How to do Social Impact Assessment

Today's topic would be:

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as baseline information to develop social framework.

As responsible company would say their operation are transparent, accountable and responsible. It is wise that the company conduct SIA to each of their operation providing factual view, baseline information and analysis of community lives in affected areas of company operation.

As for several industries such as mining and plantation, this SIA would help the management very much if it's conducted prior to company operation. Providing baseline information from culture, economic, education level up to community potential and interest.

This SIA shall be conducted by independent party or consultant, in order to get a factual information eliminating conflict of interest and power abuse syndrome during the process.

As many perhaps already understand how to do this SIA, this link of http://www.socialimpactassessment.net/ provide their own standards of SIA.

as one of their description below;

What is Social Impact Assessment?


Social impact assessment (SIA) is a sub-field of the social sciences that is developing a knowledge base to provide a systematic appraisal in advance of the impacts on the day-to-day quality of life of persons and communities whose environment is affected by a proposed project, plan or policy change.

Social impacts (also effects and consequences) refer to changes to individuals and communities due to a proposed action that alters the day-to-day way in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society.

Why is Social Impact Assessment Important?

We do social impact assessment to help individuals, communities, as well as government and private sector organizations understand and be able to anticipate the possible social consequences on human populations and communities of proposed project development or policy changes.

When Do We Do Social Impact Assessment?

SIA is done as part of the planning process and therefore alerts the planner and the project proponent (through the social assessor) to the likelihood of social impacts. Like a biological, physical, or economic impact—social impacts have to be pointed out and measured in order to be understood and communicated to the impacted population and decision-makers. Social impact assessment provides a realistic appraisal of possible social ramifications and suggestions for project alternatives and possible mitigation measures.




There is also a link in bahasa in a power point format regarding how to do Social Impact Analysis as below link

Terdapat pula link untuk Tata Cara Melakukan Analisa Dampak Sosial
www.rekompakjrf.org/.../Tata%20Cara%20Kajian%20Dampak%20Sosial.pps

Kajian Dampak Sosial serta analisa sangat menolong perusahaan atau institusi dalam merencanakan arahan program kerja kelola sosial mereka dan melakukan evaluasi atas kinerja mereka yang dirasakan langsung oleh masyarakat sekitar.

Transparansi dan indenpendensi dalam melakukan kajian ini sangat diperlukan untuk mendapatkan informasi faktual yang tidak bias, untuk itu sangat disarankan untuk tidak dilakukan oleh perusahaan sendiri melainkan oleh konsultan luar.

Sept, 26-2010

The 3rd International CSR Conference

Today's topic would be:

The Conference will be officially opened by H. E. Dr. Boediono, Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia


PLENARY SESSION

PLENARY I : Leadership and Policy in CSR

Mr. Peter Brew, Director Asia - International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF)Download Profile ››

Mr. Putera Sampoerna, Founder of Putera Sampoerna Foundation (PSF)Download Profile ››

Dr. Bambang Widianto, Executive Secretary of TNP2K Secretariat Vice President of the Republic of IndonesiaDownload Profile ››

PLENARY II: Systems / Instrumentation for Practicing Effective CSR

Ms. Sandra Taylor, Board of Directors for Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE)Download Profile ››

Mr. Mochamad Harun, VP Corporate Communication PT. Pertamina (Persero)

Mr. Haryadi Sukamdani, Vice President of Monetary, Fiscal and Public Policy - Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN)

PLENARY III: Implementation and Communication Reporting

Mr. Michael Oxman, Director of Advisory Services - Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)Download Profile ››

Mr. Yann Brault, Sustainable Development Director Danone Aqua & Coordinator Danone Ecosysteme Asia PositionDownload Profile ››

Mr. Yos A. Ginting, Director External Relations Communication & Contribution PT. H.M. Sampoerna, TbkDownload Profile ››

PLENARY IV : Summary and Closing

Mr. Silverius Oscar Unggul, Founder of TELAPAKDownload Profile ››

Mr. Prof. Dr. Emil Salim, Founder of KEHATIDownload Profile ››

Closing Remarks by Mr. Noke Kiroyan, Conference Chair/Chairman Board of Patrons Indonesia Business Links (IBL)Download Profile ››



BREAK-OUT SESSION

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Break-out Session I : Leadership required for effective CSR and policy that support sustainable development

A. Human Capital Development

1st Speaker - Mr. Josef Bataona, Human Resources & Corporate Relations Director Unilever Indonesia, Tbk

2nd Speaker - Mr. Aristides Katoppo, Founder of United In Diversity (UID)

B. Corporate Governance and Anti-Corruption

Mr. David W. Brown - Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)Download Profile ››

Mrs. Maria Nindita Radyati, Program Director MM-CSR - Trisakti University

(Master Degree Program with specialization in CSR)Download Profile ››

C. The Environment

1st Speaker - PT. Vestergaard Frandsen Indonesia

Mr. P.L. Coutrier, Board of Adviser - Indonesia Environtmental AssociationDownload Profile ››

D. Local Economic Development

1st Speaker - Mr. David Hulse, Representative / Indonesia FordFoundation Jakarta

2nd Speaker - RAPP *)

E. Conflict and Natural Disaster Risk Management

1st Speaker - Mr. Sugeng Tri Utomo, Deputy I - Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB) *)

Ms. Cynthia Jones, Head, Private Partnerships for Asia - World Food ProgrammeDownload Profile ››

Break-out Session II : Systems applied to conduct CSR partnership

A. Human Capital Development

Mr. A'an Suryana, Staff Writter and Secretary Editorial The Jakarta PostDownload Profile ››

Fransiscus Welirang, CEO BogasariDownload Profile ››

B. Corporate Governance and Anti-Corruption

1st Speaker - Mr. Todung Mulya Lubis, Transparency International Indonesia (TII)

Mr. Rodney Hay, Executive Director Forensic Services - Deloitte & Touche Financial Advisory ServicesDownload Profile ››

C. The Environment

1st Speaker - Mr. Budi Yuwono, Director of Human Settlement Ministry of Public Works

2nd Speaker – Mr. Sawedi Muhammad, General Manager of Community Relations and Provincial External Relations - PT. International Nickel Indonesia Tbk (INCO) *)

D. Local Economic Development

1st Speaker - Mr.Prof. Dr. Thoby Mutis Rector of Trisakti University Jakarta *)

2nd Speaker – Mr. Dani Priyono, CSV Manager PT Nestle Indonesia

E. Conflict and Natural Disaster Risk Management

1st Speaker - Mr. Eamon Ginley, President Director – HOLCIM *)

Mr. Avianto Amri, Disaster Management Program Manager Plan InternationalDownload Profile ››

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Break-out Session III : Implementation of CSR through Stakeholder Partnership

A. Human Capital Development

1st Speaker - Ms. Claire Deevy, Regional Community Affairs Manager – Microsoft Asia Pacific *)

2nd Speaker – Mr. Peter van Rooij, ILO

B. Corporate Governance and Anti-Corruption

Mr. Tjahjono Soerjodibroto, LPPMDownload Profile ››

Mrs. Yanti Triwadiantini Koestoer, Executive Director of Indonesia Business Links (IBL)Download Profile ››

C. The Environment

Mrs. Noesita Indriani, Corporate Secretary – PT. Indonesia PowerDownload Profile ››

Mr. Agus Sari, CEO of CCF Conservation & Non-Executive Director of PEACEDownload Profile ››

D. Local Economic Development

Mrs. Katri Krisnati - Community Relations Manager, ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia IncDownload Profile ››

Mr. Riza Pratama, Corporate Social Responsibility Officer, PT. Freeport Indonesia (PTFI)Download Profile ››

E. Conflict and Natural Disaster Risk Management

1st Speaker - Ms. Amalia Yunita, Founder of Global Rescue Network

Mr. Krishna PribadiDownload Profile ››

Break-out Session IV : Monitoring and Reporting of CSR Implementation

A. Human Capital Development

1st Speaker - Mr. Muhammad Ariono Margiono, Maverick

Mr. Hardinsyah, National Center for Sustainability Reporting (NCSR)Download Profile ››

B. Corporate Governance and Anti-Corruption

1st Speaker - Mr. Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, Commissioner of Hero / Giant Supermarket

Dr. James Simanjuntak Indonesian Institute for Corporate Directorship (IICD)Download Profile ››

C. The Environment

1st Speaker - Mr. Daud Dharsono, President Director - PT. Smart, Tbk *)

Mr. Asril Darussamin, Indonesia Representatives and Small Holder Coordinator – Roundtable Sustainable Palm oil (RSPO)Download Profile ››

D. Local Economic Development

1st Speaker - Mr. Erwin Maryoto, Papua Affairs Senior Manager – British Petroleum (BP) Papua

2nd Speaker – Sujana, Deputy Menko Kesra

E. Conflict and Natural Disaster Risk Management

1st Speaker - Mr. Budi Darmawan, Bidang Bencana & Communication Affairs Pundi Amal SCTV

Mr. Jimmy Nadapdap, Humanitarian Emergency Affairs Director World Vision IndonesiaDownload Profile ››

ASEAN EXPERIENCE

Asean Foundation Representatives

Mr. Dr. Filemon A. Uriarte, Jr, Executive Director - Asean FoundationDownload Profile ››

Mr. Edgardo C. Amistad, Chairman - League of Corporate Foundations, Philippines

Canadian Embassy

Mr. John Ridsdel, Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer - TVI Resource Dev't. (Phils.) Inc.Download Profile ››

Ms. Phuong Hoang, Corporate Responsibility Specialist - Talisman Vietnam LimitedDownload Profile ››

Update September 2010

Todays Update would be:

Newmont Included in Dow Jones Sustainability World Index for Fourth Consecutive Year

Posted: Sep 22, 2010 – 01:47 PM EST at http://www.csrwire.com/

DENVER, Sep. 22 /CSRwire/ - Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) ("Newmont" or "the Company") today announced that it was selected to be included in the prestigious Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (www.sustainability-index.com) for the fourth consecutive year. In 2007, Newmont became the first gold company included in the index. In addition, Newmont was selected for inclusion in the DJSI North America Index in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

"Demonstrating industry leadership in our environmental and social performance over the long-term is vital to the ongoing success of our business," said Richard O'Brien, Newmont's President and Chief Executive Officer. "To ensure Newmont remains sustainable, profitable and responsible we must strive to lead in safety, environmental stewardship and social responsibility."

DJSI World, Dow Jones' premier sustainability index, tracks the performance of 2,500 leading companies, worldwide. The index independently evaluates companies' long-term economic, environmental, and social performance, publicly identifying the top 10 percent of performers in areas of sustainability.

O'Brien went on to add, "I am especially proud of our employees whose ongoing commitment to sustainability honors our core values. Year after year, our employees consistently demonstrate leadership by delivering sustainable value and opportunity for our shareholders, employees and host communities."

Companies are selected based on a systematic assessment identifying the top sustainability leaders in 58 different industry groups. The methodology evaluates companies based on a variety of criteria, including transparency, corporate governance, risk and crisis management, environmental management and performance, stakeholder engagement, community development, energy management and climate change, biodiversity, human resources, and safety.

Earlier this year, Newmont was ranked 16th on Corporate Responsibility magazine's annual list of 100 Best Corporate Citizens. Newmont is the only mining company in the list's top 20, joining businesses such as Intel, Gap, IBM and Microsoft.

More information on Newmont's environmental and social performance can be found in the company's annual sustainability report, www.BeyondTheMine.com. The report is published as part of the company's ongoing obligations as a founding member of the International Council on Mining and Metals (www.icmm.com) and in accordance with its commitments under the United Nations' Global Compact (www.unglobalcompact.org) and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (www.voluntaryprinciples.org).

About Newmont

Founded in 1921 and publicly traded since 1925, Newmont (www.newmont.com) is one of the largest gold companies in the world. Headquartered in Colorado, the Company has approximately 35,000 employees and contractors, with the majority working at core operations in the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia and Ghana. Newmont is the only gold company listed in the S&P 500 index and in 2007 became the first gold company selected to be part of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. Newmont's industry leading performance is reflected through high standards in environmental management, health and safety for its employees and creating value and opportunity for host communities and shareholders.

 
 taken from http://www.businessrespect.net/
 
Germany: Deutsche Telekom CEO in bribery investigation
Deutsche Telekom chief executive Rene Obermann and seven others are being investigated by the German authorities over allegations of bribery, according to the company.

The move focuses on activities in some of the company's businesses based in Macedonia and Montenegro, where bribes have allegedly been paid to influence regulators. Rene Obermann has rejected the suggestions of bribery as being false.

An investigation by the US authorities has been underway already for the last four years. It called upon Mr Obermann as a witness last year, and has to date made no charge that the chief executive was thought to have been directly involved.

Last month, the German authorities raided Mr Obermann's home - a move which the company labelled as 'disproportionate'.

Dated :15 Sep 2010


Russia: Microsoft tries to sidestep crackdowns on political groups
Microsoft has announced that it is instructing its Russian business not to take part in software piracy actions. The move follows criticism that the security services in Russia had been using alleged software piracy as an excuse to harrass and suppress opposition groups.

Raids against opposition groups have often been supported by private lawyers working from Microsoft, which has been more assertive in recent years over trying to defend its intellectual property rights. However, such raids have been noted to coincide with events being organised by the groups, and illegal software has rarely been discovered.

Previously, Microsoft had dismissed accusations, suggesting it was simply complying with local laws. The new policy, that the company would no longer support what it considered to be politically motivated actions, recognises that this has not been the case. In a statement on its blog, the company also said that it would offer legal aid to nonprofit groups that have been the target of software piracy actions.

Dated :13 Sep 2010



Apple suppliers in bribery charges
The two Apple suppliers named as having benefited from bribery allegedly received by its procurement executive Paul Devine have responded to charges. Devine has been accused by the company of having received more than $1m from Asian suppliers in return for confidential market information.

Taiwan firm Pegatron said that it has now suspended a manager that had been involved in the practices pending its own investigations.

South Korea's Cresyn has denied any wrongdoing, saying that it had signed a legal consultancy agreement with Paul Devine providing legal information about US market trends. However, Apple has said that the consultancy agreement included confidential information such as Apple product roadmaps and sales forecasts.

Devine is currently held in prison pending trial.

Dated :18 Aug 2010

Introducing Corporate Durability

Today's topic would be:

Corporate Durability (taken from the Durability institute)

Sustainability requires a radical rethink and a move aware from the cosy security of the Brundtland definition. We therefore reject the accepted terms of sustainability and sustainable development, preferring instead to use the term durability to emphasise the change in focus.

The essential features of durability can be described as follows:

Efficiency is concerned with the best use of scarce resources. This requires a redefinition of inputs to the transformational process and a focus upon environmental resources as the scarce resource

Efficiency is concerned with optimising the use of the scarce resources (ie environmental resources) rather than with cost reduction

Value is added through technology and innovation rather than through expropriation

Outputs are redefined to include distributional effects to all stakeholders

Strategies for sustainable development

Identify the true scarce resources and develop techniques to use then efficiently.
Measure and record all the effects of organisational activity and ensure an equitable distribution of these effects.

Development requires the continual balancing of all relevant factors and the privileging of none.

Contact us

For speaking: speaking@thedurabilityinstitute.org

For teaching: teaching@thedurabilityinstitute.org

For consultancy: consulting@thedurabilityinstitute.org

The case against CSR

Today's topic would be:

Reply to the Case Against CSR - The Latest VersionArticle by Mallen Baker

The Wall Street Journal recently carried a piece by Aneel Karnani, associate professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's Stephen M Ross School of Business. Karnani was the author some years ago of a thoughtful and trenchant critique of the 'Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' work of CK Prahalad, which I wrote about at the time. Now he has turned his attention to an attack against corporate social responsibility generally.

Unlike his previous critique, the CSR arguments draw upon well-trod ground. The summary goes something like this.

* Executives owe a single duty in their jobs - to maximise returns for shareholders.
* Where the interests of company and society are aligned, then maximising profits can work to the benefit of society. But it isn't CSR.
* Where the interests of company and society are opposed, then executives have no business looking to the benefit of society, because it's against the interest of their shareholders.
* It is the job of governments to worry about society. They should introduce the laws, taxes and other incentives to make sure that companies can operate without having to worry about such things.

This line of argument is simply the most recent expression of the rationale that goes back to Milton Friedman. It has the illusion of being based on mathematical certainty - where there is no such thing - and carries a value judgement that we have a duty to question.

First, the maths. People that argue that the duty of CEOs is to maximise profits for shareholders imply that it is possible to know in advance how this is to be done. At the very least, they carry the implication that it is all about the cash - and any dilemma or problem can be resolved by calculating how it will impact the bottom line in the short term.

You would think that - post financial crisis, post BP oil spill - nobody would use such arguments with a straight face. But never underestimate the resilience of old ideas even in the face of new realities.

How does one make profits? By and large by providing goods and services that customers want and prefer, with the agreement of society. The best CEOs describe this task in terms of getting the right people and looking after them, finding the best products that meet customer needs in new ways, and doing so in a way that governments, their employees and customers feel good about in terms of the impact on society.

That is not the only way to make short term profits, of course. And that is the point. There is a choice.

If, as Karnani implies, there were no choice, it wouldn't matter. But the fact that you find successful companies today that are committed to social responsibility, and you find successful companies today that couldn't care less - apparently - shows that there is a choice about how profits are made.

Social responsibility is not, in itself, a guarantee of profits. Lack of concerns for the impact of your operations is hardly one either.

Badly executed, either approach can destroy value.

You can take this as an 'enlightened self interest' argument if you like. Ironically, Karnani quotes auto makers as an example where business interest and social welfare have been aligned. "Auto makers have profited from responding to consumer demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, a plus for the environment".

Well, that's not quite how it happened.

Auto makers in the US for years fended off legislation to improve energy efficiency standards, and were supported in so doing because of customer indifference to fuel efficiency during a time of cheap oil.

Companies in other countries - notably Japan - took a different approach. Rather than ONLY asking 'what does the customer want today?' - which they did, of course - they also asked where society, and the science of climate change, was taking us into the future. They created the vehicles that would begin to meet those needs before the customer had actually got there.

Had US companies had more of a care to the environmental impact of the vehicles they might have survived in better shape. As it is, they went to the brink.

The fact is that businesses only do well so long as they provide things that people want. Those that see opportunities to make their products serve their customers well and benefit society will generally do well if they execute effectively. Profit maximisation as a strategy has been historically poor in actually delivering profit. Ask the banks.

So much for the maths. The other aspect is to do with values.

The argument that says that the role of the executive is to maximise profits regardless of the consequences depends upon a view of business as standing apart from society. This is just not true, and neither should it be.

Businesses will do well in a healthy society, with a thriving economy and a robust natural environment. These are life support systems for the business, they are not unnecessary distractions. Few businesses will thrive as little islands of prosperity alone in a sea of deprivation.

This is why, through history, businesses have often supported education. They understood easily and intuitively that if people were generally better educated, it would pay dividends for them when they were recruiting into the workforce.

Such things, according to Karnani, are best left to governments. Even, he says, when those governments are weak or corrupt.

So, on that basis, those companies like Anglo American who gave AIDS support to their workforce, their families and local communities at a time when the South African government was officially in denial about the disease - these companies were going beyond their brief.

And when Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Wal-Mart should have sat on its hands and nursed its profits, not mobilised its logistical network to the benefit of the country on the basis that it had a better position to do so than did the federal government.

Such a position is to deny that companies are a part of society, and that therefore they have no role as corporate citizens. Without being silly about it, it is time to challenge the absence of values behind such a position. We create our own reality. If we want businesses that have values, we can have that. It is our choice, as a society. The law of 'profit maximisation' is not as immutable as the laws of physics.

It may not be the primary role of a business to alleviate poverty, as Karnani says, but it benefits business if poverty is minimised. Henry Ford understood this when he paid his workers more, seeing the logic that this would make them able to afford to buy his cars.

Of course, that led to the first shareholders' action against Ford in 1919 that disputed his right to pay workers more, because this reduced profits. The case (Dodge vs Ford) was won - and serves as the origin of the logic over profit maximisation in the first place.

I have seen no shareholders attacks on, for instance, Marks & Spencer for adopting a highly ambitious 'Plan A' programme prompted by climate change. The company's board reviewed Al Gore's presentation on An Inconvenient Truth, and came to the conclusion that business in the next decades would have to evolve radically to meet the new demands that would emerge from our fast-changing world.

On the one hand, you could say they went far beyond their brief. But they have found a way to make real progress whilst continuing to make profits - indeed many of the things they do add to the profits. But that was not clear before they took the commitment. The commitment came first. They found the way to make it work to the benefit of the business.

That is what it means to make a choice. That is corporate social responsibility.

Community Social Responsibility

Today's topic would be:

Introducing Community Social Responsibility in Indonesia

Perhaps not many people realised that Indonesian community has a history of practising social responsibility way back in centuries, but here perhaps it would be more appropriate if I called it with "community social responsibility" (CSR)

This Community Social Responsibility born among community because Indonesian people lived as communal people with strong community bond. It is by natur they will feel emphaty to others, especially if there is a link between them. Which could be same school, same neighbourhood, same office, same occupation, same ethnics, same religions, etc..

There were many Community SR practices in Indonesia with different group community background. Almost all religious community on behalf of a mousque or a church, has their own Social Responsibility Programs, from emergency relief to education scholarship, some were able to provide SME loan empowering poor community or household to improve their livelihood.

Almost all school community, university, political party, housing compound community, or just a group of community gather by same interest or hobby like the community of bike to work, community of sun flower (people who likes to write poem), etc..

Their programs are very divers, from philantrophy to community development.

I could take a close egsample of Community SR in my neighbourhood managed by a mousque of Baitul Jihad, in bekasi. They source of funds are donation and zakat (somekind like moslem tax), which they managed to run a free-school from kindergarten to primary level (grade 6), they also manages to provides a free medical for poor people, and conducting many events such as;
- blood donation
- Parenting seminar
- Mariage consul & seminar

Indonesia is also a country with the largest moslem people, this fact add with those points mention above gave opportunities for third parties to offer services implementing social responsibilities in Indonesia as way of spending zakat money or other people contribution.

The history and common practise of Community SR has given Corporate Social Responsibility a higher qualification. Since it's consider conducting by company or corporate, therefore the result and outcome should be more powerfull and sustainable then their project (Community SR).

Perhaps this is one of the reason why Indonesian government does not do massive campaign for CSR, and only put voluntary requirement. Because there were already to many project roll out in Indonesia.

What the Government really needs are coordinate those project preventing double project in same location and ensuring equal distribution of project in all provinces/ communities.

- September 22, 2010