Building Corporate Sustainable Framework Based on Swastika Philosophy

Author(s)

IBK. Bayangkara , Tri Ratnawati , Ekon Ganis Sukohasrsono ,

Download Full PDF Pages: 39-52 | Views: 665 | Downloads: 191 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4922655

Volume 9 - April 2020 (04)

Abstract

Aims this research was aimed at formulating the swastika’s values as the guideline in harmonizing stakeholders’ interest and implementing it in the corporate’s sustainable framework.
Approach This was qualitative design research that used a phenomenology approach. The researchers had interviewed Hindu’s common people, scholars, and priests who apply Swastika in their daily lives, and also 2 directors of state-owned companies in East Java about the implementation of stakeholders’ engagement.
Findings The interviews revealed that there were values of balance, harmony, innovation, and sustainability in the Swastika. Besides, the researchers also found the stakeholders’ grouping models which were based on the vertical-horizontal relationship as shown in the Swastika symbol that can be used as a reference in developing the sustainable corporate framework. The interviews with the directors revealed that the strategy of engaging the stakeholders should be based on the harmony of interests of all stakeholders.
Practical Implications The findings could give reference to sustainability practitioners to develop corporates sustainable frameworks.
Originality/Value The values of balances, harmonies, innovations and sustainability, and stakeholders grouping in Swastika were newly found values from its believers with relevancy in developing the sustainable corporate framework.

Keywords

Swastika, framework, stakeholders’ harmony, and Sustainability

References

                    i.            Barney, J. B. Is the Resource-Based ‘View’ a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes // Academy of Management Review, 2001. P.41-56.

      ii.            Bhasya of Sayanacarya, 2016, Catur Weda Samhita, Paramita, Denpasar

    iii.            BSR,  2011, Stakeholder Mapping,

     iv.            Dalia Susnienė, Povilas Vanagas, 2005, Integration of Total Quality Management into Stakeholder Management Policy and Harmonization of their Interests, Engineering Economics. 2005. No 4 (44), ISSN 13922785  Commerce Of Engineering Decisions

       v.            Day Report. Where are the directors? Guidelines for improved corporate governance in Canada. Canada: Toronto Stock Exchange Committee on Corporate Governance in Canada, 1994.

     vi.            Eunsup Daniel Shim, PhD, 2014, Sustainability, Stakeholder Perspective and Corporate Success: A Paradigm Shift International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology Vol. 4, No. 5; October 2014

   vii.            Faez Saad Al-Shihri, 2013, Principles of sustainable development and their application in urban planning in saudi arabia, Journal of Engineering Sciences, Assiut University, Faculty of Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 3, July, 2013, E-mail address: jes@aun.edu.eg

 viii.            Florea Rm. (2007) Management strategic, Tehnopress Publishing House, IASI

     ix.            Freeman, R.E. and Reed, D.L., 1983, Stakeholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance, California Management Review, 88-106

       x.            Friedman A., Miles S., (2006) Stakeholders: Theory and Practise, Oxford University Press

     xi.            Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874-907. International Association for Public Participation (2007). IAP2 Spectrum for Public Participation.  http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/ imported/ spectrum.pdf

   xii.            IPCC, “Summary for policymakers,” in O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier (eds), Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland (2014).

 xiii.            James Mayers, 2005, Stakeholder power analysis,  International Institute For Environmental and Development, 2005,

 xiv.            Mark S. Reed, 2008, Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biological Conservation 141 (2008) 2417–2431, journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

   xv.            N.M.P. Bocken, P. Rana and S.W. Short, 2015, Value mapping for sustainable business thinking, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 2015, Vol. 32, No. 1, 67–81, 

 xvi.            Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate sosial performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32, 108-131

xvii.            Peters Report, 1997,  Corporate governance in the Netherlands: Forty  Reccomendations. Amsterdam, 1997.

xviii.            Ramona Florea, 2013, Stakeholders Interests Analyse and Harmonization – Starting Point of Strategic Approach, Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition, Vol. 16, Issue 1/2013, pp.130-135

 xix.            Ramona FLOREA, Radu FLOREA, 2013,  Stakeholders Interests Analyse and Harmonization – Starting Point of Strategic Approach, Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition Vol. 16, Issue 1/2013 pp 130-135

   xx.            Sandhi The Science & Heritage Initiative, , 2016, Exploring the pattern and ideogram of Swastika A universal principle of sustainability, Indian Institute Of Tecnology, Kharagpur

 xxi.            SGN, 2018, Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, Stakeholder Engagement Submission 2018/19

xxii.            Timothy C. Lindsey, 2011, Sustainable principles: common values for achieving sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 561e565

Cite this Article: