Abstract :

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is crucial for companies that have a substantial ecological footprint, such as coal mining in Indonesia. PT. PBN strives to achieve a harmonious combination of responsible behaviors and economic viability. However, attaining this equilibrium necessitates strong community engagement to alleviate negative effects and provide beneficial contributions at the local level. This study focuses on the underexplored issue of poor community participation in CSR initiatives within Indonesia’s coal mining sector. Although PT. PBN has made substantial investments in environmental and community activities, recent evaluations indicate a substantial disparity between stakeholder expectations and the level of actual participation in activities. Gaining insight into the factors contributing to this disparity is vital for the effectiveness of CSR endeavors, as the support of stakeholders and active involvement of the community are crucial for ensuring social sustainability and enduring stability. The study utilizes analyzed data from interviews conducted with both internal and external respondents. It uses problem tree analysis in order to uncover the root causes of low community participation. Focus group discussions are used to delve deeper into the objectives of Value-focused Thinking (VFT) and help determine which alternative solutions should be chosen. The integration of VFT with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) aids decision-making by recognizing the criteria and sub-criteria used to evaluate solutions based on their values. The findings emphasize identifying skill gaps and providing formal acknowledgment to improve the sense of responsibility and involvement of the community in CSR initiatives. This is in line with PT. PBN’s commitment to its stakeholders and the sustainable development of the community in the long run. In the end, decision-makers give the utmost significance to the strategy of licensing and training, considering its long-term impact, effectiveness, resource availability, and ease of control.

---

Keywords :

analytical hierarchy process, Community participation, Corporate Social Responsibility, Decision making, Value Focused Thinking

---

References :

1. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, E. (2002). The business case for Sustainable Development: Making a difference towards the Earth Summit 2002 and beyond. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(02)00071-4
2. Sumardjo, S., Firmansyah, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2023). Social Transformation in Peri-Urban Communities toward Food Sustainability and Achievement of SDGs in the Era of Disruption. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310678
3. Arli, D. I., & Tjiptono, F. (2018). Consumer ethics, religiosity, and consumer social responsibility: are they related? Social Responsibility Journal, 14(2), 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2016-0036
4. Rudito, B., Famiola, M., & Anggahegari, P. (2023). Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Capital: Journey of Community Engagement toward Community Empowerment Program in Developing Country. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010466
5. Bhinekawati, R. (2018). The Linkages Between CSR, Social Capital and Small Enterprise Development in a Large Company’s Supply Chain. In Approaches to Global Sustainability, Markets, and Governance: Vol. Part F167 (pp. 157–178). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5047-3_10
6. Widiastuty, E., & Soewarno, N. (2019). CSR expenditure and company performance: Charity or signal? Evidence from Indonesia. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(3), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.12776/QIP.V23I3.1273
7. Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2022). Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
8. Veselý, A. (2008). Problem Tree: A problem structuring heuristic. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 2(02).
9. French, S. (2015). Cynefin: Uncertainty, small worlds and scenarios. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(10), 1635–1645. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2015.21
10. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5
11. Vivas, V., & Duarte Oliveira, M. (2017). Structuring Multicriteria Resource Allocation Models – A framework to assist auditing organizations. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems – Volume 1: ICORES, 321-328. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006189503210328
12. Yagmur, L. (2016). Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process). Energy, 94, 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.011
13. Ruiz Bargueño, D., Salomon, V. A., Marins, F. A., Palominos, P., & Marrone, L. A. (2021). State of the art review on the analytic hierarchy process and urban mobility. Mathematics, 9(24), 3179. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9243179
14. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
15. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. International Series in Operations Research; Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
16. Alonso, J.A., & Lamata, M.T. (2006). Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(04), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218488506004114