Volume 3, Issue 2, December 2013 Juridical Tribune
destruction of the ozone layer, the acid rain, forest fires, mud of Lapindo and
others. Negative impacts can not be separated from the nature of human greed in
natural resource management. In the name of freedom of the flag of capitalism,
human beings treat nature and make it as a commodity through a variety of
exploitation, mining, management and exploration. It was done on a continuous
basis regardless of the relentless nature also systematically organized material that
has limitations on the time will be damaged resulting in a systematic way nature
works to be shaken even broken.
All of that makes the specter of a frightening and worrying that makes
people always plagued the nightmares as a result of the implementation of the
development itself. This does not mean that development must be stopped at all.
On the contrary, with all its positive impact development should be continued and
enhanced by taking into account all the negative impact that would occur.
Development is not only oriented to promote economic growth per se, but more
than that the sustainability of the development itself.
Basing on the above reality, a new breakthrough in the development of
legal institutions in Indonesia is carried out by the Government together with the
House of Representatives on August 16, 2007 with the enacted Law No. 40/2007
on Limited Liability Company (the Company Law) (State Gazette of Year 2007
No. 158 / No. 5336). This Company Law accommodate the concept of social
responsibility and sustainable development paradigm. Article 74 of the Company
Law clearly states:
(1) Company runs its business activities in the field and / or related to the
natura l resources required to r un the Social and Environmental
(2) Social a nd Environmental Responsibility as referred to in paragra ph
(1) an obligation of the Company which are budgeted a nd accounted
for as a n expense of the Company whose implementation is carr ied
out with respect to decency and fairness.
(3) the Company does not perform its obliga tion as referr ed to in
subsection (1) subject to sanctions in accordance with the pr ovisions
of the legislation.
CSR in the formulation that would give a legal sanction according to the
company that does not perform shows that CSR is a mandatory, not a voluntary as
applicable in other countries. The regulatory of CSR by mandatory raises a
3 Those who agree argue that the company is not solely for profit,
3 The existence of CSR itself have created a contradiction. Milton Friedman and others have argued
that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its shareholders, and that since on ly people
can have social responsibilities, corpo rations are only responsible to their shareholders and not to
society as a whole. They perceive that corporations have no other obligation to society and CSR as
in-congruent with the very nature and purpose of business, and indeed a hindrance to free trade.
They argue that improvements in health, longevity and/or infant mortality have been created
by economic growth attributed to free enterprise. Critics of this argument perceive the free market
as opposed to the well-being of society and a hindrance to human freedom. They claim that the type