Abstract :

This study evaluates the environmental and social safeguards (ESS) performance assessment method of PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (Persero) (PT SMI), focusing on the corrective action plan (CAP) compliance rate in financing and investment. Despite the utility of the compliance rate in monitoring adherence to financing agreements, it often inaccurately reflect actual environmental and social performance due to its inherent ambiguities. This research employed a qualitative method, employing observations of 146 active financing facilities and equity investment, surveys, and discussions with PT SMI’s ESS personnel.

The study reveals that projects with higher CAP compliance rates may still have unresolved issues, while projects with fewer CAPs can be unfairly categorized as underperforming. To address these limitations, the study proposes a new, comprehensive framework that incorporates multiple variables to better capture ESS performance. This approach aligns with sustainable practices, enhances legitimacy, and meets stakeholder expectations more effectively. In addition, the proposed framework offers opportunities for incentives or disincentives based on ESS performance. Future research should focus on developing and validating this new framework to ensure accurate assessments of ESS performance in financing and investment activities.

---

Keywords :

Compliance rate, Corrective action plan, Environmental and social safeguards, Financing and investment, Performance assessment method.

---

References :

1. Azevedo, G., Oliveira, J., & Castro, A. (2018). Disclosure of environmental matters – Galp Energy. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management, 6(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.5890/jeam.2018.03.007
2. Mohamad, D., Sanggoro, H. B., Rustendi, I., & Pramono, S. A. (2022). The World Bank – Environment and Social Framework: Expectations and Realities of Implementing Environmental and Social Safeguards in Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170122
3. Satar, A., Musadiq, M. Al, Hutahayan, B., & Solimun. (2024). A systematic literature review: Determinants of sustainability competitive advantage. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 1675–1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3561
4. Steiner, J. F., & Steiner, G. A. (2012). Business, government, and society : a managerial perspective : text and cases. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
5. Wai-Khuen, W., Boon-Heng, T., & Siow-Hooi, T. (2023). The Influence of External Stakeholders on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Reporting: Toward a Conceptual Framework for ESG Disclosure. Foresight and STI Governance, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2023.2.9.20
6. Ziolo, M., Filipiak, B. Z., Bak, I., & Cheba, K. (2019). How to design more sustainable financial systems: The roles of environmental, social, and governance factors in the decision-making process. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205604