Tatakelola (governance) Global dan Tanggung jawab Korporasi

Questions : Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan tatakelola global dan tanggung jawab
korporasi?

Mengapa kedua konsep ini penting dalam politik global kontemporer?

Proliferasi aktor non-negara khususnya di sektor bisnis seperti hadirnya korporasi

transnasional dan perusahaan multinasional menjadi krusial untuk dikerahkan oleh

komunitas

internasional dalam tata kelola global. Hal ini dilakukan dengan mendukung praktek
mereka,

mengakui peran penting yang dibawa oleh mereka dalam sektor swasta dan
pemenuhan

kebutuhan masyarakat global. Proses tersebut dilaksanakan dengan memberi tiap

perusahaan

kewajiban Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR sebagai bentuk Corporate

Responsibility, Menurut Soederberg (2006), CSR merupakan kesempatan bagi sebuah

perusahaan untuk menunjukkan sisi kemanusiaan dari bisnis. CSR merujuk pada
hubungan

antara perusahaan dan stakeholders, seperti para karyawan, pemegang saham,

kreditor,

shareholder, masyarakat luas, lingkungan, dan lainnya, di mana terdapat komitmen

bisnis

untuk beretika dan berkontribusi dalam pembangunan ekonomi dan meningkatkan

kualitas

hidup para pekerja beserta keluarganya, serta komunitas lokal dan masyarakat luas.
Eksistensi

CSR lalu menjadi bentuk tanggungjawab dari TNC dan MNC untuk terlibat dalam
proses global

governance.
Bentuk strategi CSR adalah Global Compact yang dianggap merepresentasikan upaya
untuk

menormalisasikan, menetralkan, dan melegitimasi, meningkatnya kekuatan TNC dalam

menguasai lingkungan dan tenaga kerja di dunia bagian Selatan. S. Soederberg

menantang

realitas yang mengklaim bahwa aktor sosial harus menerapkan agenda CSR mereka ke
dalam

kebutuhan TNC dengan memenuhi kebutuhan akan solusi berbasis pasar. Soederberg

berpendapat bahwa GC pada dasarnya adalah strategi neoliberal yang merupakan

upaya yang

sangat eksklusif dan dipimpin oleh perusahaan untuk melegitimasi dengan

mereproduksi

kekuatan sosial TNC yang berkembang di seluruh dunia, khususnya di belahan dunia
Selatan.

TNC harus dibuat untuk mengakomodasi, melalui bentuk regulasi ulang yang dipimpin
negara,

kebutuhan pekerja, investor, lingkungan, dan komunitas dari mana perusahaan

mengekstraksi

kekayaan mereka. Dengan adanya GC menciptakan kembali paradigma pembangunan

yang

dipimpin neoliberal berdasarkan premis dasar yakni kerangka kebijakan berbasis pasar
akan

dapat memberikan tingkat perlindungan sosial yang memadai saat ini yang
menghasilkan

pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Dalam pemerintahan global ini, masyarakat sebagai warga negara global dapat
menyadari

peranannya untuk mengalamatkan isu-isu kontemporer bahkan untuk bekerja sama

melalui
organisasi-organisasi tertentu dalam membantu di tingkat yang lebih luas dari lingkup
negara,

baik terkait urusan high politics maupun low politics (Birdsall, et al., 2013: 13; Lagos,
2002).

Corporate responsibility sebagai global governance menjadi panduan bagi setiap

perusahaan

untuk menjamin bahwa aktivitas bisnis yang dilakukan beretika dan bertanggung jawab.

Sifatnya yang bukan pemerintahan global (global government), implementasi komitmen

moral

perusahaan yang diadopsi dari kerangka global governance tetap perlu dikawal.
Sehingga

keberadaan multistakeholders seperti pemerintah, institusi lain, dan utamanya civil

society

diperlukan untuk mengawasi bahkan menuntut perusahaan agar mewujudkan aktivitas

bisnis

yang beretika, bertanggung jawab, dan berkontribusi positif bagi kehidupan global.

Reference

Soederberg, Susanne. 2006. "Global Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility",

in Global

Governance in Question, London: Pluto Press.

Soederberg, Susanne. 2007. "Taming Corporations or Buttressing Market-Led

Development? A

Critical Assessment of the Global Compact", Globalizations, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 500-513.

Taming a Corporation or Propping Up Market-Led Development? An Assessment

Critical of the Global Compact.

Proliferation of non-state actors, especially in the business sector such as the presence
of corporations

transnationals and multinational corporations become crucial for communities to deploy

international in global governance. This is done by supporting their practice,

recognizing the important role brought by them in the private sector and fulfillment

the needs of the global community. The process is carried out by giving each company

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations. This CSR consists of diverse

interests

different and competitive from corporate, state, local non-governmental organizations as

well as

international, and various shareholders. Through the explanation of the World Business
Council, CSR

defined as the relationship between the company and workers, creditors, and
communities, which in

in it there is a business commitment to behave according to ethics and contribute to

economic development, as well as improving the quality of life of its workforce, family

them, the local communities occupied by the company, and the community at large

(Holme and Watts in Soederberg, 2006: 53). The existence of CSR then became a
form of

responsibility of TNC and MNC to be involved in the global governance process.

The World Business Council then explained that a good CSR strategy is to

allowing the private sector to integrate economic, social, and

environmental needs of their activities within a broader scope of context within

operation of the company. Through this strategy, CSR becomes an opportunity to

showing their business imaging (Soederberg, 2006: 54). Broadly speaking, the
presence of
This CSR becomes a company's assessment both from the policies it adheres to, its
implementation,

reporting, and the accountability system it has. So the understanding of CSR is

trust that a corporation needs to be accountable to a number of stakeholders and

shareholders. Even so, criticism is present from academics described by Soederberg

in the two main strategies, the first is the Code of Conduct (the Code) which is intended

to the activities of the TNC in the southern region, established by the United Nations
Centre on

Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) in 1974. Second, the neoliberal successor to the

Code, the

modified into the Global Compact (GC), and launched by the United Nations-

Nation in 2000. The two strategies have historically contradicted widely, being

media restructuring global capitalism, and there is a dominant role of the United States

(Soederberg, 2006: 55).

Both CSR strategies are considered to represent efforts to normalize,

neutralize, and legitimize, the increasing power of the TNC in controlling the
environment and

labor in the South. The Code and GC became political reasons to appease demands

and Resistance movements (consumer boycotts and investment strikes) with the aim of

covering up TNC's violations of humanity. They then justify

against interventions made by the ruling class to preserve the reputation of

well-known corporations, so that they are facilitated to maximize profits through

exploitation

(Soederberg, 2006: 55). Along with awareness of the dominant influence of TNCs,
movements

non-blocksand groups of 77 joined forces to create UNCTAD in 1946. Through this

organization,
third world countries demand fairer terms of trade and financial development,

This is because industrialized developed countries hold firmly that the forum

for economic change needs to pass through the IMF and the World Bank, albeit
internally

both institutions became extensions of the U.S. (Soederberg, 2006: 59).

In the early 1970s, many third world countries advocated for a

codeconduct is bound to TNC to ensure investment practices that

doneadil. This is expected to increase the government's power against

company. From ECOSOC itself, they commissioned a group of people

leading to providing advice on TNCs and their impact on development.

The group recommended a permanent center for studying TNCs so that

created the UNCTC, which is responsible for collecting information, research, analysis

policy, and consensus building (Soederberg, 2006: 61). UNCTC then founded a

a code that reflects suspicion of the corporation's understanding as a 'moral person'.

So there is a paradox to the image of TNC as a moral agent because even though TNC

need to fulfill their image as a fair and caring legal entity, the desire to

doing so is based on economic factors. The reputation of a company can be

increase by doing CSR and become an essential asset that can affect

financial performance as well as providing a source of competitive advantage among

other corporations

(Soederberg, 2006: 62). Unlike the Code, GC is not a regulatory setting

But it became a voluntary corporate initiative. This is based on two objectives, namely
first,
to integrate the implementation of 10 principles, especially in the field of human rights,
standards

employment, environment, and anti-corruption, into business operations (Soederberg,

2006: 90). Second, by encouraging businesses to support UN goals, such as the SDGs.

achieving both goals, the role of the UN is needed as an authoritarian facilitator with

forcing the company to make three commitments, namely to advocate for the GC in

pernyataan laporan tahunan, Kedua, melakukan posting ke website GC terkait langkah

konkrit

dalam pemenuhan tugas secara positif. Ketiga, bergabung dengan PBB dalam proyek
kerjasama

untuk menguntungkan negara berkembang yang telah dimarjinalisasi (Soederberg,

2006: 88).

Oleh karena itu dapat disimpulkan hadirnya TNC dan MNC menjadi krusial untuk
dikerahkan

dalam tata kelola global demi pemenuhan kebutuhan masyarakat internasional. Hal ini

dipastikan oleh adanya CSR, meski begitu terdapat kontradiksi terkait CSR melalui
adanya dua

strategi yaitu the Code dan GC yang terkadang melegitimasi kegiatan TNC terdahulu
yang

melanggar HAM dan merusak lingkungan.

By transcending some of the common-sense assumptions underpinning the dominant,

mainstream framework of global governance, I have argued that the GC is not a

‘progressive

platform’ from which a broader social agenda may be grafted onto the activities of TNCs
and

their supply chains in the Third World, so as to achieve a more sustainable and
inclusive global

economy. Instead, I suggest that the Compact not only is an integral feature of
neoliberal-led
forms of global capital accumulation, but also has emerged from the contradictions
therein. One

such contradiction highlighted here is captured by a type of Polanyian double

movement. Seen

from this perspective, the GC acts to legitimize and normalize the expropriation of
labour, while

seeking to neutralize and depoliticize struggle tied to the deepening and widening forms
of

economic exploitation in the global South by powerful TNCs and their global supply
chains (see

Taylor, 2007). Aside from issues of exclusion, there are at least three significant and
interlocking

limitations to these top-down efforts aimed at forging a partnership between business

and a

variety of different social forces. First, there is an absence of hard-and-fast standards.

As long as

there are no common codes of conduct governing their reports, and no rigorous,
independent,

public audits, the information provided by these corporations is at best incomplete, or at

worst

misleading. Second, the creation of common standards is insufficient without some sort
of

formalized enforcement and penalty mechanism. The latter can only be achieved
through active state involvement—something contrary to the current neoliberal times.
Third, CSR initiatives