Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Performance for Employees with an NH Approach Method

Nor Hadi


This article explains the empirical research results of the social responsibility performance measurement model for employees that is done by companies by using the NH Approach method. Social responsibility needs to be measured to see the effectiveness of the social responsibility done by a company, as well as to provide legitimacy for stakeholders regarding the company’s volunteer efforts in carrying out its responsibilities. The NH Approach is an integrated social responsibility measurement model that was developed based on the legitimacy theory and the stakeholder theory. An evaluation is conducted from two sides, from the stakeholder side as the recipient of social responsibility assistance, and the company management side as the social responsibility assistance provider.

The study used a research and development approach, where the respondents numbered 98 individuals with a response rate level of 92% (90 respondents who returned the questionnaires). From the 90 questionnaires submitted, only 62 of them were considered complete and analyzed.

The research results reveal that the practice of social responsibility that was done by the company has a grade of Unsatisfactory (C), because the social responsibility index has a score of 62.39. Several factors act as the triggers, including misunderstandings between parties in understanding social responsibility, underdeveloped social responsibility programs that have already been conducted, and limited social responsibility practice, so that the programs implemented cover various elements of social responsibility.


social responsibility, NH Approach, employee, legitimization

Full Text:



Adams, C. & Frost, G. R. (2004). The development of corporate websites and implications for ethical, social, and environmental reporting through these media. Edinburgh , The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

Abdullah, H., & Fuong, C. C. (2010). The implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management system in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 6 (3 ).

Aerts, W., Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., & Magnan, M. (2006). Performance disclosure on the web: An exploration of the impact of managers’ perceptions of stakeholder concerns. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 6 (12), 159-194.

Connelly, J. T., & Limpaphayom, P. (2004). Environmental reporting and firm performance: Evidence from Thailand. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 137-149.

Gunawan, Y., & Mayang Sari , Sektor. (2015). Pengaruh sustainability reporting terhadap nilai perusahaan dengan instrument opportunity sebagai variabel moderating. E-Journal Akuntansi Transaksi 2(1), 1-12.

Hadi, N. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility, 2nd Ed. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Hamzah, A. (2016). Pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan pada sektor keuangan di bursa efek Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Keuangan dan Akuntansi 2 (2), 6-92.

Harsanti, P. (2011). Corporate social responsibility dan teori legitimasi. Mawas, 24 (1), 206-207.

Joshi, P. L., & Gao, S. S. (2009). Multinational corporate social and environmental disclosures (CSED) on websites. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 19, 27-44.

Kazmin, A., & Kynge, J. (2001). Breathless in Bangkok: Environmental degradation throughout Asia has reached critical levels. Financial Times, June 23, p. 7.

Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 279-291.

Kuasirikun, N. (2005). Attitudes to the development and implementation of social and environmental accounting in Thailand. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16, 1035-1057.

Kuasirikun, N., & Sherer, M. (2004). Corporate social accounting disclosure in Thailand. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, 17, 629-660.

Lint, L. W. (2009). Corporate social and environmental disclosure in emerging securities markets. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35, 1-32.

Micalak. Halina Waniak, Macuda. Malgorzata, & Krasodomska. Joana. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and accounting in Poland: A literature review. Accounting and Management Information System , 15(2), 255-303.

Moneva, J. M., & Ortas, E. (2010). Corporate environmental and financial performance: A multivariate approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(2), 193-210.

Putu Diva Awatara , Gusti I, Bandani Anwar, (2016). Pengaruh tanggung jawab sosial terhadap komitmen organisasi dan kinerja karyawan. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 14(2), 3-4.

Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand, the news is all good and increasing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3, 67-83.

Rowbottom, N., & Lymer, A. (2009). Exploring the use of online corporate sustainability information. Accounting Forum, 33(2), 176-186.

Siregar, B., & Gautama. (2015). Penerapan CSR dalam pandangan Islam. JURIS, 14(2) (July-December 2015).

Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., & Collin, S. O. (2009). What explains the extent and content of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 352-364.

Warr, P. (2007). Long-term economic performance in Thailand. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 24, 138-163.

Wheeler, D., & Elkington, J. (2001). The end of the corporate environmental report? or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and communication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 1-14.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 IQTISHADIA

Iqtishadia Journal Indexed by :

Creative Commons License
Iqtishadia : Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi dan Bisnis Islam is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View My Stats