversitas pengurus dengan nilai perusahan,
namun belum mengaitkan dengan luas pengungkapan CSR.Selain itu juga, luas
pengungkapan CSR yang wajib dilakukan perusahaan ditentukan secara
eksplisit, memotivasi untuk dilakukannya penelitian ini. Sehingga hipotesis
dalam penelitian ini adalah:
H1: Gender berpengaruh positif terhadap luas pengungkapan CSR
H2: Keragaman Kebangsaan berpengaruh positif terhadap luas
pengungkapan CSR.

Metode
Dalam penelitian ini, data kuantitatif digunakan sebagai data sekunder yaitu
laporan perusahaan yang terdaftar di bursa efek Indonesia. Variabel yang
digunakan untuk keragaman manajerial termasuk gender dan kewarganegaraan
serta variabel tentang pengungkapan CSR. Dampak keanekaragaman manajerial
pada CSR diperiksa menggunakan analisis regresi linier. Maka hasil uji regresi

111
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

akan menjadi dasar untuk kesimpulan. Populasi penelitian ini perusahaan

terdaftar di pasar saham Indonesia dari 2013 hingga 2015 di sektor
pertambangan. Sampel penelitian didasarkan pada kriteria pengambilan sampel
berikut: 1) laporan perusahaan pertambangan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia (BEI). Secara teratur menerbitkan informasi tentang laporan tahunan
untuk periode 2013-2015, serta laporan tentang aktivitas sosial perusahaan, 2)
Laporan Tahunan 2013-2015 yang berisi informasi tentang gender, kebangsaan,
anggota komite dan manajer.
Mengukur keragaman Komisaris dan Dewan didasarkan pada dua kriteria:
proporsi perempuan di dewan dan kehadiran pemimpin asing. Variabel
Keberagaman gender wanita di lihat dari perbandingan antara jumlah anggota
wanita terhadap seluruh jumlah anggota dewan komisaris dan direksi. Variabel
Keberagaman manajer asing dilihat dari perbandingan antara jumlah anggota
asing terhadap jumlah seluruh anggota dewan komisaris dan direksi.
Eksposur CSR diukur dengan indeks Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
Informasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (CSR) dibagi kedalam enam
kategori sesuai dengan GRI: Energi, Kesehatan, Lingkungan dan Keselamatan
Kerja dan Kelompok Kerja, Komitmen dan Produk Lainnya. Setiap bagian terdiri
dari bermacam item, sehingga Setiap item dalam kategori menerima skor 1.
Desain analisa data memakai analisis regresi berganda dengan alat analisis
SPSS digunakan selama melihatdampak keragaman manajemen pada skala
deteksi CSR menggunakan bentuk persamaan regresi sebagai berikut:
CSR = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + e
Ket:
CSR : Indeks Corporate Social Responsibility
a : koefisien konstanta
b1 : Koefisien regresi X1
b2 : Koefisien regresi X2
X1 : Gender
X2 : Kebangsaan Asing (KESING)
e : Error

Hasil dan Pembahasan

Uji Normalitas
Pengujian normalitas secara statistik dapat dilihat dengan gambar grafik P-P
Plot. Berdasarkan grafik P-P Plot sebagaimana pada gambar 1 terlihat bahwa
titik-titik standardize residual mengikuti pola garis normal, sehingga dapat
dikatakan bahwa data berdistribusi normal.

Gambar 1.

112
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Normal P-Plot

Heterokedastisitas
Uji heterokedastisitas menunjukkan bahwa variansi variabel tidak sama
untuk semua pengamatan. Model regresi yang baik adalah yang
homokedastisitas atau tidak terjadi heterokedastisitas.Analisis grafik
Scatterplots untuk memprediksi ada tidaknya heteroskedastisitas pada
suatu model dapat dilihat dari pola gambar scatterplot model tersebut.
Hasil grafik scatterplots pada penelitian ini sebagaimana yang disajikan
pada gambar 2 menunjukkan bahwa titik-titik menyebar di atas dan di
bawah angka 0 (nol) pada sumbu y, atau dengan kata lain sebaran titik-
titik tersebut tidak membentuk pola tertentu. Hasil ini berarti bahwa tidak
terjadi heterokedastisitas.

Gambar 2. Scatterplot

Hasil pengujian regresi berganda dapat dilihat pada tabel berikut.

Tabel. 1. Hasil uji regresi berganda
Variable Koefisien Sig Keterangan
Konstanta ,671
Gender ,773 ,000 Signifikan
KESING ,550 ,052 Signifikan

α = 5% = 0,05
R square = 0,328

Nilai koefisien determinasi R square pada hasil pengujian di atas

menunjukkan nilai 0,328 atau 32,8%. Hasil ini mengindikasikan bahwa luas
pengungkapan CSR dipengaruhi sebesar 32,8% oleh keberagaman Gender dan
keragaman kebangsaan. Adapun sisanya sebesar 67,2% dipengaruhi oleh
variabel lain di luar variabel yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini. Hasil uji tersebut
membuktikan bahwa Gender berpengaruh signifikan terhadap luas
pengungkapan CSR dengan angka signifikansi sebesar 0,000, sedangkan

113
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

keragaman kebangsaan berpengaruh signifikan terhadap luas pengungkapan

CSR dengan angka signifikansi sebesar 0,052.
Hasil pengujian menunjukkan gender berpengaruh positif terhadap luas
pengungkapan CSR. Perusahaan yang diwakili Dewan Komisaris Perempuan
dan beberapa manajer menawarkan pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial
perusahaan yang lebih besar.Representasi perempuan di perusahaan
menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan tidak membeda-bedakan sedemikian rupa
sehingga memberi setiap orang pengetahuan yang luas tentang pasar serta
pelanggan dan juga membuat peluang untuk menaikan citra
perusahaan.Proporsi perempuan juga termasuk dalam Dewan Komisaris dan
Direksi. Sebagian besar wanita berbagi perasaan mereka dengan orang lain dan
dirancang untuk membantu perusahaan meningkatkan dan mematuhi norma
dan nilai sosial.
Hal tersebut senada seperti yang dikatakan oleh Kusumastuti et al. (2006)
dan Rovers (2010) bahwa memiliki anggota perempuan di dewan komisaris dan
direksi akan memfasilitasi kerja tim, dengan meningkatnya penyebaran dan
menawarkan sudut pandang yang kian beragam untuk membuat keputusan
yang kian apik. Solusi yang kian apik pada hasilnya memengaruhi pertumbuhan
dan kemampuan bisnis.
Proporsi gender akan sangat mempengaruhi citra perusahaan dimata
stakeholder. Mengutip penelitian Seierstad et al (2017) peran wanita dalam
dewan manajemen adalah sangat penting, hal ini disebabkan karena alasan
keadilan. Alasan ini berfokus pada adanya kesetaraan gender antara dewan
wanita dan dewan laki-laki. Sehingga dengan demikian citra perusahaan
menjadi lebih baik dimata stakeholder.
Seperti halnya penelitian yang dilakukan oleh Manita et al., 2018)keberadaan
jumlah wanita dalam dewan dua, tiga atau lebih cenderung akan
mengungkapkan laporan sukarela lebih tinggi, hal ini dikarenakan adanya
pengaruh feminism yang lebih menyukai transparansi, keterbukaan dan
komitmen terhadap corporate social responsibility. Jadi, ketika dua atau lebih
wanita terlibat dalam pengambilan keputusan yang strategis, mereka akan
bertindak sebagai minoritas aktif, dapat mempengaruhi peraturan, prosedur dan
praktik.
Keberadaan wanita juga dalam dewan direksi komisari akan dapat
meningkatkan kinerja yang berkelanjutan serta adanya sustainability committee
memainkan peran positif yang substansial dalam meningkatkan kinerja
lingkungan dan social, serta memiliki efek langsung dan terukur pada praktik
kelestarian lingkungan perusahaan. Kassinis,et al (2016) dan Hussain & Rigoni,
(2018).
Hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa kehadiran Dewan Komisaris
serta manajer asing dapat mempengaruhi kualitas pengungkapan
CSR.Kehadiran komisaris dan manajer asing dapat meyakinkan investor asing
bahwa perusahaan dijalankan secara profesional dan menawarkan solusi
alternatif untuk masalah yang lebih kompleks.Dengan kehadiran komisaris dan
manajer asing juga dapat menyebabkan pengungkapan untuk meningkatkan
kredibilitas perusahaan.

114
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Hasil ini singkron atas studiOxelheim dan Rando (2001), Carter et al. (2007),
Marimuthu (2008), Ararat et al. (2010) dan Rahindayati et al (2015). Kehadiran
komisaris dan manajer asing juga menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan sudah
melakukan proses globalisasi serta pertukaran informasi dalam jaringan /
hubungan internasional (Oxelheim dan Randoy, 2001).
Seperti yang disampaikan Buengeler dan Hartog (2015) menunjukan bahwa
keragaman nasional secara positif terkait dengan kinerja tim sehingga
manajemen dapat bertindak secara berkeadilan. Keragaman dewan juga
hadirmemberikan pendapat dan keahlian mereka yang dapat membantu dan
meningkatkan kinerja (aggarwal et al, 2015).

Kesimpulan
Tujuan dari studi ini yakni untuk memeriksa keragaman manajemen di
bidang pengungkapan CSR.Keragaman manajerdidefinisikan oleh dua kriteria,
yaitu gender dan keanekaragaman kebangsaan. Hasil tes menunjukkan bahwa
gender dan keragaman kebangsaan memiliki dampak positif pada
pengungkapan CSR. Adapun keterbatasan memengaruhi hasil studi serta perlu
menjadi bahan pengembangan atas studi selanjutnya, disarankan kedepan untuk
menambahkan emitem perusahaan dibidang lain dan menambahkan variabel
yang lain untuk dianalisis yang mempengaruhi luas pengungkapan CSR.Hasil
ini menawarkan implikasi penting bagi perusahaan harus memperhatikan
proporsi keragaman manajemen agar menghasilkan keputusan yang baik
sehingga perusahaan dapat melaporkan dan melaksanakan program CSR secara
berkesinambungan dan berkala.

Daftar Pustaka
Ararat, Melsa., Mine Aksu, and Ayse T. Cetin. 2010. Impact of Board Diversity on
Boards’ Monitoring Intensity and Firm Performance: Evidence from the Istambul
Stock Exchange. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1572283.
Aggarwal.R., jindal. V., and seth. R .2015 . Board diversity and firm performance:
The role of business group affiliation. International Business Review xxx
(xxxx) xxxx
Badjuri, Achmad .2011, Faktor-Faktor Fundamental, Mekanisme Coorporate
Governance, Pengungkapan Coorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Perusahaan
Manufaktur Dan Sumber Daya Alam Di Indonesia. Dinamika Keuangan dan
Perbankan, Mei 2011, Hal: 38 – 54. Vol. 3, No. 1.
Bernardi, R.; Threadgill, V. .2010.Women Directors and Corporate Social
Responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization
Studies, 15(2), pp. 15-21.
Buengeler, C and Hartog, D.N.D . 2015. National diversity and team
performance: the moderating role of interactional justice climate. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 26, No. 6, 831–
855
Carter, Frank D’Souza, Betty J. Simkims, and W.G. Simpson. 2007. The Diversity
of Corporate Board Committees and Financial Performance.Available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1106698.

115
Musamus Accounting Journal
2019: 1(2), 108-116
http://ejournal.unmus.ac.id
doi: 10.35724
ISSN: 2623-0577 (Print); ISSN: 2656-7105 (Online)

Hussain, N., & Rigoni, U . 2018. Corporate Governance and Sustainability

Performance : Analysis of Triple Bottom Line Performance, 411–432.
Kassinis, G., Panayiotou, A., Dimou, A., & Katsifaraki, G .2016. Gender and
Environmental Sustainability: A Longitudinal Analysis. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6), 399–412.
Kusumastuti, S, Supatmi, dan P Sastra. 2006. Pengaruh Board Diversity terhadap
Nilai Perusahaan dalam Perspektif Corporate Governance. Jurnal Ekonomi
Akuntansi-Universitas Kristen Petra.
Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L . 2018. Board gender diversity
and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting
Research, 19(2), 206–224.
Marimuthu, Maran. 2008. Ethnic Diversity on Boards of Directors and Its Implications
on Firm Financial Performance. The Journal of International Social Research.
Vol. 1(4): 431-445.
Nalikka, A. 2009.Impact of Gender Diversity on Voluntary Disclosure in Annual
Reports.Accounting & Taxation.Vol. 1, No. 1.
Oxelheim, Lars and Trond Randoy. 2001. The Impact of Foreign Board Membership
on Firm Value. Journal of Banking and Finance. Working Papers No. 567.
Rahindayati, N M.,Ramantha, I W, dan Rasmini, N K., .2015.Pengaruh Diversitas
Pengurus Pada Luas Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility Perusahaan
Sektor Keuangan Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia.E-Jurnal Ekonomi dan
Bisnis Universitas Udayana 4.05 (2015) : 312-330
Rovers, Mijntje L. 2010.Female Directors on Corporate Boards Provide Legitimacy to A
Company. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1411693.
Sari, Nuraini .2014.Analisis Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility
Berdasarkan Global Reporting Initiatives (Gri): Studi Kasus Perusahaan Tambang
Batubara Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk Dan Timah (Persero) Tbk.BINUS BUSINESS
REVIEW Vol. 5 No. 2 November 2014: 527-536.
Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M., & Huse, M. .2017. Increasing
the Number of Women on Boards:The Role of Actors and Processes.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2), 289–315.
Williams, K.Y., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1998. Demography and Diversity in
Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Research in Organizational
Behavior. No. 20: 77-140.

116