Guideline for the Execution and Evaluation CSR Programs of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations

October 2012

Dody Prayogo, Muhammad Irvan, Yosef Hilarius, dan Sakti Wira Yudha

LabSosio Universitas Indonesia

GUIDELINE FOR THE

EXECUTION AND

EVALUATION

CSR PROGRAMS OF MINING, OIL AND GAS CORPORATIONS

Title: Guideline for the Execution and Evaluation

CSR Programs of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations

Authors: Dody Prayogo, Muhammad Irvan, Yosef Hilarius,

dan Sakti Wira Yudha

Layout: Muhammad Irvan

Copyright © 2012 The Author Team

All right reserved

No portion of this book may be reproduced, printed, or published

without written permission of the authors

Laboratorium Sosiologi Departemen Sosiologi, Gedung C Lantai 3

Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Indonesia Depok 16424, Telp. (62-21) 786 3427, Fax. (62-21) 787 0612

E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.labsosio.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.labsosio.org

i

Guideline for the Execution and Evaluation CSR Programs

of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations

AUTHOR’S NOTES

A large body of research and publication in the disciplines of management and business for corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been published, however, sociological studies on CSR of mining, oil and gas industries in Indonesia are still lacking. Existing studies tend to give emphasis to the economic-political and local cultural dimensions in relation to the existence and activities on mining and oil/gas exploration, and do not focus on the practice of corporate social responsibility. More specifically, what is needed by CSR practitioners in the mining, oil and gas industries is a method and guideline on developing and practicing CSR activities beginning from the planning stage, through the implementation to the evaluation of the success. The specific need has yet to be fulfilled, as academicians in general have more interest and involvement in development of concepts and theories. In this book, the stakeholder that is positioned as the main target of development is the local community, and specifically the community members who are targeted as program beneficiaries. The local community is at the forefront of the impacts, both positive and negative, of the presence and activity of mining and oil/gas operations; and thus corporate social responsibility has to be directed towards them. While there are a number of other CSR stakeholders in the definition of the business and management sciences, the local community is not given emphasis as the main priority. In this guideline, the local community is returned to its position as the main stakeholder of mining, oil and gas industries CSR, and hence it becomes the main focus of the implementation and evaluation of CSR activities. Based on existing research, CSR programs for mining, oil and gas industries have to be specifically directed towards five dimensions and goals of CSR: 1) achievement of legal compliance, 2)

ii

Guideline for the Execution and Evaluation CSR Programs of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations

improvement of corporate image, 3) increasing welfare of the community, 4) improved capability of the community to develop itself, and 5) creation of social integration between the corporation and the local community. With these five main goals, the guideline for the implementation and evaluation of mining, oil and gas industries CSR activities is consistently focused. The author team would like to express their gratitude to the Directorate of Research and Community Service (DRPM) of Universitas Indonesia, which has facilitated the research and writing of this guideline. We also express our gratitude to LabSosio, Department of Sociology, Universitas Indonesia, which has assisted the field research and the process of writing the text. While there will still be a need for further improvement, the publication of the CSR guideline is expected to allow the presence and activity of mining, oil and gas corporations to co-exist with the local community, be socially integrated and mutually supporting, instead of troubling each other, much less negating each other. Depok, October 2012 The Author Team

iii



TABLE OF CONTENTS Author’s Notes .............................................................................. i Table of Contents .......................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................. iv List of Diagrams ............................................................................. iv Part 1. Introduction ................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ................................................................................. 2 Part 2. Definition of Concepts and CSR/CD Program Cycle ........ 3 1. Important Concepts and Definitions in This Guideline ............. 3 2. CSR/CD Program Cycle .............................................................. 5 Part 3. Guideline for the Execution of CSR/CD Programs ........... 7 1. Stage I: Situation Analysis ......................................................... 7 1.1. External Situation Analysis ..................................................... 7 1.2. Internal Situation Analysis...................................................... 8 2. Stage II: Planning ....................................................................... 8 3. Stage III: Implementation .......................................................... 10 3.1. Preparation ............................................................................ 10 3.2. Execution ................................................................................ 12 3.3. Monitoring ............................................................................. 13 4. Stage IV: Evaluation................................................................... 13 Part 4. Guideline for the Evaluation of CSR/CD Programs .......... 15 1. Assessment Workflow ............................................................... 15 2. Sample Size for Beneficiaries Assessment ................................ 16 3. Assessment Instrument ............................................................ 16 3.1. Guideline to Assessment by the Assessor ............................ 16 3.2. Instrument for the Assessment by Beneficiaries

(Questionnaires) ................................................................... 24 4. Weighting and Final Assessment .............................................. 32 4.1. Weighting ............................................................................... 32 4.2. Final Score .............................................................................. 32

iv


Bibliography .................................................................................. 35 Appendix 1: Q-Sheet for CSR Programs Evaluation Guideline ...... 39 Appendix 2: Explanation of Workflow and Example Assessment . 43

LIST OF TABLES AND DIAGRAMS Table 1. Index of Scores from the Assessor .................................. 24 Table 2. Index of Scores from the Beneficiaries ........................... 31 Table 3. Indicator Weight Percentage .......................................... 32 Table 4. Evaluator Weight Percentage ......................................... 32 Table 5. Final Score and Score Category Calculation

Table................................................................................ 32 Table 6. Range and Score Categories ............................................ 33

LIST OF TABLES AND DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1. CSR Program Cycle ...................................................... 6 Diagram 2. CSR Program Assessment Workflow .......................... 15

2012


PART 1 INTRODUCTION



1. Introduction In order to perform corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in an effective, efficient and sustainable manner, there is a need for an integrative guideline for guiding implementation of activities and assessment. In this guide, implementation and assessment are given equal attention, meaning that the purpose and the success rate of the main activities carried out must be judged by the same indicators. To that end, the following guideline for implementation and assessment is a unified work, being built from the same concepts, variables and indicators, so that it becomes an integrative guideline. In this guideline, the definition of "social" and "stakeholders" to the concept of CSR in sociological terms, hence the variables and indicators tend to focus on local communities. In the extractive industries, especially mining, oil and gas industries, the local community is socially the most significant stakeholder, both as impacted subjects and as subjects determining the social legitimacy of the existence and activities of the industry. Restricting and focusing the CSR stakeholders on the local communities is not to restrict the definition and scope of CSR, but to return to the position the party referred to in the concept of "social" and "primary stakeholders" in the mining, oil and gas industries. The focus and target of CSR program activities in this guideline is local communities, so the substance in the implementation and assessment of CSR becomes more comprehensive. Based on research results, all principal variables in the implementation and assessment of CSR programs for mining, oil and gas industries can be used. The variables are, in order: 1) legal aspects, namely compliance with legal regulations, 2) business aspects, the image of the corporation and its CSR practices, 3) capacity development

IntroductionPART 1

1 Guideline for the Execution and Evaluation CSR Programs


In order to perform corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in an effective, efficient and sustainable manner, there is a need for an

for guiding implementation of activities and assessment. In this guide, implementation and assessment are given equal attention, meaning that the purpose and the success rate of the main activities carried out must be judged by the same

end, the following guideline for implementation and assessment is a unified work, being built from the same concepts, variables and indicators, so that it becomes an integrative

In this guideline, the definition of "social" and "stakeholders" refer to the concept of CSR in sociological terms, hence the variables and indicators tend to focus on local communities. In the extractive

industries, the local der, both as

impacted subjects and as subjects determining the social legitimacy of the existence and activities of the industry. Restricting and focusing the CSR stakeholders on the local communities is not to

to return to the position the party referred to in the concept of "social" and "primary

The focus and target of CSR program activities in this guideline is plementation and

assessment of CSR becomes more comprehensive. Based on research results, all principal variables in the implementation and

industries can ects, namely

compliance with legal regulations, 2) business aspects, the image of the corporation and its CSR practices, 3) capacity development

2


aspect, namely an increase in the ability of communities to develop themselves; 4) economic welfare, increased welfare of CSR beneficiaries, and 5) social integration, i.e. integration or engagement between the corporation and local communities, both in the social and business aspects. In the implementation, CSR programs are sorted into 4 stages, namely: 1) situation analysis stage, the stage of assessing both internal and external conditions, 2) planning stage, planning the program based on the results of the situation analysis, 3) implementation stage, i.e. preparation, implementation and monitoring of activities, and finally, 4) assessment stage, evaluation of all activities that have been carried out. In the process, all phases are "controlled" by policies, both corporate-internal and external (established by the state). In management, the four stages is a cyclical model that puts CSR activities in a process that is inherently continuously improved. Thus, the activities of mining, oil and gas corporations’ social responsibility can be seen as a process that is socially sustainable in negating or minimizing social injustice and social inequality with regard to the presence and activity in the mining, oil and gas industries. 2. Objectives The objective of this guideline for the implementation and assessment of CSR activities in mining, oil and gas industries is that CSR practices carried out by the corporations can focus on clear and measurable social indicators based on social science standards, one of which is by incorporating the perspective of users. It should be emphasized that CSR is not simply activities to eliminate social impacts, but rather it is part of the production process. Therefore, "social responsibility" is dissimilar to "social charity". In order to "socially legitimize" mining presence and activities, CSR should be a part of the production system of mining, oil and gas industries. The ultimate goal of the implementation of CSR is to encourage the creation of socially responsible mining.

2012


PART 2 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS AND

CSR PROGRAM CYCLE



1. Important Concepts and Definitions in This Guideline In order to provide a clear and focused guideline for implementation and assessment of CSR, important concepts used in this guideline are described below: No CONCEPT DEFINITION

1 Community CSR A corporate obligation to the surrounding communities to be involved in the attempt to uphold law, improve welfare and community abilities, increase social integration and at the same time improving positive image of the corporation in the community

2 Mining classification

Oil and gas Liquid and gas mined objects that are used as sources of energy

Minerals Solid mined objects that are used as sources of energy or as raw materials in an industry

5 Community type

Heterogeneous Community consisting of people from various backgrounds: ethnicities, tribes, religions, indigenous/migrants and others

Homogeneous Community whose members share identical background (indigenous communities)

6 CSR Implementation Guideline

Guideline to implement CSR activities based on cycle stages, encompassing legal, business/image, capacity building, welfare and integration indicators

7 CSR Assessment Guideline Guideline to assess CSR activities based on cycle stages, encompassing legal, business/image, capacity building, welfare and integration indicators

8 Weight Values given to each indicator used to measure the CSR index

9 CSR Implementation Mechanism

Technical procedures used to implement corporate CSR activities

Definitions of Concepts and CSR Program CyclePART 2



In order to provide a clear and focused guideline for implementation and assessment of CSR, important concepts used in

A corporate obligation to the surrounding communities to be involved in the attempt to uphold law, improve welfare and community abilities, increase social integration and at the

time improving positive image of the

Liquid and gas mined objects that are used as

Solid mined objects that are used as sources an industry

Community consisting of people from various backgrounds: ethnicities, tribes, religions,

Community whose members share identical background (indigenous communities) Guideline to implement CSR activities based on cycle stages, encompassing legal, business/image, capacity building, welfare

Guideline to assess CSR activities based on cycle stages, encompassing legal, business/image, capacity building, welfare

Values given to each indicator used to

hnical procedures used to implement

Definitions of Concepts and CSR Program

4


No CONCEPT DEFINITION

10 CSR Assessment Mechanism Technical procedures used to perform evaluation and monitoring of corporate CSR activities

11 Instrument Tools used to measure CSR indicators in the form of questionnaire, interview and observation guidelines, etc.

12 Index Figures showing the extent of the success of CSR implementation by the corporation

13 Social Baseline Social baseline study includes the socio-cultural, demographic, and socio-economic aspects. It may also encompass other important aspects according to the needs of the corporation, such as environmental, regional economy, policy etc.

14 Social Mapping The study comprehensively describes conditions of the area and community in the structural and cultural aspects, and identify stakeholders (role, more, resource, affiliation) and identify relations between stakeholders (power, attitude, networks, etc.)

15 Need Assessment The study contains identification of the community’s needs. It can identify program areas to be given priority

16 Official “Officials” include not only those from the corporation’s main office (in Jakarta or abroad), but also local officials holding important positions (such as managers)

17 CSR Program Executive “Program executives” are people executing corporation’s CSR programs. They can be employees, vendors given authority by the corporation or community members involved in the program/assistance

18 Employee “Employees” are people directly working for the corporation, not employees of contractors or outsourced employees.

19 Stakeholder Stakeholders of corporate activities, including those influenced by and those influencing the corporation

20 Shareholder Owners of corporate shares (investors)

5



No CONCEPT DEFINITION

21 Situation analysis The stage of assessing the corporate conditions, both internal and external, to be used as basis for CSR planning formulation

22 CSR planning Planning corporate CSR programs based on the results of the situation analysis

23 CSR implementation Activities related to preparing, implementing and monitoring corporate CSR activities

24 CSR evaluation Performing evaluation/assessment of all CSR activities performed by the corporation

25 Legal indicators Indicators used to measure corporation’s legal compliance towards existing regulations. The operational indicators are attempts of the corporation to formulate documents and technical aspects used as basis for the CSR program planning and implementation. These indicators are internal to the corporation.

26 Business/image indicators Indicators used to measure CSR program feedback and relations between the corporation to the stakeholders and the corporate image

27 Capacity building indicators Indicators used to measure the level of capacity building occurring in the community as the impact of CSR program implementation

28 Welfare indicators Indicators used to measure welfare levels of the beneficiaries of corporate CSR program (micro level), not indicators of welfare at the macro level

29 Integration indicators Indicators used to measure levels of social legitimacy of the corporation as the impact of CSR program implementation

2. CSR Program Cycle Referring to the cycle proposed by Goodman and Ralph (1980) on program process flow, CSR program cycle is adapted as can be seen in the following diagram:

6


Diagram 1. CSR Program Cycle

Source: Adapted from Goodman, Louis J., Ralph M. Love. 1980.

Situation Analysis (External, Internal)

Planning Evaluation

Implementation (Preparation, Implementation, Monitoring)

2012


PART 3 GUIDELINE FOR THE EXECUTION

OF CSR PROGRAMS



This implementation guideline is intended to be a handbook for corporate CSR executives, which will be divided into clear, comprehensive, easily understandable and practical stages, on the CSR program cycle of 1) situation analysis, 2) planning, 3) implementation and 4) evaluation 1. Stage I: Situation Analysis The situation analysis stage consists of two parts, namely external and internal. External situation analysis is intended so that the corporation can understand the context of the community that becomes the stakeholder of the corporation, while internal situation analysis refers to the preparedness of the corporate management to implement CSR programs.

1.1. External Situation Analysis No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY 1 Social

mapping This study gives an overview of the condition of the area and the community, in the structural and cultural aspects, identification of stakeholders (roles, modes, resources, affiliations) and the relations between stakeholders (power, attitude, networks, etc.) in a comprehensive manner. This study can be conducted simultaneously with the needs assessment.

The condition of the area and the community in general are generally described in the social baseline study. However, social mapping provides a more detailed description of the conditions, and is complemented with the important implications for Community Development and Community Relations

Social Mapping Study Report

2 Needs assessment

This study identifies community needs and identifies priority areas of the program

Needs assessment document

Guideline for the Execution of CSR ProgramsPART 3



This implementation guideline is intended to be a handbook for corporate CSR executives, which will be divided into clear, comprehensive, easily understandable and practical stages, based on the CSR program cycle of 1) situation analysis, 2) planning, 3)

The situation analysis stage consists of two parts, namely external intended so that the

corporation can understand the context of the community that becomes the stakeholder of the corporation, while internal situation analysis refers to the preparedness of the corporate management to

OUTPUT Social Mapping Study Report

Needs assessment document

Guideline for the Execution of CSR

8


No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 3 Other

important aspects

Other issues that have not been accommodated in the three sub-stages of external situation analysis, but are important to be recorded in doing a socially friendly CSR program (paying attention to other specific local aspects)

Records of other aspects

1.2. Internal Situation Analysis No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Calculate CSR

funding capability

Internally, the initial step to be taken is to calculate CSR funding capability in relation to corporate policies/allocations. This has to be done to set program priorities, scope and scale in accordance to budgets

CSR-related internal condition analysis document

2 Calculating CSR staff capability

Number of CSR staff needs to be calculated in advance, as it will decide the form of the program implementation mechanism, whether direct or involving a third party

3 Calculating CSR organizational capability

Observing the organisational position of CSR in the corporate structure. This usually illustrates the concern of the corporation towards CSR (whether it is part of the PR division, or as an independent division). This will decide the latitude of CSR organisation in the future. If the latitude is limited, this should be considered in the program planning.

2. Stage II: Planning No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Taking note of

government programs

In program planning, existing government programs in various documents (such as results of the regency/district of village development planning deliberations/ Musrenbang) should be noted. These documents usually contain prioritised needs, and thus can be referred to so the corporation’s program can be adapted to government programs and community needs

Identification of corresponding government programs (document)

9



No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 2 Observing local

potentials Local potentials can be in the form of potentials of community organisations or social institutions in the villages that have the potential for cooperation in the program implementation, also other forms of potential such as community awareness, economic potential, natural environmental potential such as clean water etc. These potentials have to be noted and considered in the program planning (both in the form or mechanism of implementation)

Identification of local potential and important implications to the program (document)

3 Deciding focus of CSR program and scale of priorities

CSR program focus includes the following: • Infrastructure • Economy • Education • Health • Environment • Donations or other forms

The CSR program should include all these aspects, with variations in the emphasis. A corporation can have a certain program as a characteristic CSR program The program planning is formulated on a scale of priorities that reflect the budget and time scale of the implementation (short term, mid term or long term). The program focus refers to the situation analysis: a) local needs and potentials; b) government strategic plans; and c) corporate policies

CSR program design document

4 Selecting target outcomes of each CSR program

The program needs to have target outcomes to facilitate monitoring of activity progress. Example outcome targets are shown below:

• Increasing income of beneficiary families

• Increasing performance of beneficiary students

• Increasing participation of Posyandu members


10


No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT The outcome targets can also be complemented with a time limit and scope in order to make it easier for evaluators in evaluating the program

5 Selecting CSR target beneficiaries

The program plan has to include target beneficiaries. The examples are:

• Location (Ring 1, 2,or village A, village B, etc.)

• Occupation (farmers, artisans, etc.) • Gender • Age group


3. Stage III: Implementation 3.1. Preparation No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Forming the

stakeholder forum

At this stage the corporation can form a CSR forum. This forum is intended to become a vehicle for the community to deliver their aspirations (in the form of suggestions or complaints). With the forum, community complaints are no longer directed towards the corporation, because the forum can filter them. The forum consists of representatives of the:

• Corporation (PR or CSR staff) • Government (Muspika, UPTD etc.) • Community and civil society (village

representative etc.) A corporation can invite another similar corporation (mining, oil and gas) to cooperate in the formation of the forum. The CSR forum should attempt to obtain legality from the local government (district and regency levels)

• Proposal for the formation of the stakeholder

• Creation of

the CSR Forum

2 Distributing roles to each stakeholder in the forum

The forum needs clear and comprehensive explanation about 1) goals of the forum; 2) authorities and duties of the forum; 3) criterion of the caretakers; 4) duties and authorities of each position/a clear definition of roles between the

Statutes and by laws

11



No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT representatives of the government, corporation and community; 5) budgeting mechanism; 6) organisational mechanism such as changes in the caretaker etc.

3 Deciding on CSR program executives

The implementation mechanism and the executive of the program have to be decided in advance, as these will influence further activities.

• Executed by the corporation • Executed by the community • Executed by a vendor • Executed along the stakeholders

The corporation has to create in advance criteria or indicators in which a program can be executed by the corporation and which another program can be executed by the community. This can refer to the organisational potential in the community and the results of social mapping


4 Recruiting program executive staff

The number of executive staff is to be adapted to the needs of the program and mechanism of execution. The executive staff needs to have capacity and experience relevant to the programs being implemented

Qualifications of program executives (document)

5 Providing training to program executives

The program executives need to be provided with capacity building through trainings. In this case a corporation can ask for the service from a third party to provide trainings for CSR staff to provide understanding about the workflow of CSR implementation process.

Types and materials of training (document)

6 Finding opportunities of resources from partners

For certain programs (especially those with a large scope and a long term of implementation), there should be attempts to identify potential resources such as by resource matching with the government or with other neighbouring corporations.

12


No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 7 Building

communication with stakeholders

Communications with stakeholders need to be built since the preparation stage. This can be in the form of explaining the planned entry of the corporation, program socialisation plans etc. Prioritised stakeholders can refer to the results of the social mapping

3.2. Execution No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Socialisation

of CSR activities

Socialisation of activities is an important stage in the implementation of CSR. Thus, execution of the socialisation has to be prepared well. Several issues that need to be prepared are as follows:

• Level of socialization: whether socialization is done at the district level, inviting village heads and community figures, or socialisation is done at the village level with more community members invited

• Material of sozialisation: can be adapted to the segmentation of the socialisation

• Selection of time for socialization: it is better to select a certain time that does not interrupt community activities

• Executors of sozialisation: the corporation • Preparing forms for feedback resulting

from the socialization

Report on implementa-tion of socialisation and material of socialisation

2 Execution of activities

The execution of activities is adapted to the program designed in the earlier planning and preparation stages. In the execution stage, inputs and issues that arise should be talked about in the CSR forum to find resolution.

• The corporation can appoint program executive staff from the corporation

• The corporation can involve a third party as the program executive

Activity report

13



3.3. Monitoring No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Deciding on

aspects to be monitored

Monitored aspects include: 1) activity/achievement progress; 2) participation of community or other stakeholders; 3) impediments; 4) resolution steps taken

Monitoring instruments and monitoring report

4. Stage IV: Evaluation No ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY OUTPUT 1 Deciding on the

scope of the evaluation

Selecting the scope of the evaluated programs. This is adapted to the program priorities that are executed in the period to be evaluated

2 Deciding the executors of evaluation

Executives of the evaluation: 1) third party (university etc.); 2) internal (corporation)

3 Deciding aspects to be evaluated

The evaluation can refer to indicators mentioned in the earlier part of this guideline, namely:

• Compliance to the legal aspect • Impact of the program to corporate

image • Program impact to increased welfare

of the community • Program impact to the community’s

acceptance of the corporation (social integration/legitimacy)

• Program impact to empowerment (capacity building) and community participation

Evaluation instrument

4 Feedback of evaluation results to the program design

Evaluation results are used as feedback to improve the program design to become more effective and efficient in achieving the entire goals of the corporate

Evaluation results report

14


2012


PART 4 GUIDELINE FOR THE EVALUATION

OF CSR PROGRAMS



1. Assessment Workflow The evaluation of CSR program is done through two workflows that are added up together to obtain the CSR program score index. The first workflow is assessment by the Assessor, and the second workflow is assessment by beneficiaries. The workflows are as follows:

Diagram 2. CSR Program Assessment Workflow

Ass

essm

ent w

orkf

low

for b

enef

icia

ries

Decide the programs to be assessed

Decide the weight of indicators based on the weighting table

Decide the population based on CSR Data List documents and other secondary

data to be verified

Calculate the sample size Create assessment instrument

1. Interview guidelines2. Observation guidelines

Create list of informants

Distribute questionnaires

Calculate recapitulation of initial scores per indicator

Multiply initial scores for each indicator with the weighting for each

Calculate the result of the final score for the beneficiaries with the weight

for the beneficiaries (40%)

Assign scores to each indicator


Perform document verification, interview, and observation

Calculate the result of the final score for the assessor with the weight for

the assessor (60%)

Obtain the final score for each indicator

Obtain the final score for each indicator

Calculate the scores of the beneficiaries and the assessors to obtain the CSR score index

Obtain the final score category for the CSR program based on the score category table

Distribute samples proportionally based on program and location

Guideline for the Evaluation of CSR ProgramsPART 4



program is done through two workflows that program score index. The

first workflow is assessment by the Assessor, and the second workflow is assessment by beneficiaries. The workflows are as

Assessm

ent workflow

for assessors

Decide the weight of indicators based on the weighting table

List documents and other secondary

Create assessment instrument: Interview guidelines

Observation guidelines

Create list of informants

Assign scores to each indicator


Perform document verification, interview, and observation

Calculate the result of the final score for the assessor with the weight for

Obtain the final score for each

Calculate the scores of the beneficiaries and the assessors to

Obtain the final score category for the CSR program based on

Guideline for the Evaluation of CSR

16


2. Sample Size for Beneficiaries Assessment In order to evaluate the program based on the perspective of beneficiaries, the sample size to be used needs to be calculated using a standard method. The basis for the sample calculation is the number of the population to be assessed. The population size cannot always be identified, thus there are two formulas for the calculation of the sample size, one for a sample in which the population size is known, and one for a sample in which the population size is unknown. The population here is "beneficiaries of the corporate CSR program to be assessed." To calculate the sample size of a known population, the Slovin formula is used, namely: The formula used to calculate the sample size of an unknown population size is:

3. Assessment Instrument 3.1. Guideline to Assessment by the Assessor The assessment instrument to be used by the assessor includes all five indicators, namely legal, business/image, capacity building, welfare and integration.

Note: n = sample size N = population size e = % margin of error, caused by tolerable errors

during the taking of the sample

Note: Z = Z table value for the desired confidence interval

(for a value of 95%, the Z table value is 1,96) p = Proportion (0,5) d = % margin of error, caused by tolerable errors

during the taking of the sample

N 1 + Ne2 n =

Z2 p (1 – p) d2

17



a. Legal/Administrative Indicators

No Statement Verification

results Score 1) No 2) Yes

1 The corporation has a CSR vision and mission 2 The corporation has a social baseline document 3 The corporation has a document containing social

mapping

4 The corporation has a document containing needs assessment

5 The corporation has a policy to refer to government programs in formulating its CSR program strategic plans

6 The corporation has a policy to refer to local potentials in formulating its CSR program strategic plans

7 The corporation has a policy to select the focus of the CSR program in formulating its strategic plan

8 The corporation has a policy to create a scale of priorities of the CSR program in formulating its strategic plan

9 The corporation has a target of CSR program outcomes in formulating its strategic plan

10 The corporation has a target of CSR program beneficiaries in formulating its strategic plan

11 The corporation has a policy to allocate CSR budget

12 The corporation has specialised staff for CSR 13 The corporation has an internal CSR organisation 14 The corporation has an internal mechanism (SOP) of

the CSR program execution at the community that is relevant to the conditions of the local community

15 The corporation has a CSR stakeholder forum 16 The CSR stakeholder forum has a distribution of

duties/roles

17 The corporation has technical executives of the CSR program

18 The corporation has a mechanism to monitor CSR program

19 The corporation has up to date documents containing reports of CSR program monitoring

20 The corporation has a mechanism to evaluate CSR program mechanism

18


No Statement Verification

results Score 1) No 2) Yes

21 The corporation has up to date evaluation reports of the CSR program

22 The corporation has documents containing a social risk mitigation plan

Sub-total of Legal Indicators Score

b. Business/Image Indicators

No Statement Answer Categories Results of

Verification Score

1 Perception about the general image of the corporation

a. Responsive towards the needs of the local community

b. Respectful towards the culture of the local community

c. Is a part of the community d. There is a feeling of pride

about the corporation’s presence in the community

(1) Does not fulfil one aspect

(2) Fulfils 1 aspect (3) Fulfils 2 aspects (4) Fulfils 3 aspects (5) Fulfils 4 aspects

2 Perception about the CSR programs in general

a. In general is open to all community members

b. In general involves the community in all stages

c. In general can fulfil the needs of the community

d. In general is based on the aspirations of the community



3 Perception about the corporate officials in general

a. Respectful towards the norms in the community

b. Performs visits to the local community

c. Checks the execution of CSR programs

d. Greets the community that are met outside official visits



4 Perception about the executors of the CSR

a. Consults with the village apparatus

b. Listens to the community’s aspirations


(2) Fulfils 1 aspect (3) Fulfils 2 aspects

19




Verification Score

program in general

c. Consistent with the agreements made

d. Active in the middle of the community as executors of CSR programs

(4) Fulfils 3 aspects (5) Fulfils 4 aspects

5 Perception about the corporation’s employees in general

a. In general behaves well towards the community

b. In general submits to the regulations in force

c. In general mingles with community members

d. In general adapts well


(2) Fulfils 1 aspect (3) Fulfils 2 aspects (4) Fulfils 3 aspects

Sub-total of Business/Image Indicators Score

c. Capacity Building Indicators


Verification Score

1 Increased individual knowledge from CSR program

a. Individual experiences increase in knowledge from CSR program

b. Knowledge obtained by individual from CSR program are socialised to others

c. Knowledge obtained from CSR program are practiced in everyday life

d. Knowledge obtained by individual from CSR program are developed in other programs



2 Increased individual skill/ability from CSR program

a. Program beneficiaries increase in skill/ability from CSR program

b. Skill/ability obtained by program beneficiaries from CSR program are socialised to others

c. Skill/ability obtained from CSR program are practiced in everyday life



20



Verification Score

d. Skill/ability obtained by program beneficiaries from CSR program are developed in other programs

3 Increased individual organisational skills from CSR program

a. Program beneficiaries increase in organisational skills from CSR program

b. Organisational skills obtained by program beneficiaries from CSR program are socialised to others

c. Organisational skills obtained from CSR program are practiced in everyday life

d. Organisational skills obtained by program beneficiaries from CSR program are developed in other programs



Sub-total of Capacity Building Indicators Score

d. Welfare Indicators


Verification Score

1 Benefit of CSR program in daily life

a. Increased productivity of beneficiary

b. Increased quality of life of beneficiary

c. Increased number of community members having the initiative to become involved in the program

d. Increased number of community members enjoying benefits of the program



2 Conformity of CSR program with needs

a. Needs of beneficiaries are fulfilled directly

b. Can be used by beneficiaries in their daily life


(2) Fulfils 1 aspect (3) Fulfils 2 aspects

21




Verification Score

c. CSR program satisfied beneficiaries

d. In general community complaints are reduced

(4) Fulfils 3 aspects (5) Fulfils 4 aspects

3 Conformity of CSR program with capability

a. Accommodates local knowledge/local genius

b. Conforms to the community habits

c. Can be utilised directly d. Can be developed

independently by the beneficiaries



4 Conformity of CSR program with existing potential

a. Availability of required resources

b. CSR program is not impeded by lack of resources

c. Local resources are absorbed in the CSR program

d. There is a multiplier effect from the absorption of local resources



5 CSR program sustainability

a. CSR program that are provided are maintained or managed well

b. There is a mechanism of maintaining/managing the CSR program

c. There is a personnel in charge of maintaining/ managing the CSR program

d. There is a budget allocated for maintaining/managing the program



6 Sustainability of participation in CSR program after corporation ceases assistance

a. Increased local community involvement in the CSR program

b. Increased involvement of the community at large in the CSR program

c. Increased diversity of the community elements



22



Verification Score

participating in the CSR program

d. Local community has a feeling of ownership of the CSR program

7 People deriving benefits from the CSR program

a. CSR program benefits are felt by beneficiaries

b. CSR program benefits are felt by families

c. CSR program benefits are felt by local community

d. CSR program benefits are felt by community at large



8 Improvements in quality of family life after obtaining assistance

a. Improved family living standards

b. Families obtain extra income c. Families can reserve part of

income for savings d. Family members can

continue education to higher level



9 Independent replication of CSR program

a. CSR programs are replicated by local community members

b. CSR programs are replicated by community at large

c. CSR programs are used as reference for other CSR programs

d. CSR programs are used as reference for development programs



Sub-total of Welfare Indicators Score

e. Integration Indicators


Verification Score

1 Cooperation of the corporation with local

a. Local community becomes part of CSR program activity execution


(2) Fulfils 1 aspect

23




Verification Score

community in CSR program

b. Local community becomes part of CSR program activity decision makers

c. Local community becomes part of CSR program activity targets

d. Local community becomes part of CSR program activity monitors

(3) Fulfils 2 aspects (4) Fulfils 3 aspects (5) Fulfils 4 aspects

2 CSR program implementation mechanism

a. Mechanism of socialisation of CSR program implementation is agreed by the local community

b. Mechanism of execution of CSR program is agreed by the local community

c. Mechanism of control of the execution of CSR program is agreed by the local community

d. Mechanism of evaluation of the execution of CSR program is agreed by the local community



Sub-total of Integration Indicators Score

Other Aspects Information

Issues other than the five indicators used for the assessment of CSR can be considered as input in the further development of CSR indicators. Addition of other indicators or notes can be done based on the ideographical or unique context of the community, that cannot be found in other communities

24


Table 1. Index of Scores from the Assessor

Indicators Sub-total Score Indicator Weight Indicator Score

Legal

Business/Image

Capacity Building

Welfare

Integration

Total Score

3.2. Instrument for the Assessment by Beneficiaries (Questionnaires) A questionnaire is used to assess the CSR program based on the perspective of the beneficiaries. The focus of the questionnaire is the evaluation of the beneficiaries based on the programs they receive, and not evaluate the environment or other parties that are also beneficiaries. Each statement presented has four options that have score implications that are collectively accumulated into a beneficiaries index. The questionnaire to be used is as follows: I. General Information (Notes on Respondent and Interviewer)

1. Name of Respondent 4. Date of Interview 2. Village 5. Program received 3. Kampung/RT/RW

No Statement Score II. Business/Image Indicators 1. How transparent is the program/corporate assistance for your

participation? a. Not transparent (don't know) b. Rather transparent c. Transparent d. Very transparent

2. To what extent are you involved in all stages of the program/corporate assistance?

a. Not involved in any stage of the program b. Involved in a small percentage of the program stages c. Involved in a large percentage of the program stages d. Always involved in all stages of the program

25



No Statement Score 3. How has the program/corporate assistance fulfil your needs?

a. Does not fulfil the needs b. Partially fulfil the needs c. Adequately fulfil needs d. Mostly fulfil needs

4. To what extent are corporate officials respectful towards your culture?

a. Not respectful (don't know) b. Rather respectful c. Respectful d. Very respectful

5. How often have you seen corporate officials among the community members?

a. Never b. Rare (once in a year) c. Sometimes (twice in a year) d. Frequent (more than twice in a year)

6. How often do corporate officials check the program/assistance that you receive?

a. Never (don't know) b. Rare (only once during the program execution) c. Sometimes (twice during the program execution) d. Frequent (more than twice during the program execution)

7. How often do program/assistance executives communicate with you? a. Never (don't know) b. Rare (only once during the program execution) c. Sometimes (twice during the program execution) d. Frequent (more than twice during the program execution)

8. How active are the program/assistance executives within the community?

a. Not active (don't know) b. Rather active c. Active d. Very active

9. In general, how is the treatment of corporate employees towards you?

a. Poor (don't know) b. Partially good c. Mostly good d. All good

26


No Statement Score 10. In general, how do the employees behave towards regulations that

you obey? a. Don't obey (don't know) b. Partially obey the rules c. Mostly obey the rules d. All obey the rules

11. In general, how do the employees mingle with you? a. Don't mingle (don't know) b. Partially mingle c. Mostly mingle d. All mingle

12. In general, how do corporate employees adapt to you? a. Can't adapt (don't know) b. Difficult to adapt c. Easy to adapt d. Very easy to adapt

III. Capacity Building Indicators

1. How far has your knowledge increased after receiving the CSR program?

a. No increase in knowledge b. Small increase in knowledge c. Partial increase in knowledge d. Much increase in knowledge

2. How much knowledge you obtain from the CSR program have been taught to others?

a. No teaching to others b. Small part taught to others c. Quite a lot taught to others d. Mostly taught to others

3. How much knowledge you obtain from the CSR program have been practiced in your daily life?

a. Not practiced in daily life b. Small part practiced in daily life c. Quite a lot practiced in daily life d. Mostly practiced in daily life

4. How much knowledge you obtain from the CSR program have been developed in another form?

a. Not developed in another form b. Small part developed in another form c. Quite a lot developed in another form d. Mostly developed in another form

27



No Statement Score 5. How far has your skills/abilities increased after receiving the CSR

program? a. No increase in skills/abilities b. Small increase in skills/abilities c. Partial increase in skills/abilities d. Much increase in skills/abilities

6. How much skills/abilities you obtain from the CSR program have been taught to others?


7. How much skills/abilities you obtain from the CSR program have been practiced in your daily life?

a. Not practiced in daily life b. Small part practiced in daily life c. Quite a lot practiced in daily life d. Mostly practiced in daily life

8. How much skills/abilities you obtain from the CSR program have been developed in another form?

a. Not developed in another form b. Small part developed in another form c. Quite a lot developed in another form d. Mostly developed in another form

9. How far has your organisational skills increased after receiving the CSR program?

a. No increase in organisational skills b. Small increase in organisational skills c. Partial increase in organisational skills d. Much increase in organisational skills

10. How much of the organisational skills you obtain from the CSR program have been taught to others?


IV. Welfare Indicators

1. To what extent have you experienced improvement in your condition after receiving the CSR program?

a. No improvement in condition b. Small improvement in condition

28


No Statement Score c. Quite a lot of improvement in condition d. A lot of improvement in condition

2. To what extent have your needs been fulfilled after receiving the CSR program?

a. No fulfilment b. Small part have been fulfilled c. Mostly have been fulfilled d. All have been fulfilled

3. How often have you experienced the benefit of the CSR program in your daily life?

a. Never b. Rarely (only when receiving the program) c. Sometimes (at certain times) d. Always (everyday)

4. To what extent has the CSR program corresponded to your previous expectations?

a. Does not correspond b. Rather correspond c. Correspond d. Correspond highly

5. How satisfied are you with the CSR program you received? a. Not satisfied b. Rather satisfied c. Satisfied d. Very satisfied

6. How many of your complaints/troubles have been reduced since receiving the CSR program?

a. No reduction b. Small reduction c. Significant reduction d. Completely eliminated

7. To what extent has the CSR program corresponded to your abilities? a. Does not correspond b. Rather correspond c. Correspond d. Correspond highly

8. How many of the CSR programs you could develop independently (without assistance of the corporation)

a. Cannot be developed independently b. A small part can be developed independently c. A large part can be developed independently d. All can be developed independently

29



No Statement Score 9. Does the CSR program you receive obtain resources from human and

natural resources of the surrounding environment/village? a. No/don't know b. Yes, a minority comes from the surrounding environment c. Yes, a majority comes from the surrounding environment d. Yes, all come from the surrounding environment

10. How much local human/natural resources have been involved in the CSR program you receive?

a. None b. Used in a minority of the program/activity I receive c. Used in a majority of the program/activity I receive d. Used in all parts of the program/activity I receive

11. How is the management of the CSR program you receive? a. Not managed well b. Rather well managed c. Well managed d. Very well managed

12. To what extent has involvement of the community at large increased in the CSR program you receive?

a. Did not increase b. Rather increased c. Increased d. Significantly increased

13. How large is the diversity of the community elements participating in the CSR program you receive?

a. No diversity b. Rather diverse c. Diverse d. Very diverse

14. To what extent do you have a sense of belonging of the CSR program you receive?

a. No sense of belonging b. A little sense of belonging c. Adequate sense of belonging d. Great sense of belonging

15. Are there any benefits or results of the CSR program that you can save?

a. None b. Yes, a little c. Yes, somewhat a lot d. Yes, a lot

30


No Statement Score 16. How many others have emulated the CSR program you receive

without assistance from the corporation? a. None/don't know b. A small number of emulators c. Quite a number of emulators d. Many emulators

17. How often have the CSR program you receive quoted as examples by village officials?

a. Never/don't know b. Rarely quoted as examples c. Often quoted as examples d. Always quoted as examples

V. Integration Indicators

1. Has the corporation become part of the local community? a. No/not a part of the local community b. Yes, a small part of the local community c. Yes, rather become a part of the local community d. Yes, completely become a part of the local community

2. How proud are you with the presence of the corporation? a. Not proud of the presence of the corporation b. A bit proud of the presence of the corporation c. Rather proud of the presence of the corporation d. Very proud of the presence of the corporation

3. How much do you care about the CSR program? a. Don't care b. Rather care c. Sufficiently care d. Highly care

4. How often have you been involved as an executor of the CSR program?

a. Never b. Rarely/involved at times c. Often involved d. Always involved

5. How often have you been involved in deciding CSR program activities to be executed?


31



No Statement Score 6. How often have you been involved in controlling/monitoring the

execution of CSR program? a. Never b. Rarely/involved at times c. Often involved d. Always involved

7. How often have you been involved in assessing/evaluating the execution of CSR program?


Once all questionnaires distributed are collected, the next step is to calculate the total sum of each indicator obtained from the beneficiaries. The value is entered in the "sub-total score" on the following table, to be multiplied with the weighting of each indicator that have been determined based on the indicator weight chart. The product of the multiplication of the sub-total and the weighting is the score of each indicator. The next step is to add up all scores of the indicators to get the total score given by the beneficiary.

Table 2. Index of Scores from the Beneficiaries

Indicators Sub-total Score Indicator Weight Indicator Score

Business/Image

Capacity Development

Welfare

Integration

Total Score

32


4. Weighting and Final Assessment 4.1. Weighting Weight is given to two aspects: the indicators and the evaluators. The following tables show the weights given to each:

Table 3. Indicator Weight Percentage

Indicators

Length of CSR Implementation 1 – 5 Years 6 – 10 Years > 10 Years

Heterogeneity of the Community Homo-

geneous Hetero-geneous

Homo-geneous

Hetero-geneous

Homo-geneous

Hetero-geneous

Business/Image 40% 40% 15% 20% 10% 15% Capacity Development

30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 15%

Welfare 15% 10% 25% 20% 25% 20% Integration 10% 10% 20% 20% 25% 25% Business/Image 5% 10% 20% 20% 25% 25%

Table 4. Evaluator Weight Percentage

No. Evaluator Weight

1. Assessor 60%

2. Beneficiary (Questionnaire) 40%

4.2. Final Score After the score from the Assessors and the Beneficiaries have been collected, the scores are multiplied with the weight of the evaluators. The following table shows how it's done:

Table 5. Final Score and Score Category Calculation Table

No. Evaluator Score Weight Score times

weight

1. Assessor 60%

2. Beneficiary (Questionnaire) 40%

Total Score

33



The final stage of the assessment process is to match the value obtained in the scoring based on the following table and score categories:

Table 6. Range and Score Categories

Score Range Score Category 4,49 – 12,57 Very Poor

12,58 – 20,65 Poor 20,66 – 28,74 Fair 28,75 – 36,82 Good 36,83 – 44,92 Very Good

34


2012


--- BIBLIOGRAPHY



Ballard, Chris, “Human Rights and the Mining Sector in Indonesia: A Baseline Study,” A Study Report, IIED-MMSD, 2001.

BP Migas, ”Pedoman Pelaksanaan Program CSR Korporasi Migas(tidak diterbitkan), 2008.

BPS Kabupaten Tanah Laut, “Kecamatan Jorong Dalam Angka”2009.

Carroll, Archie B., “Business and Society, Ethics and Stakeholder Management”, South-Western College Publishing, 1996.

Dale, Reidar, “Evaluating Development Programs and Projects”Sage Publications, 2004.

Dennis, Bryan S., Ann K. Buchholtz and Marcus M. Butts, “Nature of Giving, A Theory of Planned Behavior, Examination of Corporate Philanthropy”, Business and Society, Vol. XX, No. X, September 2007.

Friedman, Milton, “The Social Responsibility of Bussiness is to Increase Its Profit”, The New York Times Magazine, Setember 13, 1970.

Gauthier, Caroline, “Measuring Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: The Extended Life-Cycle Assessmentof Business Ethics, 2005.

Green, Gary Paul and Anna Haines, “Asset Building and Community Development”, Sage, 2002.

Goodman, Louis J., Ralph M. Love, “Project Planning and Management: An Integrated Approach”, New York: Pergamon Press, 1980.

Hennigfeld, Judith, Manfred Pohl and Nick Tolhurst (eds.), “Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility”, John Willey and Sons, 2006.

Bibliography



Human Rights and the Mining Sector in Indonesia: A MMSD, 2001.

Pedoman Pelaksanaan Program CSR Korporasi Migas”,

Kecamatan Jorong Dalam Angka”,

Business and Society, Ethics and Stakeholder Western College Publishing, 1996.

and Projects”,

Dennis, Bryan S., Ann K. Buchholtz and Marcus M. Butts, “The Nature of Giving, A Theory of Planned Behavior, Examination

, Business and Society, Vol. XX,

The Social Responsibility of Bussiness is to ”, The New York Times Magazine, Setember

Measuring Corporate Social and Environmental Cycle Assessment”, Journal

Asset Building and Community

New York:

nfred Pohl and Nick Tolhurst (eds.), “The ICCA John Willey

36


Holme, Lord & Richard Weitts, “Corporate Social Responsibility”, UNCED, 2006.

Husted, Bryan W., “A Contingency Theory of Corporate Social Performance”, Journal of Business and Society, 2000.

Ife, Jim dan Frank Tesoriero, “Community Development, Alternatif Pengembangan Masyarakat di Era Globalisasi”, Pustaka Pelajar, 2008.

ISO 26000, “Working Draft 4.1”, 2008.

Jonker, Jan and Marco de Witte (eds.), “Management Models for Corporate Social Responsibility”, Springer, 2006.

Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup RI, ”Pedoman CSR Bidang Lingkungan”, 2011.

King, Jean A., Lynn Lyons Moris, Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, “How to Assess Program Implementation”, Sage Publication, 1987.

Mitnick, Barry M., “Commitment, Revelation, and the Testaments of Belief: The Metrics of Measurement of Corporate Social Performance”, Journal of Business and Society, 2000.

Pemerintah Kecamatan Babat Supat-Muba, “Monografi Kecamatan Babat Supat”, 2012.

Prayogo, Dody, et al., “Penyusunan Indikator Keberhasilan Program Tangung-Jawab Sosial Perusahaan terhadap Komunitas Lokal pada Industri tambang dan Migas di Indonesia”, DRPM UI, 2011a.

-------------------, et al., “Model Peran Korporasi Tambang dan Migas dalam Upaya Pengentasan Kemiskinan, Menakar Efektivitas Program CSR/CD dalam Pengentasan Kemiskinan”, DRPM UI, 2011b.

---------------------, et al., “Social Baseline and Impact Assessment Study - eni Indonesia di Kabupaten Timor Tengah Selatan”, Laporan Penelitian, LabSosio, 2010a.

--------------------, “Evaluasi Program Community Development Premier Oil Indonesia”, Kabupaten Anambas, 2010b.

37



--------------------, “Konflik antara Korporasi denga Komunitas Lokal, Sebuah Kasus Empirik pada Industri Geotermal di Jawa Barat”, FISIP UI Press, 2008a.

--------------------, “Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Justice dan Distributive Welfare”, dalam Industri Tambang dan Migas di Indonesia, Jurnal Galang, Vol. 3 No. 3, Desember 2008b.

--------------------, “Konflik antara Korporasi dengan Komunitas Lokal, Studi Kasus pada Industri Geotermal di Kecamatan Pangalengan, Jawa Barat”, Disertasi, Program Pascasarjana Sosiologi, FISIP UI, 2007a.

--------------------, “Evaluasi Komprehensif Program Community Development Premier Oil Indonesia”, Kabupaten Natuna, Laporan Penelitian, 2007b.

--------------------, “Evaluasi Program Community Development Conoco Phillips Indonesia”, Kabupaten Natuna, Kepulauan Riau, Laporan Penelitian, 2006.

--------------------, et al., “Identification of Social Mapping and Relationship between Community and Magma Nusantara Ltd. di Pangalengan, Bandung”, Laporan Penelitian, LabSosio, 2001.

--------------------, et al., “Persepsi Komunitas terhadap UNOCAL Terminal Tanjung Santan, Kabupaten Kutai, Kaltim,” Laporan Penelitian, LabSosio, Agustus 2000a.

--------------------, et al., “Persepsi Komunitas terhadap UNOCAL Terminal Penajam dan Lawe-Lawe, Kabupaten Paser, Kaltim”, LabSosio, Desember 2000b.

--------------------, et al., “Persepsi Masyarakat terhadap BHP-Arutmin, Kabupaten Kota Baru, Kalimantan Selatan”, Laporan Penelitian, LabSosio, Juli, 2000c.

--------------------, “Evaluation of Community Development Program of Newmont Gold Mining in Sumbawa”, Laporan Penelitian, LabSosio, 2000d.

Sirgy, M. Joseph, Rahtz Don, Swain David (eds.), “Community Quality-of-Life Indicators”, Springer, 2006.

38


UU No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas

UU No. 11 Tahun 1967 tentang Pokok-pokok Pertambangan

UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara

UU No. 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi Warhurst, Alyson, “Corporate Social Responsibility and the Mining

Industry”, Presentation to Euromines, Brussels, June 4th 2001)

2012


APPENDIX 1 Q-SHEET FOR CSR PROGRAMS

EVALUATION GUIDELINE



P

1. EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSORS

No Description a. Legal Indicators 1 • Self explanatory 2-4 • Social Baseline: contains basic data on the socio-cultural conditions of

the community, which reflects issues that exist in the society• Social Mapping: contains documents explaining the social map of the

local community, including the community profile, identification of important stakeholders and relations between stakeholders

• Need Assessment: contains data on the needs of the community in relation to the social life conditions

• All three documents can be encompassed in one report produced by the corporation.

5-21 • Self explanatory b. Business/Image Indicators 1 • In answer category 1, what is meant with "responsive" is that the

corporation has the initiative to help the community and not just wait for proposals to be given by the community

2 • Self explanatory 3 • The term “officials” here does not just include those from the

corporate office (such as in Jakarta or abroad), but also local corporate officials holding important positions in the corporation (such as manager)

• The term "perception" here includes a sociable attitude from the corporate official to the local community (such as responding to invitations)

4 • Self explanatory 5 • The term “behaves well” includes participation in maintaining the

environment (physical and social) and becoming a role model for the community

c. Capacity Development Indicators 1-3 • To make it easier, answer category no 4 can be presented first. If

answer category no 4 is fulfilled, logically the three others have been fulfilled

Q-Sheet for CSR Programs Evaluation Guideline

Appendix 1



cultural conditions of community, which reflects issues that exist in the society

contains documents explaining the social map of the local community, including the community profile, identification of important stakeholders and relations between stakeholders

contains data on the needs of the community in

All three documents can be encompassed in one report produced by

category 1, what is meant with "responsive" is that the corporation has the initiative to help the community and not just wait

here does not just include those from the main corporate office (such as in Jakarta or abroad), but also local corporate officials holding important positions in the corporation

The term "perception" here includes a sociable attitude from the nity (such as responding to

includes participation in maintaining the environment (physical and social) and becoming a role model for the

it easier, answer category no 4 can be presented first. If no 4 is fulfilled, logically the three others have been

Sheet for CSR Programs Evaluation

40


No Description d. Welfare Indicators 1-5 • Self explanatory 6 • Answer category no 2 can be presented first. If answer category no 2

is fulfilled, logically answer category 1 has been fulfilled e. Integration Indicators 1-2 • Self explanatory 7 • If answer category no 4 is fulfilled, logically the three others have

been fulfilled 8 • Self explanatory 9 • Answer category no 2 can be presented first. If answer category no 2

is fulfilled, logically answer category 1 has been fulfilled

2. EVALUATION GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDENTS

No Description

a. Business/Image Indicators

1 • Self explanatory 2 • These “stages” of the program/assistance includes deciding what the

community needs (situation analysis), program planning, program implementation and monitoring and evaluation

3 • Self explanatory 4 • The term “officials” here does not just include those from the main

corporate office (such as in Jakarta or abroad), but also local corporate officials holding important positions in the corporation (such as manager)

• “Culture” can be understood as culture and habits of a society 5-6 • The term “officials” here does not just include those from the main

corporate office (such as in Jakarta or abroad), but also local corporate officials holding important positions in the corporation (such as manager and supervisor)

7-8 • “Executives” of the program/assistance are persons entrusted to implement the CSR program/assistance from the corporation. They can be employees of the corporation, vendors given authority by the corporation or community members involved in the program/assistance

9-12 • “Employees” are people working directly for the corporation, not contract or outsourced employees

41



No Description

b. Capacity Building Indicators

1-4 • “Knowledge” includes information, lessons and knowledge obtained from the program/assistance

5-8 • “Skills/abilities” include experience, competence, skills and new abilities that are possessed by individuals after receiving program/assistance

9-10 • Self explanatory

c. Welfare Indicators

1 • “Improvement in condition” means changes experienced by individuals who receive the program/assistance such as standard of living, income, skills etc.

2 • “Needs” here refers to fulfilment of basic needs of recipients of program/assistance

3 • “Benefit” is similar to utility or function 4-6 • Self explanatory 7 • “Correspond” is similar to match 8 • Self explanatory 9-10 • What is meant with “a minority, majority and all” in both questions

can be understood by observing what resources are present and used in the CSR program/assistance

11 • “Management” refers to how the CSR program is maintained and put in use by all beneficiaries of the program/assistance

12 • Self explanatory 13 • “Diversity of community elements” refers to the elements of society

involved, from various backgrounds such as different ethnic groups, religions, education, age etc.


d. Integration Indicators

1 • “Local community” referred to here is the community living around the location of the corporation's operational area


42


2012


APPENDIX 2 EXPLANATION OF WORKFLOW

AND EXAMPLE ASSESSMENT



No. Stage Description Example

1 Decide the programs to be assessed

This activity is done by studying documents of corporate CSR program implementation, with the prerequisite that the program has been implemented for at least 1 year

The number of programs to be assessed is 2, implemented in 2 villages

2 Decide the weight of the indicators based on the weighting table

This activity is done by matching the length of the corporate CSR program in general and the type of the community in the weighting table

In general, the CSR programs to be assessed have been done for 7 yearhomogeneous community, so the weight of the indicators are: legal 15%, business/image 20%, capacity development 25%, welfare 20% and integration 20%

3 Beneficiaries: Decide the population based on CSR data

Calculate the total number of beneficiaries of all programs to be evaluated

The total beneficiariesprograms is 200

Assessor: List documents and other secondary data to be verified

Trace all documents on corporate CSR implementation and documents from other related parties

Documents to be traced are- Social mapping document- Program implementation

document (at the community level)

- 4 Beneficiaries:

Calculate the sample size

Calculate the sample number with a margin of error between 1-3%, with the following formula: n = N . 1 + Ne2

Total beneficiaries are 2with a margin of errorso the sample calculation size is: n = 200 1 + (200*e

Explanation of Workflow and Example Assessment

Appendix 2


Corporations

Example

The number of programs to be assessed is 2, implemented in 2 villages

In general, the CSR programs to be assessed have been done for 7 years in a homogeneous community, so the weight of the indicators are: legal 15%, business/image 20%, capacity development 25%, welfare 20% and integration 20%

beneficiaries of all programs is 200

to be traced are: Social mapping document Program implementation document (at the community level)

Total beneficiaries are 200 margin of error of 3%,

so the sample calculation size

200 .= 200 = 67 1 + (200*e2) 3

Explanation of Workflow and Example

44



Assessor: Create assessment instrument

Create interview and observation guidelines

Interview guideline can be created based on the indicators or informants Observation guideline can be listed based on objects to be observed/photographed

5 Beneficiaries: Distribute samples proportionally

The samples are proportionally assigned based on program and location, so the samples are not concentrated in a single program or location

From 67 samples, the distribution is as follows: - program 1 in village A = 20 samples - program 2 in village A = 27 samples - program 1 in village B = 15 samples - program 2 in village B = 5 samples

Assessor: Create list of informants

Potential informants are selected from beneficiaries, government officials, program executives, community figures and other related parties

- Program beneficiaries - Village chief B - Village figure A - etc.

6 Beneficiaries: Distribute questionnaires

Distribute the questionnaires to selected samples

Respondent beneficiaries fill questionnaires

Assessor: Perform document verification, interview and observation

Collect as much data/interview as possible as basis for decision making in the next stage

Verify documents based on the assessment guideline, perform interviews and observation

7 Beneficiaries: Calculate recapitulation of initial scores per indicator

Can be used manually or with computer software

Recap for the scores of the following indicators: business/image (30), capacity building (30), welfare (50), integration (20)

45




Assessor: Assign scores to each indicator

Done by referring to the data that have been collected

Scores for the following indicators: legal (30), business/image (20), Capacity building (10), welfare (30), integration (5)

8 Beneficiaries: Multiply initial scores for each indicator with the weighting for each

Initial score multiplied with the weighting

- business/image: 30 x 20% =

6 - capacity building: 30 x 25%

= 7.5 - welfare: 50 x 20% = 10 - integration: 20 x 20% = 4

Assessor: Multiply initial scores for each indicator with the weighting for each

Initial score multiplied with the weighting

- legal: 30 x 15% = 4.5 - business/image: 20 x 20% = 4 - capacity building: 10 x 25% = 2.5 - welfare: 30 x 20% = 6 - integration: 5 x 20% = 1

9 Beneficiaries: Obtain the final score for each indicator

Summing up all values of the indicator

6 + 7.5 + 10 + 4 = 27.5

Assessor: Obtain the final score for each indicator

Summing up all values of the indicator

4.50 + 4 + 2.5 + 6 + 1 = 18

10 Beneficiaries: Calculate the results of the final score for the beneficiaries with the weight for the beneficiaries

Score for beneficiaries multiplied with the weight of evaluation by the beneficiaries (40%)

27.5 x 40% = 11

46



Assessor: Calculate the results of the final score for the assessors with the weight for the assessors

Score for assessors multiplied with the weight of evaluation by the assessors (60%)

18 x 60% = 10.8

11 Calculate the scores of the beneficiaries and the assessors to obtain the CSR score index

Add up the scores from both parties to obtain the CSR program score index

11 + 10.8 = 21.8

12 Obtain the final score category for the CSR program based on the score category table

Matching the index score obtained with the score category table

21.8 is within the range of fair