Integrating process perspective to the sustainability aspect is a management action applied to every policy in business operations. The integration process economy focuses on efficiency, innovation, and control. Applying innovation to technology is essential as a form of efficiency (Edvinsson et al. 2004). Efficiency should be included in the implementation of each strategy and policy. Many companies in Indonesia are still prioritizing donations as the main CSR program. If these companies can interpret sustainability in its absolute meaning, they can innovate better, have more control, and provide an impact on corporate operational efficiencies (Hanke and Stark 2009; Butler et al. 2011).

The operational policy of a responsible company is the focus of measurement in the process-social integration, such as the treatment of employees and employee interaction, and community and NGO involvement. This measuring system has some interesting points; many local companies cannot disclose their whole performance completely. Many of them did not even disclose the performance indicator at all. This finding is relevant and shows a positive relationship between social and environmental disclosure and corporate political visibility; larger companies disclose social and environmental performance more than smaller companies (Gunawan 2010).

The process-environment integration focuses more on measuring the performance of energy and resources efficiency, conservation initiation, obedience, and mitigation. Low performance can be seen in educational institutions. The operation of educational institutions indeed directly impacts the environment; however, we cannot deny that educational institutions can do many things through research and education to support environmental sustainability (Brown and Cloke 2009). The measurement of the integration process often resulted in less escalation. Therefore, the increasing frequency for each indicator is needed here. Frequency improvement will increase the corporate advantages and the stakeholders’ quality value (Brammer and Pavelin 2006b).


  • Google Image. (2022).
  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006b). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 33(7–8), 1168–1188.
  • Brown, E., & Cloke, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in higher education. An International Journal for Critical Geographies. 8(3), 474–483.
  • Butler, J. B., Henderson, S. C., & Raiborn, C. (2011). Sustainability and balanced scorecard; Integrating green measures into business reporting. Management Accounting Quarterly. 12(2), 1–10.
  • Edvinsson, L., Dvir, R., Roth, N., & Pasher, E. (2004). Innovations: The new unit of analysis in the knowledge era: The quest and context for innovation efficiency and management of IC. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 5(1), 40–58.
  • Gunawan, J. (2010). Perception of important information in corporate social disclosures: Evidence from Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal. 6(1), 62–71.
  • Hanke, T., & Stark, W. (2009). Strategy development: Conceptual framework on corporate social responsibility. Journal Of Business Ethics. 3(5), 21–40.
  • Perdana, K and Gunawan, J. (2017). She proposed Integrated Measurement Standard to Measure Sustainability Performance: Evidence From Indonesia. Dimensional corporate governance. Springer, Cham.