EFFECT OF FIRM CHARACTERISTICS, FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DISCLOSURE
INTENSITY OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS LISTED
IN THE INDONESIA STOCK EXCHANGE



Mega Rizki Amelia
Accounting, Faculty of Economy
Gunadarma University
mearez.amelia@gmail.com


ABSTRACT

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) closely associated with the society and the company.
The implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility by the company can be realized with the
disclosure of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure) that are socialized to the public in the
company's annual report. There are differences in the level of disclosure that is generated of each
company. The difference is caused by the presence of characteristic and financial performance of
different companies. This study aimed to analyze the effect of firm characteristics (i.e., firm size,
board of commissioners), companys financial performance (i.e., ROA, EPS, leverage) and company's
environmental performance toward corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
The object of this study is the manufacturing companies listed in the Indonesia Stock
Exchange during the period 2007-2011. Purposive sampling was used to choose population in this
case manufacturing firms. Based on the criteria of determination of samples obtained 16 companies.
Research variables which include firm size, the size of the board of commisioners, Return on Assets
(ROA), Earning Per Share (EPS), Debt to Equity Ratio (DER), environmental performance, and
corporate social responsibility disclosure were estimated using standard formula. Data were analyzed
using multiple linear regression analysis.
The results showed that the characteristics of the firm (firm size, size of the board of
commissioners), the financial performance of the firm (ROA, EPS, leverage) and environmental
performance simultaneously influence the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity. Only
three variables (EPS, leverage and environmental performance) that partially affect corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity. Environmental performance is the most dominant variable in
affecting the intensity of disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility.

Keyword : firm size; board of commisioners; ROA; EPS; leverage; environmental performance
I. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays the demands against the company is so large because in addition to being
required to pursue profit, companies are also required to pay attention to and involved in the
fulfillment of the welfare of the community as well as to actively contribute in maintaining
environmental sustainability.
Companies sometimes ignore the social and environmental impact brought about by
the company's economic actions to achieve the purpose of profit-oriented material. Indeed,
the operational activities conducted by the company doing the exploitation of natural
resources and society as uncontrolled, potentially causing damage to the natural environment.
In this case the manufacturing companies have a fairly large contributions in problems like
pollution, waste management, product safety and labor. This is because manufacturing
companies are companies which most interacts with society.
One of the frequently requested information for the company to be disclose is
information regarding corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility itself
can be described as the availability of financial information and non-finance related
organization interaction with the physical environment and the social environment, which can
be presented in the company's annual report or a separate social report.
A company that has a good performance as well as the size of a large company should
be implement corporate social responsibility and revealed them openly to the public because
the public sees that the business activities of the company as the largest contributors to the
problems occurred.
The intensity of the disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility as
one of the ways companies to construct, maintain, and legitimize the contribution the
company economically and politically. The intensity of the disclosure of corporate social
responsibility implementation shows how large the contribution they are reporting to the
community, can be seen from the obidient of the company regularly presents the annual
report and disclose all activities that have been implemented at each company period.
Based on the background above, this research is aimed to analyze the effect of firm
characteristics (i.e., firm size, board of commissioners), companys financial performance
(i.e., ROA, EPS, leverage) and company's environmental performance toward corporate
social responsibility disclosure intensity whether simultaneously or partially.

II. THEORITICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

Disclosure of corporate social responsibility which is often also referred to as social
disclosure, corporate social reporting, social accounting (Mathews, 1995) or the corporate
social responsibility (Hackston and Milne, 1996) is a process of communicating the social
and environmental impact of economic activities of the organization with respect to specific
groups of interested parties and to society as a whole. It expands the responsibilities of
organizations (particularly firms), outside its traditional role to provide financial report to the
owners of capital, in particular shareholders. The expansion was made with the assumption
that the company had a wider responsibility than just seeking profits for shareholders (Gray
et. Al., 1987).
Disclosure of corporate social responsibility are often referred to as social disclosure,
corporate social reporting, social accounting (Mathews, 1995) or the corporate social
responsibility (Hackston and Milne, 1996) as a process of social and environmental impacts
of communicating of the economic activities of the organization with respect to specific
groups of interested parties and to society as a whole. The company tends to disclose
information relating to its activities and the impact posed by such companies. Information on
disclosure of company social responsibility standards are based on the GRI (Global Reporting
Initiative).
The calculation of the index level of disclosure of corporate social responsibility is
measured by using the ratio of the number of items that the company disclosed with the
maximum number of items based on the GRI indicators.

2.2 Firm Characteristics

Company characteristics may explain the wide variations of voluntary disclosure in
the annual report, the company's characteristics is a predictor of the quality of disclosure
(Lang and Lundholm, 1993). Every company has different characteristics to one entity with
another entity.
Company size can be determined based on the value of market capitalization, total
assets, sales, labor, and so forth which correlates to high. The size of the company will affect
the company's funding structure. The need for greater funding have a tendency that the
company wanted the growth in profits (Riyadi, 2006). Large companies tend to have a greater
political costs for the disclosure of information, so that will give you information now profit
lower than smaller companies.
In this research the company size based on total assets, because based on the research
of Fitriani (2001) total assets shows the size of company more than the market capitalization.
Sembiring (2005) states that larger companies probably will have shareholders who pay
attention to social programs that created the company in its annual report, which is a medium
to disseminate information about the social responsibility of the company's finances.
Based on the theory of Agency, the Board of Commissioners considered the internal
control mechanisms, which are responsible for monitoring the actions of top management.
Associated with the disclosure of information by the company, most research shows that
there is a positive relationship between the different characteristics of the Board of
Commissioners with the level of disclosure of information by the company.
The relationship between the Board of Commissioners which has been done by
Sembiring (2005), Veronica (2009) who find that the size of the Board of Commissioners has
positive effect of the intensity of the corporate social responsibility disclosure and conversely
Nur (2012) find different results that the size of the Board of Commissioners has a negative
and significant effect.



2.3 Financial Performances

Assessment of financial performance is one of the ways that is done by the
management in order to meet its obligations to the owner of the company. Wahyudi (2002)
stated that the company's performance appraisal is an evaluation which is done periodically
and systematically about the achievements of the work or the office of a labor, including the
potential for its development.
In the evaluation of the financial performance of course requires certain standards are
either internal or external. External standards refers to the competitive comparison is a
comparison of the company's main competitors. Evaluation of company that refers to an
external standard through competitive comparison which gives the idea to develop an
individual company's financial ratio analysis by considering the ratio of the industry. One of
the important indicators used in competition is the industry's business attractiveness
(attractiveness bussines).
The attractiveness of a business can be measured by using a ratio of profitability of
the industry that will demonstrate the effectiveness of the overall operations of the company.
Profitability ratio used to measure financial performance in this research is the Return on
Assets (ROA) and Earning Per Share (EPS).

2.4 Environmental Performance

Environmental performance is a performance company in creating a good
environment (green) (Suratno et al. 2006). The company paid close attention to the
environment as a form of corporate responsibility and concern for the environment.
Environmental performance is made in the form of ranking by an institution related to the
environment. During this time the measurement of environmental performance still haven't
reached a final agreement, because every country has its own way of measurement depends
on the situation and environmental conditions in the country.
In Indonesia, the environmental performance can be measured by using the
Assessment Rating Program of the company's performance in the management of the
environment. PROPER is one of the Government's policy efforts undertaken through the
Ministry of the Environment to encourage an increase in the company's performance in the
management of the environment through the dissemination of the obidience performance
information company in the management of the environment.
The implementation of PROPER is expected to strengthen the various existing
environmental management instruments, such as the enforcement of environmental law, and
economic instruments. In addition the implementation of PROPER can answer the needs of
access to information, transparency and public participation in environmental management.
PROPER assessment refers to the requirements the environmental obidience set out in
government regulations related to the control of water pollution, air pollution control, waste
management, air, B3, and control of pollution of the sea. The company's environmental
performance rating of grouped at five (5) rank colors in order to facilitate communication
with stakeholders in addressing the results of the obidience performance of each company. Its
color ranking is a form of communicative delivery performance to the community so that it is
easier to understand and remember. Five ratings used include black, red, blue, green, and
gold.

III. RESEARCH METHODS

Objects used in this research is the manufacturing firms (processing industry). The
population of this research is a registered manufacturing company (go-public) at the
Indonesia Stock Exchange. Samples of research used in this study was 16 manufacturing
companies. The observation period is 5 years from 2007 until 2011.
Types of data used in this study is secondary data. Data collection techniques used in
this research was the documentation of data sources in the form of the financial statements in
the form of a balance sheet and the consolidated profit/loss report, the annual report in the
form of a management report, and reports the results of PROPER period as well as the data
and other information related to calculation and analysis.
Data were analyzed by Determination Analysis ( R
2
), Multiple Regression Analysis (
R ), Partial Test and Simultaneous Test with program SPSS version 18. The hypothesis can
be formulated as follows :
1. Simultaneously the firm characteristics that consists of FS, BC, the firm financial
performance consists of ROA, EPS, DER and the environmental performance (EP)
effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
2. Partially the the firm characteristics that consists of of FS, BC, the firm financial
performance consists of ROA, EPS, DER and the environmental performance (EP)
effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity, which is formulated as
follows:
FS effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
BC effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
ROA effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
EPS effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
DER effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
EP effect on the corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.


IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Description

From the observation can be known that in 2007 Asahimas Flat Glass Tbk is the
company with the highest social responsibility disclosure index which amounted to 57%. The
highest index of 70% and 71% are generated by Indocement Tunggal Prakasa Tbk in 2008
and 2009, while in 2010 and 2011 the company Holcim Indonesia Tbk produces the highest
index of 76% and 80%.
Meanwhile, the company that produces the lowest index of social responsibility
disclosure in 2007 is Citra Turbindo Tbk amounting to 11%. Furthermore, in 2008 the
company Kalbe Tbk with index 20% and Fajar Surya Wisesa Tbk in 2009 with an index of
19%. In 2010 the lowest index of 25% is generated by Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk and in
2011 Gajah Tunggal Tbk and Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk with an index of 30%.

4.2 The Classic Assumption Test Results

From normality test results using One Sample Kolmogorov Smirnov, known that
the overall variable i.e firm size, size of the board of commisioners, profitability, leverage,
environmental performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure index are
normally distributed cause of the significant values for each variable is more than 0,05.
Based on multicolinearity test, analysis of the results obtained from the table
coefficients i.e firm size has a value of tolerance of 0,328 dan VIF value at 3,053 ; tolerance
value of board of commisioners is at 0,390 with VIF value at 2,567 ; ROA has a value of
tolerance of 0,606 dan VIF value at 1,651 ; EPS has a value of tolerance of 0,702 dan VIF
value at 1,424 ; tolerance value of leverage is at 0,759 with VIF value at 1,318 ; tolerance
value of environmental performance is at 0,684 with VIF value at 1,461. The results shows
that the value of tolerance for each variable is more that 0.1 and the value of VIF for each
variable is more than 10. It can be concluded that there is no multicolinearity in this
regression model.
The result of analysis that obtained from autocorrelation test shows that there is no
correlation between residue on a confidence level of 95% ( = 5%). It can be concluded that
there is no autocorrelation cause of the position value of the Durbin Watson are on 1.801 <
1.969 < 2.199.
Heteroscedasticity analysis results obtained by observing the scatterplot graphs, it is
known that the data points spread above and below the number 0 on the Y axis, with the
unclear pattern. It can be concluded that there is no heterocedasticity in this regression model.

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

The hypothesis in this research is aimed to analyze the effect of firm characteristics
(i.e., firm size, board of commissioners), companys financial performance (i.e., ROA, EPS,
leverage) and company's environmental performance toward corporate social responsibility
disclosure intensity whether simultaneously or partially by using multiple regression.
Simultaneously, the independent variables (Firm Size, Board of Commissionners,
ROA, EPS, DER and Environmental Performance) have the coefficient of determination
value (R
2
) amounted to 0,680, it indicates that 68% of the intensity of corporate social
responsibility disclosure can be explained by the variation of the six independent. While 32%
is influenced by other variables that are not observed in this study. The results also show that
this research has a significant influence statistically with the F
value
is 28,998 with a
significance of 0,000.
From the table, it can be seen that there are three independent variables which
significantly influence the intensity of corporate social responsibility i.e EPS, DER and EP
with a significance value is less than 0,05. EPS has a t
value
of -2,391 which is greater than the
value of

t
table
at -1,993, variable DER has a t
value
of -2,164 which is greater than the value of
t
table
at -1,993 and variable EP with a t
value
11,050 which is greater than the value of

t
table
at
1,993. The dominant influence on the disclosure of corporate social responsibility is the
environmental performance (EP), with a value of standardization of 0.850. From the results
above, it is known that the Ha can be accepted and H
0
is rejected.

4.4 Discussion

In the simultaneous testing, the influence degree of the variable independent towards
corporate social responsibility quitely high which is 68% (Adjusted R
2
= 0,680). It means
that 68% of the intensity of corporate social responsibility disclosure can be explained by the
variation of the six independent. While 32% is influenced by other variables that are not
observed in this study.
In the partial testing, the three variables i.e EPS, DER, and environmental
performance found significantly influence the corporate social responsibility. Whereas the
firm size, board of commissioners, and ROA has no significant influence. The discussion of
each variables in partial testing can be shown as follows:

4.4.1 Firm Size

Variable size of the company has a positive influence on the intensity of the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility implementation due to manufacturing companies
in the study have a large size enterprise views of total assets in the financial statements of the
company, so that it can implement its social responsibility to the environment and the
surrounding community.
It is associated with the economic perspective that says that the size of the company
will provide information to investors, raising the company's value that indicates that the size
of a large company and when the company is implementing corporate social responsibility
disclosure expects will be responded positively by the market participants. Instead, the
smaller the size of the company, it will be increasingly difficult for companies to implement
social responsibility perusahaanya to the environment and the surrounding community
because there is a limited company owned.
In this research the company size does not affect the intensity of disclosure
implementation of corporate social responsibility, in accordance with the results of the
research study conducted by Veronica (2009) and Anggraini (2006). This shows that the
small size of the company, does not guarantee the survival of the company in the future
because both companies large and small in this study are having problems the financial
distress, so that companies with large or small size would not necessarily be intense and
consistent in expressing the implementation of social responsibility of the company.
However, these results do not support the research conducted by Hackston and Milne
(1996), Permana and Raharja (2011), Almilia and Retrinasari (2007) which shows the size of
the company is proven to affect the level of disclosure of CSR significantly in the annual
report. The results of this research also does not support the findings that have been made by
Sembiring (2005) that proves that the size of the company (size) effect on disclosure of
corporate social responsibility.

4.4.2 Board of Commissioners

Variable Board of Commissioners have negative influence on the intensity of the
disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility. The results of this study in
accordance with the research done by Permana dan Raharja (2012) and Noor (2012) that the
Board of Commissioners negatively against disclosure of CSR. This indicates that the size of
the Board of Commissioners that too much will cause the occurrence of many decision-
making, so that it is less effective. According to Nur (2012) the number of the Board of
Commissioners of which there are not too many will give rise to an agreement and the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility will be easier to come by. This research did not
support the Agency theory which States that the Board of Commissioners considered the
internal control mechanisms, which are responsible for monitoring the actions of top
management.
In this study, the size of the Board of Commissioners showed no significant influence
of the intensity of the disclosure of corporate social responsibility implementation, this means
that a large number of small boards in companies will not affect the level of disclosure of
corporate social responsibility. Results of the study should not be confused with the results of
research conducted by Veronica (2009) and Sembiring (2005) stating that the Board of
Commissioners of positive effect on disclosure of CSR.

4.4.3 ROA

Variable ROA (Return on Asset) have a negative influence and not significant on
corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity, it indicates that whether great or small of
ROA will not affect the intensity of corporate social responsibility disclosure. This is in
accordance with the opinion of the Kokubu et. al (2001) which states that the political
visibility of companies depends on the size of the company rather than on profitability. The
company which has a high profitability not necessarily doing more social activity because the
company is more oriented to get profits (Devina, 2004).
The results of this study support the research conducted by Nur (2012) and Marpaung
(2009) which found that profitability negatively influence the disclosure of social
responsibility. The results of this discovery also supported research conducted by Hackston
and Milne (1996), Anggraini (2006), Devina (2004) finds that there is no influence of the
ROA against the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR Disclosure). The results
of this study do not support the theory of an agency with the premise that the larger profit
gain will make companies reveal broader social information.

4.4.4 EPS

Variable Earning Per Share (EPS) have a negative influence towards the intensity of
the disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility, it is associated with the
theory of legitimacy with the premise that when a company has a high level of profits, the
company (management) considers do not need to report things that may interfere with
information about the company's financial success, which means that the magnitude of the
earnings per shares is not a guarantee for a company to carry out efforts to increase disclosure
of its social responsibility.
Otherwise at the time of the low level of profitability is marked with a profit per share
of the company that are not large, then the company will further improve the efforts of
implementation and disclosure of corporate social responsibility in the hope that users will
read the report "good news" the company's performance and see the company's achievements
in the social and environmental dimension to look at his life compared to give priority to
profits, so that will increase the value of the company especially in the eyes of investors are
more interested to invest capital on an environmentally friendly corporation.
The results of this research support of the theory of legitimacy by showing the
influence of the negative profitability significantly to disclosure of corporate social
responsibility. The results of this study are inconsistent with research results and Hackston
Milne (1996), Veronica and Agus (2010) Sembiring (2005) find insignificant influence
profitability against disclosure of corporate social responsibility. Theoretically, according to
the Kokubu et. al., (2001), there is a positive relationship between economic performance of a
company with social responsibility disclosure, it is associated with the agency theory with the
premise that the larger profit gain will make companies reveal larger social information.

4.4.5 Leverage

Variable leverage with the ratio of debt to equity (DER) as a proxy has a negative and
significant affecting the intensity of the disclosure implementation of corporate social
responsibility, it is associated with the theory of agency where the management of the
company with a high degree of leverage tends to reduce social responsibility disclosure made
in order not to become a spotlight of the debtholders (Sembiring, 2005).
The results of this study in accordance with the research conducted by Nur (2012)
who found that there was a significant negative relationship between leverage and disclosure
of corporate social responsibility. This is in accordance with the opinion of Karpik (1989)
which States that the higher ratio of liabilities/equity social disclosure is getting lower due to
the higher degree of leverage, then the more likely the company will credit agreement. So
companies should present a higher profit at the moment now than profit in the future. So that
the company can present a higher profit, then the company must reduce costs (including the
costs of social information to reveal).
This research is inconsistent with research Sembiring (2005), Anggraini (2006),
Permana and Raharja (2012), and Veronica (2009) which found that leverage does not have
an impact on disclosure of corporate social responsibility.

4.4.6 Environmental Performance

Variable environmental performance through PROPER program has a positive
influence significantly intensity against the disclosure of social responsibility
implementation, indicating that the PROPER push manufacturing company to always carry
out an increase in the company's performance in the management of the environment so that
the stakeholders will give appreciation to companies that are ranked well and give a boost to
companies that have not obtained a rating of good to always implement the implementation
responsibility of his company against the economic interests ofsocial, and the surrounding
environment. This illustrates that good environmental performers believe that disclosing their
performance depicts the good news for the market participants.
The results of this research is directly proportional to the theory regarding the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility itself, which is a concept whereby companies
decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment or can be said to
be a company that cares about its environmental performance means have applied the
disclosure of corporate social responsibility with a properly proven by the high environmental
and social concern of the company.
The results of this study support the findings of research concducted by Permana and
Raharja (2012) and Suratno et al. (2006) which found a significant effect between the
performance of the environment on the disclosure of corporate social responsibility in which
environmental performance is the company's efforts in creating an environment that is good
(green) as measured through the PROPER model is consistent with the discretionary
disclosure where good environmental performers believe that disclosing performance the
company described the good news for the market participantseconomic performance, while
only associated positively with environmental performance and environmental disclosure.

V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the analysis that has been done in this study, the conclusion can be drawn as
follows:
1. The firm characteristics which consist of firm size, size of the board of commisioners,
the financial performance which consist of profitability (ROA and EPS), leverage (DER)
and the environmental performance simultaneously influence corporate social
responsibility disclosure intensity.
2. Variables that partially affect the corporate social responsibity disclosure intensity are
EPS, leverage (DER), and environmental performance (EP).
3. Of the three variables that partially affect corporate social responsibility disclosure
intensity, environmental performance is the most dominant variable in affecting the
intensity of disclosure implementation of corporate social responsibility.

5.2 Implications

In general, all of the variables in this study must be considered because firm size, size
of the board of commisioners, ROA, EPS, leverage (DER), and environmental performance
are variables that simultaneously affect corporate social responsibility disclosure intensity.
But it focused more on EPS, DER and environmental performance because all three have
proven partially influence and it is known that the variable which turned out to be the most
dominant in determining the high or low of the corporate social responsibility disclosure
intensity is environmental performance.

REFERENCES

Al Tuwajiri, dan Sulaiman A. 2003. The Relation Among Environmental Disclosure,
Environmental Performance, dan Economic Performance : A Simultaneous Equation
Approach. Accounting Environment Journal. USA. 5-10.

Almilia, Luciana S. dan Ikka, Retrinasari. 2007. Analisis Pengaruh Karakteristik
Perusahaan Terhadap Kelengkapan Pengungkapan dalam Laporan Tahunan
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEJ. Proceding Seminar Nasional :
Inovasi dalam Menghadapi Perubahan Lingkungan Bisnis. Fakultas Ekonomi.
Universitas Trisakti.

Andre Christian,Sitepu. 2008. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Informasi
Sosial dalam Laporan Tahunan pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Jakarta. Skripsi Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Anggraini, Fr. Reni Retno. 2006. Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial dan Faktor-Faktor yang
Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial dalam Laporan Keuangan Tahunan
(Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan-Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di BEJ). Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi IX.

Apriwenni, P. 2009. Faktor-Faktor yang Memengaruhi Pengungkapan Corporate Social
Responsibility pada Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan untuk Industri Manufaktur Tahun
2008. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis. Vol.6. No.1. 41-58. Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi
IBII.

Belkaoui, Ahmed and Philip G, Karpik. 1989. Determinants of the Corporate Decision to
Disclose Sosial Information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Vol.
2. No. 1. 36- 51

Coller, P., and Gregory A. (1999), Audit Committee Activity and Agency Costs. Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy. Vol 18 (4-5). 311-332.

Chariri, Anis dan Ghozali, Imam. 2007. Teori Akuntansi. Edisi Ketiga, Universitas
Diponegoro.

Daniri, M.A. 2008a. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (Bag I).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/01/17/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-
i/ (diakses 10 November 2012).
2008b. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (Bag II).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/02/11/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-
ii/ (diakses 10 November 2012).
2008c. Standarisasi Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan (Bag III - Finish).
www.madani-ri.com/2008/02/11/standarisasi-tanggung-jawab-sosial-perusahaan-bag-
iii-finish/ (diakses 10 November 2012).
Darwin, Ali. 2004. Akuntabilitas, Kebutuhan, Pelaporan, dan Pengungkapan CSR bagi
Perusahaan di Indonesia. Edisi III. September-Desember.

Devina, Florence. 2004. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan terhadap Pengungkapan Social
dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Go Publik di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Fakultas
Ekonomi. Tesis Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Diponegoro.

Dibiyantoro, 2011. Pengaruh Struktur Modal dan Profitabilitas Perusahaan terhadap
Mandatory Disclosure Financial Statement pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang
Terdaftar di BEI. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Informasi Akuntansi (Jenius). Vol.1 No.2.
174-199.

Ebert, R. J. and R.W. Griffin, 2003. Bisnis. Edisi Keenam. Jilid I. Alih Bahasa Edina
Cahyaning Tarmidzi. Prenhallindo. Jakarta.

Fitriani, 2001. Signifikansi Perbedaan Tingkat Kelengkapan Pengungkapan Wajib dan
Sukarela pada Laporan Keuangan Perusahaan Publik yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Jakarta. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IV.

Ghozali, Imam. 2005. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Edisi Ketiga.
Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.

Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI). 2007. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
www.globalreporting.org/guidelines//062007guidelines.asp/ (diakses 18 Oktober
2012).

Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, David M,. and Sinclair, C. Donald. 2001. Social And
Environmental Disclosure, And Corporate Characteristic: A Research Note And
Extension. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. Vol 28. No. 3. 327-356.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. 1995b. Methodological Themes: Constructing A
Research Database of Social and Environmental Reporting By UK Companies.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Vol. 8 No.2 78-101.

Gray, R, Owen D., dan Adams, C. 1996. Accounting and Accountability. Prentice Hall
Europe.
Gray, R,, Owen, D. dan Maunders, K. 1987. Corporate Social Reporting : Accounting and
Accountability. Prentice-Hall. London.

Guthrie, J dan Mathews, M.R. (1985), Corporate Social Accounting in Australia in Preston,
LE. (Ed). Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Vol. 7. 251-77.

Hackston, D. dan M.J. Milne. 1996. Some Determinants of Social and Environmental
Disclosures in New Zealand Companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal. Vol.9. No.1. 77-108.

Hadi, N., and A. Sabeni. 2002. Analisa Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Luas
Pengungkapan Sukarela dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Go-Public di BEJ.
MAKSI 90-104.

Hanafi, Mamduh dan Halim, Abdul. 2007. Edisi Revisi Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Unit
Penerbit Dan Percetakan AMP YKPN. Yogyakarta.

Jensen, M.C and Meckling, W.H. 1976. The Agency Theory of The Firm : Managerial
Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3.
No.4. 305-360.
Kementerian Negara Lingkungan Hidup. 2009. Laporan Hasil Penilaian PROPER 2008-
2009. Diunduh pada tanggal 20 Oktober 2012 dari: http://www.menlh.go.id

Lang, M. and Lundholm, R. 1993. Crossectional Determinants of Analysts Ratings of
Corporate Disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol 31. No.2 246-271.

Lindrianasari. 2007. Hubungan antara Kinerja Lingkungan dan Kualitas Pengungkapan
Lingkungan dengan Kinerja Ekonomi di Indonesia. JAAI. Vol.11. No.2. 159-172.
Universitas Lampung.

Marwata, 2001. Hubungan Antara Karakteristik Perusahaan dan Kualitas Ungkapan
Sukarela dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Publik di Indonesia. Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi IV. Bandung
Matthews, M.R. 1995. Social and Environmental Accounting: A Practical Demonstration of
Ethical Concern. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 14. 663-671.

Mulyadi, 2002. Akuntansi Manajemen: Konsep, manfaat dan Rekayasa. Edisi Ketiga.
Salemba Empat. Jakarta.
Naim, Ainun dan Rakhman, Fuad. 2000. Analisis Hubungan antara Kelengkapan
Pengungkapan Laporan Keuangan dengan Struktur Modal dan Tipe Kepemilikan
Perusahaan. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Indonesia. Vol. 15 No. 1. 77-82.

Nur, Marzully. 2012. Analisa Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Corporate
Social Responsibility di Indonesia (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan Berkategori High
Profile yang Listing Di Bursa Efek Indonesia). Jurnal Nominal. Vol. 1. No.2. 23-35.
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta.

Permana, Virgiwan A. dan Raharja, 2012. Pengaruh Kinerja Lingkungan dan Karakteristik
Perusahaan Terhadap Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure (Studi
Empiris pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEI). Diponegoro Journal of
Accounting. Vol.1. No.2. 1-12.

Rakhiemah, Aldilla Noor dan Dian Agustia. (2009). Pengaruh Kinerja Lingkungan Terhadap
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure dan Kinerja Finansial Perusahaan
Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi
XII. Palembang.
Reverte, Carmelo. 2009. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure
Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 88. 351-366.

Sarumpaet, Susi. 2005. The Relationship Between Environmental Performance and
Financial Performance of Indonesian Companies. Jurnal Akuntansi & Keuangan.
Vol. 7. No.2. 89-98. Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Kristen Petra.

Sembiring, E.R. 2005. Karakteristik Perusahaan dan Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial
Study Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Tercatat di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi VIII. Solo

Suratno, Ignatius Bondan., Darsono, dan Mutmainah, S. 2006. Pengaruh Environmental
Performance terhadap Environmental Disclosure dan Economic Performance (Studi
Empiris Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta Periode
2001-2004). Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IX. Padang.

Wallace, R.S.O, Kamal Naser and Areceli Mora. The Relationship Between the
Comprehensiveness of Corporate Annual Report and Firm Characteristics In Spain.
Accounting and Bussiness Research. Vol.25. 41-53. Winter 1994.

Yuliani, Rahma. 2003. Pengaruh Karakteristik dan Perusahaan terhadap Praktek
Pengungkapan Sosial dan Lingkungan di Indonesia. Tesis Fakultas Ekonomi.
Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.

Verrechia, 2006. Discretionary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics.
Vol.5(3). 179-194.

Veronica, Theodora Martina. 2009. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan terhadap
Pengungkapan Tanggungjawab Sosial pada Perusahaan Sektor Pertambangan yang
Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas
Gunadarma.























APPENDIX
SPSS Output Results

NORMALITY TEST

MULTICOLINEARITY TEST
Coefficients
a

Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)

FS ,328 3,053
BC ,390 2,567
ROA ,606 1,651
EPS ,702 1,424
DER ,759 1,318
EP ,684 1,461
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI


AUTO CORRELATION TEST






One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

CSRDI ROA EPS FS DER BC EP
N 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Normal Parameters
a,b
Mean ,3965 ,1289 577,2301 29,5725 ,9226 6,0875 3,4750
Std. Deviation ,12684 ,10672 837,27626 1,14367 ,67687 2,29581 ,61572
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,107 ,129 ,236 ,096 ,165 ,146 ,342
Positive ,107 ,129 ,206 ,096 ,165 ,146 ,342
Negative -,047 -,117 -,236 -,077 -,130 -,105 -,241
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ,956 1,155 2,114 ,863 1,478 1,302 3,061
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,320 ,139 ,000 ,446 ,025 ,068 ,000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.

Model Summary
b

Model
Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 ,704 28,998 6 73 .000 1.969


HETEROSCEDASTICITY TEST



MULTIPLE REGRESSION TEST


F TEST




Coefficients
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95,0% Confidence
Interval for B Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Zero-
order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -,415 ,329

-1,262 ,211 -1,071 ,241

FS ,010 ,012 ,092 ,823 ,413 -,014 ,035 ,187 ,096 ,052 ,328 3,053
BC -,007 ,006 -,127 -1,247 ,216 -,018 ,004 ,146 -,144 -,079 ,390 2,567
ROA -,087 ,097 -,073 -,896 ,373 -,281 ,107 ,285 -,104 -,057 ,606 1,651
EPS -2,750E-5 ,000 -,182 -2,391 ,019 ,000 ,000 ,026 -,269 -,152 ,702 1,424
DER -,030 ,014 -,158 -2,164 ,034 -,057 -,002 -,309 -,246 -,138 ,759 1,318
EP ,175 ,016 ,850 11,050 ,000 ,144 ,207 ,803 ,791 ,703 ,684 1,461
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI

ANOVA
b

Model Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression ,895 6 ,149 28,998 ,000
a

Residual ,376 73 ,005
Total 1,271 79
a. Predictors: (Constant), FS, BC, ROA, EPS, DER, EP
b. Dependent Variable: CSRDI






COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION (R
2
)

T TEST











Model Summary
b

Model
R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .839
a
.704 .680 .07173
.704 28,998 6 73
,000 1,969
a. Predictors: (Constant), FS, BC, ROA, EPS, DER, EP
b. Dependent Variable: CSRDI



Coefficients
a
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1(Constant) -,415 ,329 -1,262 ,211
FS ,010 ,012 ,092 ,823 ,413
BC -,007 ,006 -,127 -1,247 ,216
ROA -,087 ,097 -,073 -,896 ,373
EPS -2,750E-5 ,000 -,182 -2,391 ,019
DER -,030 ,014 -,158 -2,164 ,034
EP ,175 ,016 ,850 11,050 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: CSRDI