VOlUME 06 ISSUE 03 MARCH 2023
1Daniel Dudung,2Barahima Abbas,2Ihwan Tjoli,2Eko Martanto,3Trisiwi Wahyu Widayati,3Andoyo Supriyantono,3Deny Anjelus Iyai,4Roni Bawole
1Postgraduate of Environmental Department. Papua University. Manokwari. Papua Barat
2Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Faculty. Papua University. Manokwari. Papua Barat
3Department of Animal Science, Animal Science Faculty. Papua University. Manokwari. Papua Barat
4Department of Marine Science. Faculty of Fishery &Marine Science. Papua University. Manokwari. Papua Barat
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i3-24Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
The program of Corporate Social Responsibility is the key programs and project delivered and responsible for private sector as a source of economic empowerment and social cares. However, this sector has many involved interest and interlinked actors. Inventory all resources and roles played by actors are utmost important. The objective of this research was to clearly and precisely map actors in CSR sectors for agriculture and economic development. As much as 27 institutions interviewed and asked the roles and resources of individuals working inside organizations formally and informally. Parameters collected were shapes of organizations, status of law, organization types, roles of stakeholders, effect, importance, turn-back effect. We collected data of resources sharing, duration of periods, continuity of resources, and power of resources. Data gathered related to intervention, which could play by organization per se, i.e. policy, financial, space, time, access, satisfaction, knowledge, skills, and power. Data were stored in Microsoft excel worksheet and export to Social Network Visualizer software version 2.5.. Identified key and strategic stakeholder in CSR determined by its power and interest. We found nine negative correlation relationships amongst actors. There are also 18 positive correlation relationship amongst actors. We identified 7th layers based on the rules of power centrality (PC). Quadrant 1 consisted of one actor, seven actors (quadrant 2), 10 actors (quadrant 3), and nine actors (quadrant 4). Actors shall move from quadrant 4 to quadrant 2, as well as actors in quadrant 1 and quadrant 3. Delivery of CSR will move on and run forward to achieve its final goals, i.e., community development for prosperity living.
KEYWORDS:CSR, power-interest actors, shared resources, shareholders stakeholders, social network analysis
REFERENCES
1) R. E. Freeman, “the Stakeholder Approach,” Strateg. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–2, 2015, doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139192675.003.
2) F. Hermans, M. Sartas, B. van Schagen, P. van Asten, and M. Schut, “Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: Opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 2, p. e0169634, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169634.
3) R. Santos, P. Antunes, G. Baptista, P. Mateus, and L. Madruga, “Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 100–110, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.025.
4) C. Vasco, C. Sánchez, K. Limaico, and V. Hugo, “Motivations to consume agroecological food.: An analysis of farmers ’ markets in Quito , Ecuador,” vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2018.
5) D. Dudung et al., “International Journal of Social Science And Human Research Corporate Social Responsibility in the Economic , Agriculture , and Environment Development.; An Evidence of Teluk Bintuni,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. Res., vol. 06, no. 02, pp. 948–957, 2023, doi: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i2-25.
6) D. M. Sabat, M. Krova, and S. M. Makandolu, “Respons Produksi Agroindustri Se ’ I Babi Terhadap Production Response of Smoked Pork Agroindustry,” J. Nukl. Peternak., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7–16, 2018.
7) A. P. Baršauskas, T. Šarapovas, and A. Cvilikas, “"The evaluation of e‐commerce impact on business efficiency,” Balt. J. Manag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1996.
8) N. V. Phuong, D. T. M. Hanh, T. H. Cuong, A. Markemann, A. Valle Zárate, and M. Mergenthaler, “Impact of quality attributes and marketing factors on prices for indigenous pork in Vietnam to promote sustainable utilization of local genetic resources,” Livest. Res. Rural Dev., vol. 26, no. 7, p. 2014, 2014.
9) G. Leroy, R. Baumung, D. Notter, E. Verrier, M. Wurzinger, and B. Scherf, “Stakeholder involvement and the management of animal genetic resources across the world,” Livest. Sci., vol. 198, no. June 2016, pp. 120–128, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2017.02.018.
10) R. E. Phiri, “Determination of piggery business profitability in Balaka district in Malawi,” Livest. Res. Rural Dev., vol. 24, no. 8, p. 202006, 2012.
11) J. M. Bryson and J. M. Bryson, “What to do when Stakeholders matter Analysis Techniques,” vol. 9037, no. 2004, pp. 20–53, 2007, doi: 10.1080/14719030410001675722.
12) B. Govoeyi et al., “Participatory innovation analysis along livestock value chains: Case of swine value chain in Benin,” Agric. Syst., vol. 174, no. April, pp. 11–22, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.04.007.
13) C. Devitt, L. Boyle, D. L. Teixeira, N. E. O’Connell, M. Hawe, and A. Hanlon, “Stakeholder perspectives on the use of pig meat inspection as a health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; a SWOT analysis,” Ir. Vet. J., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s13620-016-0076-3.
14) M. M. Dione, E. A. Ouma, K. Roesel, J. Kungu, P. Lule, and D. Pezo, “Participatory assessment of animal health and husbandry practices in smallholder pig production systems in three high poverty districts in Uganda,” Prev. Vet. Med., vol. 117, no. 3–4, pp. 565–576, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.10.012.
15) F. Muniesa, Actor-Network Theory, Second Edi., vol. 1. Elsevier, 2015. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85001-1.
16) J.-M. Ringle, Christian M; Sven Wende S; Becker, “SmartPLS.” SmartPLS GmbH, Germany, 2005.
17) E. Schiffer, “Net-Map.” 2007.
18) M. Bastian, S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy, “Gephi.: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks Visualization and Exploration of Large Graphs,” Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media, pp. 361–362, 2009, doi: 10.13140/2.1.1341.1520.
19) L. J. Moleong, Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, 3rd ed. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya Offset, Bandung, 1991.
20) D. Iyai et al., “Analyses of interlinked actors in determining the potential business beneficiaries of small-scale pig farming systems in West Papua, Indonesia,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05911.
21) S. Mangkuprawira, “Strategi Peningkatan Kapasitas Modal Sosial dan Kualitas Sumber Daya Manusia Pendamping Pembangunan Pertanian,” Forum Penelit. Agro Ekon., vol. 28, no. 1, p. 19, 2016, doi: 10.21082/fae.v28n1.2010.19-34.
22) J. Thurlow, P. Dorosh, and B. Davis, Demographic Change, Agriculture, and Rural Poverty. Elsevier Inc., 2019. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-812134-4.00003-0.
23) D. Kalamaras, “SocNetV: Social Network Analysis and Visualization Software.” 2019.
24) J. Gil and S. Schmidt, “The origin of the Mexican network of power,” Int. Soc. Netw. Conf., pp. 22–25, 1996.
25) P. A. Sinclair, “Network centralization with the Gil Schmidt power centrality index,” Soc. Networks, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 214–219, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.04.004.
26) B. K. Boogaard, L. J. S. Boekhorst, S. J. Oosting, and J. T. Sørensen, “Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark,” Livest. Sci., vol. 140, no. 1–3, pp. 189–200, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028.
27) V. J. Brookes, M. Hernández-Jover, R. Neslo, B. Cowled, P. Holyoake, and M. P. Ward, “Identifying and measuring stakeholder preferences for disease prioritisation: A case study of the pig industry in Australia,” Prev. Vet. Med., vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 118–131, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.10.016.