Analisis Motivasi Lembaga Pemeringkat ESG (Yayasan Kehati) Dalam Proses Perumusan ESG Index: Institutional Logics

Indahna Sulfa; Elvia R. Shauki

doi:10.33395/owner.v7i4.1606

Authors

Indahna Sulfa Universitas Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1216-7229
Elvia R. Shauki University of Indonesia

DOI:

10.33395/owner.v7i4.1606

Keywords:

coupling, decoupling, ESG Index Scoring, market logics, multiple logics, professional logics, self-regulatory logics, single unit of analysis, sustainable investment, sustainability logics

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi penerapan logika kelembagaan dan kepemimpinan implisit terhadap motivasi Yayasan Kehati dalam merumuskan Indeks ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) yang berbeda dibandingkan dengan lembaga pemeringkat ESG lainnya. Penelitian ini bertujuan memberikan kontribusi dalam bidang akademik guna pengembangan literatur terkait konsep Institutional Logics dan Implicit Leadership Theory serta penyempurnaan untuk penelitian selanjutnya yang masih terbatas. Studi kasus digunakan sebagai strategi penelitian dengan pendekatan penelitian kualitatif dan single unit of analysis yaitu Yayasan Kehati. Motivasi Yayasan Kehati dalam merumuskan indeks ESG yang berbeda dibandingkan dengan lembaga pemeringkat lainnya dilatarbelakangi oleh (1) praktek “coupling” dan “decoupling” ditemukan dalam proses perhitungan skor dan perumusan indeks, “coupling” terindikasi pada proses penyusunan Standar Operasional Prosedur (SOP) Index Scoring Kehati dengan mengadaptasi regulas eksternal (GRI, SASB, UN PRIS, dan POJK 51/2017), sedangkan “decoupling” ditunjukkan pada proses pengambilan keputusan dalam mendefinisikan Indeks ESG oleh para aktor; (2) terdapat multiple logics yang ditunjukkan selama proses penilaian dan pengindekan (professional, market, self-regulatory, dan sustainability logics); (3) pada saat yang sama, competing logics juga ditemukan selama proses ini (aktor yang mengelola proses perhitungan skor dan perumusan indeks, SOP ESG Index Scoring, dan rutinitas dalam proses pemilihan, penilaian, penyaringan, dan peninjauan emiten); dan selain itu, (4) dominant logic juga ditemukan sebagai kontribusi professional logics dalam proses ESG index scoring oleh para aktor di Yayasan Kehati. Selain itu, persepsi, interpretasi, dan tindakan para aktor yang mengelola Indeks ESG di Yayasan Kehati dimotivasi oleh perilaku kepemimpinan implisit berdasarkan 4 (empat) faktor kepemimpinan: dukungan, fasilitas kerja, fasilitas interaksi, dan penekanan tujuan. Dengan mengetahui motivasi Yayasan Kehati dalam menghasilkan pemeringkatan ESG yang berbeda dibandingkan dengan lembaga pemeringkat ESG lainnya, hal ini bertujuan untuk mendorong investasi yang berkelanjutan, memperoleh kepercayaan investor (baik calon investor maupun investor yang sudah ada) yang diharapkan akan mendapatkan keyakinan yang memadai dalam mengambil keputusan investasi serta menjadi pengembangan praktik bisnis bagi lembaga pemeringkat ESG di masa yang akan datang.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Plum-X Analityc

References

Aravind, D., & Christmann, P. (2011). Decoupling of Standard Implementation from Certification: Does Quality of ISO 14001 Implementation Affect Facilities’ Environmental Performance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 73–102. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20112114

Arvidsson, S., & Dumay, J. (2022). Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937

Berente, N. (2009). Conflicting Institutional Logics and The Department of Information Systems. ProQuest Western Reserve University Dissertations Publishing.

Berg, F., Jay, J., Kölbel, J., & Rigobon, R. (2023, January). The Signal In The Noise. Air Force Magazine, 98(11), 42–43. https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/econpol-forum-2023-1-berg-jay-koelbel-rigobon-signal-noise.pdf

Berg, F., Kolbel, J., & Rigobon, R. (2019). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. SSRN Electronic Journal, 26(6), 1–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033

Bose, S. (2020). Evolution of ESG Reporting Frameworks. In Values at Work. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55613-6

Davies, I. A., & Doherty, B. (2019). Balancing a Hybrid Business Model: The Search for Equilibrium at Cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3960-9

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736

Friedland, A., Alford, R., Powel, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. The New Institutionalism in 612 Organizational Analysis, 248–613.

Godinho, V., Venugopal, S., Singh, S., & Russell, R. (2017). When Exchange Logics Collide: Insights from Remote Indigenous Australia. Journal of Macromarketing, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146717696893

Golant, B., & Sillince, J. (2007). The Constitution of Organizational Legitimacy: A Narrative Perspective. Organization Studies - ORGAN STUD, 28, 1149–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607075671

Grassl, W. (2011). Hybrid Forms of Business: The Logic of Gift in the Commercial World. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(SUPPL. 1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1182-5

Jose, T. (2017). Need for Harmonisation of Sustainability Reporting Standards. Journal of Finance and Economics, 5(6), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfe-5-6-1

Kasmuri, S. (2019). Decision-Making Behavior of Loan Restructuring Based on Institutional Logics: Case Study Bank Perkreditan Rakyat Industry in West Java Region. AFEBI Accounting Review, 4(01), 1. https://doi.org/10.47312/aar.v4i01.219

Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd Edition (SAGE (ed.); 3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

MSCI, I. (2023). What is an MSCI ESG Rating? MSCI Inc. https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings

N. A’yuninnisa, R., Fashih Hibatul Haqqi, M., Balqish Rusli, N., & Puteri, N. (2020). Indonesian Implicit Leadership Theory: Typical and Positive Leadership Prototypes for Indonesian Millennials. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 7(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.500.2020.71.1.7

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::AID-SMJ909>3.0.CO;2-C

Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x

Phillips, J., & Lord, R. (1986). Notes on the Practical and Theoretical Consequences of Implicit Leadership Theories for the Future of Leadership Measurement. Journal of Management - J MANAGE, 12, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200104

Pine B., J., & James H., G. (1998). Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97–105.

Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic A new linkage between diversity and performance. Advances in Strategic Management, 17(April 1985), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17010-x

Scott, W. Richard, Martin Ruef, P. M., & Caronna, and C. (2000). Institutional Change and Health Care Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. University of Chicago Press.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching Adulthood?: The Maturing of Institutional Theory Author ( s ): W . Richard Scott Source?: Theory and Society , Vol . 37 , No . 5 , Special Issue on Theorizing Institutions?: Current Approaches and Debates ( Oct ., 2008 ), pp . 427-442 Publishe. 37(5), 427–442.

Shauki, E. R. (2018). Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research Analysis Using Nvivo 11. University of Indonesia.

Sustainalytics. (2022). Search a company’s ESG Risk Rating. Sustainalytics. https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-ratings

Yayasan Kehati. (2022). Tentang Kami. Yayasan Kehati Website. https://kehati.or.id/tentang-kami/#:~:text=VISI %26 MISI KEHATI&text=Sebuah dunia dengan keanekaragaman hayati,secara adil%2C bermartabat dan berkelanjutan.

Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.189

Zilber, T. B. (2013). How institutional logics matter: A bottom-up exploration. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 48A, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X201600048A005