How To Design A Sustainability Program of Corporate Social Responsibility s Implementation In Public Health

Transcription

1 International Journal Of Scientific Research And Education Volume 2 Issue 11 Pages November-2014 ISSN (e): Website: How To Design A Sustainability Program of Corporate Social Responsibility s Implementation In Public Health Authors Nasrul Z 1, Totok Mardikanto 2, Mohamad Harisudin 3, Ahmad Arman Subijanto 4 1 Doctoral candidate-community Development Program, Post-graduated of the Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta 2 Professor-Faculty of Agriculture, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta 3 Professor-Faculty of Medical,Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta ABSTRACT The practices of CSR are still charity, philanthropy and incidental in nature which has not given the public health sector a concern as something important to address. The implementation of CSR is still lacking in the partnership with government and other stakeholders. The other deficiencies of the CSR programs that have been given by the company so far has not considered the sustainability factors of the program after the assistance ends. This study aims to analyze the relationships and influences of sustainability factors of CSR programs in health sector and observe the sustainable capabilities of the CSR programs. The survey was conducted in 11 districs, 5 provinces (of Indonesia) and in-depth interviews were conducted with the informants of the company management. Quantitative explanatory research is supported by qualitative information while data analysis using statistical tests of SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) model of AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure). This study shows that the sustainability of the CSR program is determined by: 1) the institutionalization of the program, 2) capacity building, 3) inclusive, 4) development of the organization, 5) development of funding resources, 6) improved access and 7) maintenance of the benefits. All of these are keys to whether a CSR program can be said to be sustainable or will stop after the end of the cooperation program. Keywords:Public health development, practices of the CSR, stakeholders, and sustainability. BACKGROUND Recently the Indonesian government does not have the ability to fulfill the Law No.36 of 2009 on Health, which requires 5% off the budget allocation for the health sector, let alone to fill the 15% of WHO requirement off the existing budget. However, it can be mitigated by the Law No.40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company which was later revealed in the Government Regulation No.47 of 2012 on Corporate Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2206

2 Social Responsibility, which requires the company to issue a budget of 5% of net-profits from state-owned enterprises for the Partnership Program, Community Development and CSR. As an example, PT. Pertamina, which in 2013 its net-profits reached 32 trillion rupiahs so the fund that can be managed for help the government program is 1.6Trillion. In 2012 PT. Pertamina earned the Indonesia MDGs Award for "Pertamina Sehati" Program which cares for the health of mother and child, while at the international level PT. Pertamina also has been awarded the Silver Award Category Best Community Program on Global CSR Award event in Davao Philippines in One of the important things in each program is the ability to be sustainable or to be continuously ongoing when the funding support from the company has ended. Shediacet.al. (1998) stated three things that cause the sustainability of the health programs need to be seen, namely: 1) the health program being run will be counter-productive because the threat to the health problems continue to exist, 2) sustainability is a common requirement in public health programs, and 3) the new program will face lack of support and confidence from the public due to the termination of the program (Goodman and Steckler, 1987; cit, Shediac et al (1998). Siwar and Haslina (2008) states that the larger a company, the higher its CSR commitment. Based on those states it is necessary to conduct a research that can provide patterns, strategies and mechanisms needed by the company to see the CSR programs practices can continue to be sustainable in the community. PURPOSES Knowing the understanding of benefecieries about CSR Analyzing the factors related to the implementation of the CSR programs in health sector. Analyzing the factors related to the stakeholders on the implementation of the CSR programs in health sector. Analyzing the factors that determine the sustainability of the CSR programs in health sector. METHODOLOGY Explanatory quantitative researches supported by qualitative information that analyze any practices of CSR programs of PT. Pertamina related to the field of public health that have been conducted in Indonesia. Determining the location of the research done purposively, which is CSR programs in health sector conducted by provisions, namely: 1) the program is promotion or preventive in nature; 2) the selection of the selected location is the village as the location of the program, and 3) if there are several programs in a district, then the village or selected location is a program that has the most beneficiaries. It has been selected 14program locations/villages in 11 districts and 5 provinces in Indonesia. The sampling technique is a multi-stage cluster random sampling type and for the informants in-depth interviews. Field of Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2207

3 research in September 2013-September 2014, while in-depth interviews were conducted to the informant from the management of PT. Pertamina was done in May-June For the validity of the content Correlation Product Moment Test is conducted while the instrument reliability was tested with Cronbach Alpha technique. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK Exogenous Variables 1 (ksi 1), CSR implementation (X 1 ) planning (X 2 ) workforce (X 3 ) financing (X 4 ) institutional (X 5 ) scope of activities (X 6 ) monitoring & evaluation (X 7 ) company s commitment Exogenous Variables 2 (ksi2), Stakeholder (X 8 ) planning (X 9 ) workforce (X 10 ) financing Endogenous Variables 1(eta 1), Sustainability (Y 1 ) institutional (Y 2 ) capacity building (Y 3 ) inclusive (Y 4 ) maintenance of beneficially (Y 5 ) development of fund resources (Y 6 ) development of institutional (Y 7 ) improvement of access Fig-1. Research Framework of CSR Implementation Sustainability Factors In Public Health Sector. DATA ANALYSIS Stages of the statistical analysis using statistical tests of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) model of AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure) as described by Ghozali (2013) as follows: Descriptive analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Test Structural Model Assumptions Tests Fitness Model Test (Test Good nest of Fit) RESEARCH RESULTS Community Understanding of CSR Definitions of CSR The number of people who do not know the definition of CSR is relatively very large reaching 37%. The rest assume it as the help from the company (29.27%), corporate commitment and responsibility (14.63%), help from the company to the public (13.82%), the rest are other reasons (Table 1). Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2208

4 Table 1 Definition of CSR According to the Society No. Respondents Answer Total % Corporate aid for the society Social responsibility of the company as a form of commitment Aids from PERTAMINA to the community The concern of the company in the form of empowerment program Corporate concern to the society Taking responsibility and social concern of community Corporate social fund Corporate social responsibility Health program made by the company for the surrounding community interest Company program aimed at compensating the society Realize the sustainable development Governmental Aid The consequence of the company to the community Know Not Know Knowledge Source of the CSR Respondents The public knowledge about the company's CSR (22.45%), government (17.86%), community leaders (14.80%), mass media (14.80%) the rest is from the NGOs and educational institutions. The remaining 20.92% of the people are not able to answer when asked where their knowledge of the CSR comes from (Table 2). Table 2 CSR Information Source Obtained by the Society No. Respondents Answer Jml % Company Not Responding Government Public Figure Media (Newspaper/TV) NGO Education Institution Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2209

5 Total 196 Philosophical CSR There are 38% people do not know the obtaining background of the company's CSR assistance. There are about 23.27% expressed it as a concern and corporate responsibility, 21.49% as an effort to improve the welfare of society, 9.92% as the responsibility of community empowerment, 9.09% due to lack of clean water and the rest of society, etc. (Table 3). Table 3 CSR Philosophy According to the Society No. Respondents Answer Jml % The social as well as environmental concern and responsibility Improving the welfare of the society Community empowerment responsibility The Lack of clean water The social condition of the society around the company For the sustainable development of the society For the swift production of the company Fulfilling social obligation and concerns towards the society Clean Village Competition The social discrepancy in the society Socialization and education to the society is necessary The compensation of the company operational impacts Efforts for recycle Know Not Know The scope of CSR There are 34.69% of the public said that the scope of CSR is still associated with the company manufacturing process, 32.65% did not relate to the company's production process, 26.53% indirectly related to the company while 6.12% could not provide an answer (Table 4). Table 4 CSR Scope according to the Society No. Respondents Answer Total % The CSR is done related the company s production process It is not related at all to the company s production process Indirectly related to the company s production process Not responding Total 196 Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2210

6 CSR Form of Activities Forms or types of CSR activities that are expected by the community are health (39.29%), education (22.45%), equipment and production facilities (13.78%), the skills and expertise (11.73%), provision of loan capital money (6.12%), scholarship (1.02 %) while those who do not answer as many as 5.61% (Table 5). Table 5 The CSR Form of Activities Expected by the Company No. Respondents Answer Total % Health Education Production tools and infrastructure Skills and Expertise Capital money loan admittance Not Responding Educational Scholarship Total 196 Factorial Validity Test of Theoretical Construct (Model First Order CFA) CFA Test of exogenous variable implementation CSR program CFA test results showed that the obtained value estimate loading factor of firm commitment (X7 =0.48), monitoring and evaluation (X6 =0.63), the scope of activities (X5 =0.70), institutional (X4 =0.23), financing (X3 =0.60), personnel (X2 =0.26) and planning (X1 =0.69). All these indicators show the X6, X5, X3 and X1 have met the requirements (estimate>0.5) and was able to explain its construct variable while X7, X4 and X2 should be excluded from further testing of the model (Table 6). Table 6.The Indicator of Loading Factor Estimate Value towards The Program Implementation Construct Variable Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Company Commitment (X7) <--- Implementation.4860 Field Monitoring and Evaluation (X6) <--- Implementation.6354 Scope of activities (X5) <--- Implementation.7003 Institutional (X4) <--- Implementation.2301 Funding (X3) <--- Implementation.6039 Personnel (X2) <--- Implementation.2691 Planning (X1) <--- Implementation.6928 CFA test of exogenous variables the stakeholder s support CFA test results showed that the obtained value estimate potential function of loading factor (X10 =1.0), and cooperation (X8 =0.75). It shows that all indicators X10, X9 and X8 have met the requirements (estimate>0.5) and was able to explain its construct variable and get in on the next model testing (Table 7). Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2211

7 Table 7 Indicator of Loading Factor Estimate value Towards Stakeholder Support Construct Variables Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Potential Function (X10) <--- Support,687 Motivator (X9) <--- Support 1,000 Cooperation (X8) <--- Support,758 CFA Test of endogenous variables of the sustainability CSR programs in health CFA test results showed that the obtained value estimate loading factor of improving access (Y7 =0.64), organizational development (Y6 =0.74), development of funding sources (Y5 =0.61), maintenance of benefits (Y4 =0.68), inclusion (Y3 =0.73), capacity building (Y2 =0.64) and indicators of institutionalization (Y1 =0.51). All these indicators show that the set requirements have been fulfilled (estimate>0.5) and was able to explain its construct variable and can enter the next model testing (Table 8). Table 8 Loading Factor Estimate Value of Indicator on Health Sector CSR Program Sustainability Variable Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Access Improvement (Y17) <--- Sustainability.6492 Organization Development (Y16) <--- Sustainability.7473 Fund resources development (Y15) <--- Sustainability.6155 Maintenance (Y14) <--- Sustainability.6830 Inclusive (Y16) <--- Sustainability.7303 Capacity improvement (Y12) <--- Sustainability.6434 Institusionalization (Y11) <--- Sustainability.5138 Initial Model Testing It is known that the linkage of the latent variable of CSR implementation with sustainability latent variable has a value of P=***, it shows the number P=0.000 which falls under 0.05 which explains that there is a relations between the implementation of sustainability (Table 9) Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2212

8 Table 9. Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label sustainability <--- practice,687,216 3,178,001 par_13 sustainability <--- stakeholder -,076,114 -,665,506 par_24 X1 <--- practice 1,000 X3 <--- practice,998,150 6,673 *** par_1 X5 <--- practice 1,218,156 7,827 *** par_2 X6 <--- practice 1,119,157 7,113 *** par_3 X10 <--- stakeholder 1,000 X9 <--- stakeholder 1,183,103 11,439 *** par_4 X8 <--- stakeholder 1,237,127 9,772 *** par_5 Y1 <--- sustainability 1,000 Y2 <--- sustainability 1,387,257 5,393 *** par_6 Y3 <--- sustainability 1,408,273 5,149 *** par_7 Y4 <--- sustainability 1,786,310 5,768 *** par_8 Y5 <--- sustainability 1,433,262 5,476 *** par_9 Y6 <--- sustainability 1,866,358 5,216 *** par_10 Y7 <--- sustainability 1,659,318 5,218 *** par_11 Latent of stakeholders with sustainability variables have values that are P=0.50>0.05 (Table 9), so that the two of variables do not have a relationship, consequently a line connecting the next model test should be abolished. Covariance of stakeholder with implementation CSR variables has value P=*** which have met the requirements (<0.50). It is clear that the relationship between the two variables is very close and it shows that the relationship is mutually beneficial (Table 10). Table 10. Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label practice <--> stakeholder,743,129 5,754 *** par_12 CONCLUSIONS Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2213

9 Fig-2 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) model of AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure) Test Result Figure 2 is the final stage test result that shows the connection between construct variable (implementation, stakeholder and sustainability) as well as the relation between each indicator towards its construct. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) model of AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structure) mentioned above (Table 11-12) shows that: All indicators on the entire variable constructs (implementation, stakeholder and sustainability) has been able to explain its construct respectively (Table 11 dan Tabel 12). Table 11. Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate sustainability <--- Practice,825 X1 <--- Practice,587 X3 <--- Practice,644 X5 <--- Practice,652 X6 <--- Practice,679 X10 <--- Stakeholder,737 X9 <--- Stakeholder,896 X8 <--- Stakeholder,865 Y1 <--- sustainability,422 Y2 <--- sustainability,594 Y3 <--- sustainability,662 Y4 <--- sustainability,780 Y5 <--- sustainability,538 Y6 <--- sustainability,721 Y7 <--- sustainability,717 Tabel 12. Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label sustainability <--- practice,582,125 4,653 *** par_13 X1 <--- practice 1,000 X3 <--- practice,985,146 6,735 *** par_1 X5 <--- practice 1,209,153 7,886 *** par_2 X6 <--- practice 1,110,154 7,202 *** par_3 X10 <--- stakeholder 1,000 X9 <--- stakeholder 1,179,103 11,443 *** par_4 Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2214

10 X8 <--- stakeholder 1,236,126 9,784 *** par_5 Y1 <--- sustainability 1,000 Y2 <--- sustainability 1,390,258 5,390 *** par_6 Y3 <--- sustainability 1,411,274 5,146 *** par_7 Y4 <--- sustainability 1,786,310 5,763 *** par_8 Y5 <--- sustainability 1,434,262 5,470 *** par_9 Y6 <--- sustainability 1,867,358 5,211 *** par_10 Y7 <--- sustainability 1,662,319 5,215 *** par_11 It shows that: Implementation of CSR that the company should have; 1) planning that is mutually conducted by the community along with the interest parties, 2) financing program should already cover all planned program activities, 3) the scope of activities should be encouraged for activities that are not related to the company's production process, and 4) monitoring and evaluation is done by involving all interested parties. Stakeholders can be a partner of the company in the practice of CSR by optimizing the roles of the stakeholder such as: 1) the active cooperation within each program activity, 2) motivators that are proactive and always have initiatives in dealing with obstacles in the implementation of the program and 3) potential function that gives the funding resources, personnel and facilities to be used for the smoothness of the program. Sustainability of CSR can be measured from: 1) institutionalization which is conducting institutionalization in the community for the programs implementing partners. This is better be done before the CSR programs implemented in the community, 2) capacity building which is improving the capacity of the public whether it is the knowledge or skills as much as possible and as much as needed, 3) inclusive which allows any parties to be involved in the program according to each of its capacity, 4) benefits maintenance which indicates that the benefits and the results of the program is confirmed to be continued after the program ends, 5) development of a funds source that can be done as soon as possible when CSR programs are implemented, 6) development is carried out to anticipate the needs of organizations in the benefits maintenance and development of funding sources, for example readiness for the management of economic sectors and development of skills and knowledge, 7) improve of access which is an effort to improve the ability of the agency in dealing with other parties, such as local government/health department, agency/member of parliament, the media, donors, other companies, or similar institutions to exchange information and knowledge. CSR practice construct variables have relationship with stakeholder support and the relationship is called a positive relationship so that the better the implementation of CSR, the greater stakeholder support and vice versa (Table 13). Tabel 13. Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2215

11 practice <--> stakeholder,741,129 5,755 *** par_12 Variable of implementation CSR is well aligned with sustainability variables so that the good of implementation CSR will better the chances of sustainable the program in the community (Table 13). Construct Variable of the stakeholder do not have dependability with the variable construct of the sustainability, it shows how good the role and responsibility of the stakeholders towards the CSR program still does not affect the sustainability of the CSR program (Figure 2). Test Goodness of Fit Model The model above is known to have had a value of P<0.05, and the estimated value of the loading factor (validity and reliability) achieve >0.5 and even many who reach the ideal number or>0.7, however for a model in structural equation modeling method should be supported by the testing of overall models fit through some other test equipment. Here are the test results of goodness of fit models through several other testing techniques. CMIN Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF Default model ,976 65,000 2,107 Saturated model 105,000 0 Independence model ,248 91,000 14,629 CMIN/DF is often called a normal chi-square as fit of indices criterion developed by Wheaton et al., (1977) cit. Southern (2013) who obtained the measures of the chi-square the divided by degree of freedom, so that if the value of CMIN/DF 3 and 2 then the model can be accepted. In the test results the obtained value is CMIN/DF and the model was fit. RMR, GFI Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model,108,906,848,561 Saturated model,000 1,000 Independence model,783,321,216,278 RMR (Root Mean Residual) is a test tool that calculates residual or the difference of the covariance sample with a covariance estimate so that the smaller the RMR results would be even better, which indicates the approach adopted in the estimation sample. Based on the test results RMR value reaches 0.1 which means this model has slight residuals. Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2216

12 GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) and AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index) is a test that allows the effect of the number of samples to be less sensitive in decision making. GFI and AGFI values of range between 0 of 1, with the guideline that the GFI and AGFI values of approaching of 1, the better the model describes the data existing. This is evident in the results of the test value=0.9 and the value of GFI and AGFI=0.8 indicates that the model that was tested previously can be declared to fit. RMSEA Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE Default model,075,058,093,011 Independence model,264,252,277,000 RMSEA is a fit indices criterion developed by Steiger and Lind (1980) cit. Latan (2013) which is the most popular measure of the fit and widely used by researchers in the field of SEM. This is because the value of RMSEA does not overestimate or underestimate and is independent of the large number of the samples. RMSEA val ues of 0.05 that indicate models very good to fit and RMSEA value of :08 indicate that the goodness of fit of the model is quite well. The test results show that the RMSEA of models value of 0.7 has been classified as good. AIC Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC Default model 216, , , ,101 Saturated model 210, , , ,202 Independence model 1359, , , ,142 AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC are fit indices criteria used to compare models in which the value of AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC of the default model should be compared with the value of AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC saturated and independence models. Value of AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC default models < value of AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC saturated and independence models, it can be concluded that the model was fit. The results of the test showed that the entire value of saturated and independence models of AIC, CAIC, BCC and BIC is under the default model so that the model that has been tested is said to fit. ECVI Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI Default model 1,113,960 1,305 1,147 Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2217

13 Saturated model 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,167 Independence model 6,971 6,384 7,595 6,982 ECVI and MECVI as the criterion of fit indices were used to measure the deviation between the model fitted matrix covariance samples analyzed in comparison with the covariance matrix that will be obtained when using another sample. If the ECVI and MECVI default value models < value of ECVI and MECVI saturated and independence models, it can be concluded that the model was fit. The result of the test is known that the ECVI and MECVI value is saturated and independence models < of ECVI and MECVI default model value so that it can be said that the models that have been tested have been able to said to fit. REFERENCES 1. Bamberger, M. and Cheema, S. (1990), Case Studies of Project Sustainability: Implications for Policy and Operations from Asian Experience. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 2. Becchetti L., Giacomo, S.D. and Pinnacchio, D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance Evidence from a Panel of US Listed Companies: University of Rome Tor Vergata. 3. Brinkerhoff, DW. and Azfar, O. (2006). Decentralization and Community Empowerment: Does Community Empowerment Deepen Democracy and Improve Service Delivery?, Paper prepared for: U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Democracy and Governance, Washington: RTI International. 4. Burson (2009), Corporate Citizenship Study of Health: Improving Policy Coherence for Developmen thttp:// November Carroll, A. and Shabana K.M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews. DOI: /j x p British Academy of Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 7. Clark, C.C. (2002). Health Promotion in Communities: Holistic and Wellness Approach. New York: Springer 8. Dallmeier, L. (2003). Constructing A CSR Best Practice Framework: Interactive Research At Serco Plc. (Norwich), School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia: University Plain Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2218

14 Norwich. 9. Fairbrass, J., O Riorand, L and Mirza, H. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility Differing Definitions and Practice, Working Paper No 06/05. University of Bradford: School of Management. 10. Ghozali, I. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling; Concept and Aplication with AMOS 16.0, Semarang: Indonesia Goldthorpe J.E. (1988). The Third World Sosiology; Development and Disparity, Jakarta: Gramedia. 12. Government of Canada, (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business. Industry Canada, Ottawa, Holme, R., and Watts, P. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Conches-Geneva, Switzerland. 14. Ife, J. (2002). Community Development; Community Based Alternative in an Age of Globalization, Australia: Pearson Education. 15. Jallow, K. (2008). Sustainability and Its Place in CSR Research. The Ash gate Research Companion to Corporate Social Responsibility. Hampshire. England: Ash gate Publishing. 16. Juscius, V. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, Organizacijų Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai: p Lithuania: Klaipėda University. 17. Kenny M. and Meadowcroft J. (1999). Planning Sustainability. London: Routledge. 18. Louise Lee. (2011). Business-Community Partnerships: Understanding the Nature of Partnership. Corporate Governance. Vol. 11 No. 1. p Mardikanto, T Evaluation CSR Program of PT. Holcim Cilacap, Departement of Community Development, Post Graduate Program, University of Sebelas Maret Surakarta (unpublished). 20. Mitich, M. (2010). Sustainable Approaches to A Reform of Coal Mining Industry in Serbia, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, No. 1. P O'Dwyer, B. (2002). Conceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Nature of Managerial Capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 16 No. 4, Dublin, Ireland: University College Dublin. 22. Shediac, M.C., Rizkallah and Bone, L.R. (1998). Planning for the Sustainability of Community- Based Health Programs: Conceptual Frameworks and Future Directions for Research, Practice and Policy, Health Education Research Theory & Practice Journal, Vol.13 no. l P : Oxford University Press. 23. Siwar, C. and Haridzan, SH.M. (2008). A Study on Corporate Social Responsibility Practices amongst Business Organizations in Malaysia, Uneversity Kebangsaan Malaysia: Institute for Environment and Development. 24. Todaro, M.P. (1977). Economic Development in the Third World, London: Longmans. Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2219

15 25. (1998). Economic Development in the Third World, Six th Edition. Jakarta: Erlangga. 26. Tony H. (2005). Corporate Responsibility-The Key to Corporate Sustainability. Exploration & Production BP. Moscow: Mendeleyev University. 27. USAID. (1988). Sustainability of Development Programs: A Compendium of Donor Experience. Washington, DC. 28. Welford, R. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17 (Spring 2005): University of Hong Kong: Greenleaf Publishing. 29. World Bank. (2001). Attacking poverty with a three-pronged strategy, World Bank Policy and Research Bulletin Vol. 11 No.4/Vol. 2 No. 1 October-December 2000/January-March Nasrul Z et al IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 11 November 2014 Page 2220