How to cite:

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono,

Setyaningtyas Honggowati. (2021). Weighted Index of Cultural

Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia. Journal Eduvest. Vol 3(Number 8):

Page 1.656-1667

E-ISSN:

2775-3735

Published by:

https://greenpublisher.id/

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2 Number 8, August, 2022

p- ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727

WEIGHTED INDEX OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

DISCLOSURE IN INDONESIA

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono,

Setyaningtyas Honggowati

1Student of Doctoral Program in Economics, Faculty of Economics and

Business, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta; 1Accounting Lecturer at Widya

Dharma University Klaten; 2Professor, Faculty of Economics and Business,

Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta; 3,4Lecturer of the Faculty of Economics

and Business, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta

Email:

ABSTRACT

This study compiles a cultural heritage index that can be used

as a measure of the company's attention to cultural heritage

which can be seen from the disclosure of financial

statements. From the results of the literature review, the

matrix creation carried out, and the forum group discussions

held with stakeholders, 19 items of the Cultural Heritage

disclosure index were obtained. the average importance of

Cultural Heritage Disclosure to be disclosed according to

stakeholders was very high as indicated by the mean of each

item of 5.26% from the total maximum of 5.49% and a

minimum of 5.02%. This implies that the mean of each item

of Cultural Heritage Disclosure according to stakeholders is

equally important. This is also corroborated by the overall

mean of demand for Cultural Heritage disclosure according to

stakeholders of 6.22 on a Likert 7 scale. Compliance with law

items (item related to the company's level of compliance with

regulations of cultural heritage) occupied the highest

weighted index, while incidents and fines items were the

lowest weighted index.

KEYWORDS

cultural heritage, cultural heritage disclosure, weighted

index

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1657

Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

INTRODUCTION

Indonesia owns rich and unique cultural diversity for ages. Such diversity

requires an appropriate management framework for maintaining its sustainability as it

provides a distinctive identity and contributes to the community's capabilities (UCLG,

2018). Many of these cultural heritages in Indonesia are authentic and have great

influence at the local, national, and even international levels. According to the UNESCO

Convention (1972) on the protection of cultural and natural heritage, the preservation of

cultural heritage must be acknowledged on behalf of future generations. However, the

current maintenance and proper management of cultural heritage have received scant

attention.

World Heritage Sites are spread across 167 countries, yet not all of them are in

prime condition. Based on the latest UNESCO data, a total of 53 sites in 33 countries

were severely damaged. Afghanistan and Syria are conflict areas, thus many sites have

suffered war damage. Damage does not only occur in developing and war-torn countries.

World Heritage sites in developed countries also suffered damage, such as the Old City of

Vienna (Austria) and the Everglades National Park (United States). UNESCO affirms that

the potential red list of site damage is due to the absence of conservation policies,

logging, declining animal populations, and armed conflicts (www.destinasian.co.id).

In February 2019, the oil spill in the Solomon Islands occurred because the main

ship MV Solomon ran aground and was loading bauxite. This incident brought negative

impacts on the World Heritage Site and the livelihoods of the surrounding communities,

with more than 80 tons of oil spread over the ocean and coastline. It also polluted the

ecologically vulnerable surrounding areas. The Solomon Islands are part of the Coral

Triangle, which is rich in marine diversity and has one of the most important coral reefs

in the world. East Rennell was on the World Heritage List in 1998 and is the largest coral

atoll in the world. It accommodates sites that provide a variety of habitats for 10 endemic

plant species, 43 bird species, and 730 insect species (www.news.mongabay.com). For

this incident, UNESCO pronounced the incident on a Danger List and as a warning that

damage to the World Heritage Site can occur at any time and is unpredictable (Nations,

2019).

In Indonesia, damage to heritage sites also occurred in the Maros-Pangkeo Karst

Area, South Sulawesi as a result of the opencast mining by PT. Semen Tonasa

(www.kemdikbud.go.id). Karst mining threatens the availability of groundwater around

the area, eliminates archeology and threatens the authenticity of geomorphology and

biodiversity. The massive impact of these mining activities also affects the local wisdom

of the community. This is shown by the emergence of latent conflicts in society between

those who work in mining and those who do not. Meanwhile, in Balikpapan, many

companies exploit natural resources and forsake the culture and local wisdom of the

surrounding people (www.kaltimprov.go.id). Many coal mining business activities are

exploited on a large scale for economic purposes without addressing forest, environment,

and socio-cultural sustainability, causing many disasters (www.bphn.go.id).

Commercial operations such as mining or construction near heritage sites have a

potentially damaging impact. The extractive resource industry in particular has affected

the cultural heritage sites around the world. Studies conducted in the United States have

identified potential impacts such as erosion, tillage and leveling, wind action, excavation,

leaching, soil compaction and fragmentation, chemical contamination, and land

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2, Number 8, August, 2022

1658

http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

subsidence (www.worldbank.org). In the case of cultural heritage sites, these impacts

may include the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site; immediate site

environment changes; unmatched elements to the character of the site; change in the

settings; abandonment of the site resulting in destruction or deterioration; and the transfer

or sale of the site without terms or reasonable limitations regarding preservation,

maintenance or use (Bregman, 1999). Impacts on cultural resources are not only within

the project area boundaries but also on the land surrounding the areas emptied for

agriculture or public use, which increases the destruction risks of cultural sites (Rogowski,

2004).

The corporate sectors frequently ignore the existence of the community in which

they operate and bring negative impacts on the community. Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) mostly only covers environmental, social, and economic

development aspects that are linked to sustainable development. Corporate Social

Responsibility's relationship with cultural heritage is not an ordinary inclusion, especially

in Indonesia, which accommodates abundant cultural heritage resources. This promotes

an understanding that the current problem is the disregard for cultural heritage as a

potential theme of Corporate Social Responsibility action. Therefore, it is necessary to

address the corporate sector, which plays a significant role as an actor and a catalyst in

managing cultural heritage.

(Carroll, 1998) states that CSR encompasses economic, legal, ethical, and

philanthropic; that is, society expects companies to be profitable, obey the law, behave

ethically and return. These are commonly referred to as corporate sustainability, corporate

social responsiveness, corporate citizenship, corporate governance, business ethics,

sustainable investing, triple bottom line investing, stakeholder management, business in

society, ethical corporation, corporate accountability, public-private partnership,

corporate philanthropy, and corporate social responsibility.

Cultural heritage and sustainable development are found to be highly interrelated

(Guide, 2021; Nocca, 2017). One of the goals of sustainable development is to facilitate

conserve cultural heritage and increase awareness about the importance of cultural

heritage conservation to maintain national identity (Labadi, Giliberto, Rosetti, Shetabi, &

Yildirim, 2021; UNESCO, 2015). Sustainability and durability of cultural heritage are

generally only perceived from the social, cultural, economic, and environmental aspects

(Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, 2006; Idris, Mustaffa, & Yusoff, 2016), whereas tangible and

intangible cultural heritage can be used as a catalyst for sustainable growth and can

contribute strongly to social cohesion (UNESCO, 2009b).

Cultural heritage in general has inherent and instrumental values (Girard & Vecco,

2021; Guide, 2021). The instrumental values of cultural heritage are seen not only as

opportunities for regional development but should also ensure that the cultural heritage

values of these assets are maintained (Committee, 2020; Guide, 2021). It is a scientific

matter, has aesthetics, contains an economic value, is unique, and has important meaning

for the local community. Therefore, there are further challenges in ensuring the

sustainability of these cultural heritage values.

A study conducted by Hadi (2011) shows that publicly listed companies in

Indonesia showed the most disclosure of financial statements in terms of concern for the

surrounding community (344 types), concern for environmental maintenance and

conservation (142 types), concern for product quality assurance (112 types), concern for

energy saving and conservation (22 types), and the remaining were other forms of

responsibility (34 types). The results of this study indicate that concern for cultural

heritage needs to be regarded as a thematic area in Corporate Social Responsibility. This

is also reinforced by Munjal's research (2013) that only a small portion of attention was

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1659

addressed to heritage conservation as a potential theme of Corporate Social

Responsibility action.

The reasons for the lack of support for cultural heritage by companies according

to (Gomez-Carrasco, Guillamon-Saorin, & Garcia Osma, 2016) include 1) CSR budget

commitments that focus on areas other than cultural heritage conservation, 2) cultural

heritage is not appraised as a priority, only as irrelevant to the core business core, 3)

limited CSR resources, and 4) cultural heritage support for the company does not meet

business objectives. Companies that have never supported cultural heritage are generally

unsure that they will incorporate cultural heritage conservation in future programs. There

appears to be a general perception that cultural heritage conservation is not a priority for

CSR support, given many companies consider cultural heritage, not a priority.

Therefore, it is very important to associate conservation initiatives and cultural

heritage management with Corporate Social Responsibility toward sustainable

development. The cultural heritage preservation action in Corporate Social Responsibility

should append information in the disclosure of financial statements. This is reinforced by

the steps taken by various international, national, and government institutions that are

developing reporting schemes to increase transparency and ameliorate dealing with social

and environmental issues. Meanwhile, the companies respond to this challenge and are

motivated on various grounds (Wang, 2017).

Dowling (2000) states that companies that provide support for the preservation

and enhancement of cultural heritage are an important deal, and benefit greatly by

acknowledging and supporting the culture of the countries in which they operate. On the

other hand, companies that support culture show their philanthropic activities (Colbert,

d’Astous, & Parmentier, 2005). A study on CSR activities of companies in Lebanon

(Jamali & Mirshak, 2007) found that some companies preferred to channel organizational

resources directly in the social field on certain problems that are being encountered in

their environment. Meanwhile, other companies prefer to be fully involved in their CSR

activities. Internal management adapts to meet the needs of the organization and society.

Cultural heritage is excellent potential in maintaining the company's sustainability

because it is a means for companies to support projects and is supported by the

community, and to obtain long-term support, not short-term support (Grazuleviciute-

Vileniske, 2006).

This study compiles a cultural heritage index that can be used as a measure of the

company's attention to cultural heritage which can be seen from the disclosure of

financial statements. The ground is based on the absence of a guide to the disclosure of

cultural heritage, however, only general guidelines define content. Moreover, there is

insufficient verification of the stakeholders involved in this cultural heritage. These

factors allow the company to disclose annual reports or sustainability reports, especially

the company's attention to cultural heritage.

The use of the weighted index in this study provides additional information that

certain disclosure items show higher scores than others (Cooke, 1989; Scaltrito, 2016)

based on the perception of the results of the Forum Group Discussion held. Additionally,

the weighted index in the literature yields maximum results (Monirul Alam Hossain,

2002). Chow & Wong-Boren (1987) argue that there is a lot of subjectivity in assigning

weights because it reflects the perceptions of users of financial statements.

RESEARCH METHOD

This study seeks to build a cultural heritage disclosure index. According to (Coy

& Dixon, 2004), several stages should be prepared when building an index. First, set the

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2, Number 8, August, 2022

1660

http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

index goal; second, identify which items are required for proper disclosure and their

qualitative characteristics; third, conduct an analysis with respondents.

a. First stage

When determining the Cultural Heritage Disclosure item, this research was

carried out by searching and studying the literature to gain knowledge about Cultural

Heritage due to the absence of a guide (baseline) that can be used as a guideline for

preparing cultural heritage disclosures in a voluntary disclosure. The literature sources

used in this research include laws and guidelines compiled by international organizations

and other sources.

The laws used in this research are Law No. 11 of 2010 and Law No. 05 of 2017.

Law No. 11 of 2010 Cultural Conservation as the cultural resources has brittle, unique,

rare, limited, and not renewable characteristics. This law was drafted in order to protect

Cultural Conservation from the threat of physical development, in urban, rural areas, as

well as in the water environment, which requires regulation to ensure its existence.

Furthermore, Law No. 05 of 2017 on the Advancement of Culture was made as a

guideline for protecting, developing, utilizing, and fostering cultural objects amid the

plurality of Indonesian society.

The international literature guidelines used in this research include standards set

by IFC (International Finance Corporation), UNESCO (United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization), ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments

and Sites), World Bank, Sustainable Development Goals, and United Nations

Environment Program Finance Initiative. From the results of the literature review and

matrix creation that have been carried out in the first stage, it found the Cultural Heritage

disclosure index items.

b. Second Stage

The second stage is conducting an online and offline Forum Discussion Group

(FGD) with participants from national-scale stakeholders (culturalists, academics,

practitioners, regulators) who understand cultural heritage.

Stakeholder groups taken in this research encompass those included in the

classification of environmental groups (cultural observers) and academics who are

benevolent-based stakeholders. This group is a wider egalitarian stakeholder group and

generally has a considerable interest in the environment (Suhardjanto, 2008).

Furthermore, practitioners and regulators were selected as participants in the FGDs to

represent interest groups that focus on optimizing company profits compared to fulfilling

the rights of stakeholders.

In this study, participants were determined to consider heterogeneity so that

variations were expected in answers and the research results became more objective. The

discussions fell into four groups, aiming to identify and gain in-depth opinions from each

group of participants (Hennink, Kaiser, & Weber, 2019). Each group consisted of 7 to 8

participants. Krueger & Casey (2015) state that the ideal size of the participant group for

non-commercial discussions is five to eight participants. Groups of participants with more

than 10 participants are difficult to organize and limit each participant's opportunity to

share insights.

The culture observers who participated in this FGD were art or cultural experts

who understood the importance of the company's role in participating in preserving

cultural heritage. Participants in this research include a collection of national puppeteers

(dalang) who have insight into voluntary disclosure, especially in terms of preserving

cultural heritage. The academics selected in this FGD were cultural observers with a

minimum qualification of a doctoral degree and the participants in this group come from

the cultural community from various universities in Indonesia.

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1661

The third group of participants in this study came from practitioners. Practitioners

with qualifications as officials in national companies, such as vice president, internal

auditor, head of Sub-Directorate of Socialization for Strengthening National Values of

National Resilience Institute (Lemhannas), and managers participated. Furthermore, the

regulator participants were employees of the Jakarta Financial Services Authority which

is authorized to regulate the company's annual report. The Forum Group Discussion held

in this study is shown in the table below:

Table 3.1. Group Discussion Forum Participants

Type of

stakeholder

Criteria

Number of

Respondents

Culture

Observer

art or cultural experts

Academics

Lecturer with minimum qualification of

Master Degree

Practitioner

industry actors on a national scale

Regulator

the party that regulates the annual report

regulations issued by the company (OJK)

The rating scale used by respondents in assessing each cultural heritage item is a

scale of 1-7 (Chow & Wong-Boren, 1987). The scale in this study is very useful because it

evaluated the quality and quantity of information disclosed, namely the level of

disclosure. The use of a rating scale allowed the recapitulation of individual scores to

obtain a total score (index). A scale of 1-7 was selected because it produced the

maximum level of reliability of the rater and produced the maximum rating (McKelvie,

1978; Symonds, 1924).

c. Third Stage

The disclosure index was created using the results of the group discussion forum

the weighted Disclosure Index. The weighted index was calculated from the rating of

each Cultural Heritage Disclosure item divided by the overall mean. Meanwhile, the

rating for each item was obtained from the percentage of each Cultural Heritage

Disclosure item of the overall score.

The use of a weighted index considers that there are companies that can disclose

higher Cultural Heritage because of more opportunities, for example, a company

operating in an industry that is different from the other (Botosan, 1997). This is in line

with (Depoers, 2000) and (Meek et al., 1995) that the sector in which the company is

located affects the level of information disclosed. The purpose of developing a weighting

scheme was also to differentiate between important items and less important items. The

weighted disclosure index allows differences in importance relative to information items

on annual report users ((Mohammed Hossain & Hammami, 2009; Kristanta, 2015).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Cultural Heritage Disclosure Index

From the results of the literature review, the matrix creation carried out, and the

forum group discussions held with stakeholders, 19 items of the Cultural Heritage

disclosure index were obtained.

Table 4.1. Cultural Heritage Disclosure Index

Item Culture Heritage Disclosure

Cultural Heritage in Tangible Forms

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2, Number 8, August, 2022

1662

http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

From the results of the 19 indicators on the Cultural Heritage Disclosure index

submitted in the group discussion forum, all stakeholders stated that all proposed items

were important to be disclosed in the annual report or voluntary disclosure.

Stakeholder Demand for Cultural Heritage Disclosure

The results of the questionnaire from the forum group discussion carried out, the

table of Cultural Heritage Disclosure demand is presented as follows:

Table 4.2. Average stakeholder demand for CHD

Participant

Score average demand

A_1

94.74

A_2

87.97

A_3

96.99

A_4

100.00

A_5

98.50

A_6

71.43

A_7

92.48

A_8

71.73

R_1

82.71

R_2

88.72

R_3

75.19

R_4

81.95

R_5

97.74

R_6

100.00

R_7

85.71

R_8

75.94

B_1

98.49

B_2

71.43

B_3

71.43

B_4

100.00

B_5

96.24

B_6

100.00

Cultural Heritage in Unique Natural Features

Cultural Heritage in Intangible Forms

Program for preserve

Program for promote

Program for protect

Program for utilization

Program for maintenance

Responsible for operations

Apply mitigation

Impacts of activities

Risk of operation

Operation in protected area

Consult with Affected Communities

Inform communities

Compliance with the law

Cultural Heritage expense

Impacts of activities on protected area

Incident and fines

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1663

B_7

100.00

P_1

71.43

P_2

97.74

P_3

100.00

P_4

95.49

P_5

76.69

P_6

87.97

P_7

70.68

P_8

94.74

Total

2734

Mean

88.20

Max

100.00

Min

70.68

Table 4.2. shows that the mean of demand for 31 stakeholders was 88.20; they

wanted the proposed indicator of the Cultural Heritage Disclosure item to be disclosed in

a voluntary disclosure.

Weighted Index Cultural Heritage Disclosure

Based on the group discussion forum, the score and rating for each proposed

Cultural Heritage Disclosure item were obtained. The score and rating were calculated

based on demand and the importance of each item according to stakeholders.

The table below displays the score, rating, and weighted index of each Cultural

Heritage Disclosure item.

Table 4.3. Score, rating, and weighted index CHD

Item Culture Heritage Disclosure

Score

Ratings (%)

Weighted

Index

Cultural Heritage in Tangible Forms

196

5.35

1.02

Cultural Heritage in Unique Natural

Features

195

5.32

1.01

Cultural Heritage in Intangible Forms

188

5.13

0.98

Program for preserve

196

5.35

1.02

Program for promote

194

5.30

1.01

Program for protect

197

5.38

1.02

Program for utilization

184

5.02

0.95

Program for maintenance

194

5.30

1.01

Responsible for operations

195

5.32

1.01

Apply mitigation

198

5.41

1.03

Impacts of activities

190

5.19

0.99

Risk of operation

188

5.13

0.98

Operation in protected area

186

5.08

0.96

Consult with Affected Communities

193

5.27

1.00

Inform communities

194

5.30

1.01

Compliance with the law

201

5.49

1.04

Cultural Heritage expense

195

5.32

1.01

Impacts of activities on protected area

195

5.32

1.01

Incident and fines

184

5.02

0.95

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2, Number 8, August, 2022

1664

http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Total

3663

100

Mean

192.79

5.26

1.00

Max

201

5.49

1.04

Min

184

5.02

0.95

Table 4.3. shows that the average importance of Cultural Heritage Disclosure to

be disclosed according to stakeholders was very high. This is indicated by the mean of

each item of 5.26% from the total maximum of 5.49% and a minimum of 5.02%. The

range of scores for each item did not show a significant difference, ranging from 184 to

201. This implies that each item of Cultural Heritage Disclosure according to

stakeholders is equally important. This is also enforced by the overall mean of demand

for Cultural Heritage disclosure according to stakeholders of 6.22

on a Likert scale of 7.

Based on the order from the most weighted index, the items in the Cultural

Heritage Disclosure are described as follows:

Table 4.4. Cultural Heritage Disclosure Item based on the level of weighted index

Item Culture Heritage Disclosure

Weighted Index

Compliance with the law

1.04

Apply mitigation

1.03

Program for protect

1.02

Cultural Heritage in Tangible Forms

1.02

Program for preserve

1.02

Cultural Heritage in Unique Natural Features

1.01

Responsible for operations

1.01

Cultural Heritage expense

1.01

Impacts of activities on protected area

1.01

Program for promote

1.01

Program for maintenance

1.01

Inform communities

1.01

Consulth with Affected Communities

1.00

Impacts of activities

0.99

Cultural Heritage in Intagible Forms

0.98

Risk of operation

0.98

Operation in protected area

0.96

Program for utilization

0.95

The mean of stakeholder demand for cultural heritage disclosure (7-scale Likert) was

obtained by dividing the total score divided by the number of respondents divided by the

number of items (6,22= 3663/31/19)

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1665

Incident and fines

0.95

CONCLUSION

This research was conducted to determine the weighted index in the Cultural

Heritage disclosure in Indonesia. From the results of the research, it can be concluded that

the average importance of Cultural Heritage Disclosure to be disclosed according to

stakeholders was very high as indicated by the mean of each item of 5.26% from the total

maximum of 5.49% and a minimum of 5.02%. This implies that the mean of each item of

Cultural Heritage Disclosure according to stakeholders is equally important. This is also

corroborated by the overall mean of demand for Cultural Heritage disclosure according to

stakeholders of 6.22 on a Likert 7 scale. Compliance with law items (item related to the

company's level of compliance with regulations of cultural heritage) occupied the highest

weighted index, while incidents and fines items were the lowest weighted index.

REFERENCES

Botosan, Christine A. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. Accounting

Review, 72(3), 323–349.

Bregman, J. I. (1999). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Second Edition.

Carroll, A. B. (1998). The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society

Review 10, 1(January 1998), 1–7.

Chow, Chee W., & Wong-Boren, Adrian. (1987). Voluntary Financial Disclosure by

Mexican Corporations. Accounting Review, 62(3), 533.

Colbert, François, d’Astous, Alain, & Parmentier, Marie‐Agnès. (2005). Consumer

Perceptions of Sponsorship in the Arts. International Journal of Cultural Policy,

11(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630500198245

Committee, Current Affairs. (2020). Culture without borders : Cultural heritage

management for local and regional development. 33(September), 1–30.

Cooke, T. E. (1989). Voluntary Corporate Disclosure by Swedish Companies. Journal of

International Financial Management & Accounting, 1(2), 171–195.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1989.tb00009.x

Coy, David, & Dixon, Keith. (2004). The public accountability index: Crafting a

parametric disclosure index for annual reports. British Accounting Review, 36(1),

79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2003.10.003

Depoers, Florence. (2000). A cost benefit study of voluntary disclosure: some empirical

evidence from French listed companies. European Accounting Review, 9(2), 245–

263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180050129891

Girard, Luigi Fusco, & Vecco, Marilena. (2021). The ―intrinsic value‖ of cultural heritage

as driver for circular human‐centered adaptive reuse. Sustainability (Switzerland),

13(6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063231

Gomez-Carrasco, Pablo, Guillamon-Saorin, Encarna, & Garcia Osma, Beatriz. (2016).

The illusion of CSR: drawing the line between core and supplementary CSR.

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(1), 125–151.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2014-0083

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2, Number 8, August, 2022

1666

http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, Indre Grazuleviciute Vileniske. (2006). Cultural heritage in the

context of sustainable development. Researchgate.Net, (3), 74–79.

Guide, Practical. (2021). Cultural Heritage and Displacement. Language Issues in

Comparative Education II, 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004449671_008

Hennink, Monique M., Kaiser, Bonnie N., & Weber, Mary Beth. (2019). What Influences

Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research. Qualitative Health

Research, 29(10), 1483–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692

Hossain, Mohammed, & Hammami, Helmi. (2009). Voluntary disclosure in the annual

reports of an emerging country: The case of Qatar. Advances in Accounting, 25(2),

255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2009.08.002

Hossain, Monirul Alam. (2002). Disclosure Index Approach in Accounting Research : A

Review of Related Issues. Academia Electronic Journal, (0721), 1–14.

Idris, Muhammad Zaffwan, Mustaffa, Norsimaa Binti, & Yusoff, Syed Osman Syed.

(2016). Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage Using Advance Digital

Technology: Issues and Challenges. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and

Education, 16(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.15294/harmonia.v16i1.6353

Jamali, Dima, & Mirshak, Ramez. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):

Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics,

72(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9168-4

Kristanta, Edi. (2015). ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING COMPLIANCE IN

MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF ANNUAL REPORT 2014 FOR PUBLIC LISTED

PANEL OF EXAMINERS. (October).

Labadi, Sophia, Giliberto, Francesca, Rosetti, Ilaria, Shetabi, Linda, & Yildirim, Ege.

(2021). Heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy Guidance for

Heritage and Development Actors. International Journal of Heritage Studies.

McKelvie, Stuart J. (1978). Graphic rating scales — How many categories? British

Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1978.tb01647.x

Meek, Gary K., Roberts, Clare B., & Gray, Sidney J. (1995). Factors Influencing

Voluntary Annual Report Disclosures By U.S., U.K. and Continental European

Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 555–

572. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490186

Nations, United. (2019). our world ’ s priceless and irreplaceable assets.

Nocca, Francesca. (2017). The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development:

Multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability (Switzerland),

9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882

Rogowski, A. S. (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to

Recurrent Problems. In Journal of Environmental Quality (Vol. 33).

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.7970

Scaltrito, Davide. (2016). Voluntary disclosure in Italy: Firm-specific determinants an

empirical analysis of Italian listed companies. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(2),

272–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-07-2015-0032

Suhardjanto, Djoko. (2008). The Fallacy Of Assuming Equality : International Business,

7(8), 21–32.

Symonds, Percival M. (1924). On the loss of reliability in ratings due. Jourrzal of

Experimental Psychology, 7, 456–461.

UCLG. (2018). Culture in the Sustainable Development Goals. 40.

Rizky Windar Amelia, Djoko Suhardjanto, Agung Nur Probohudono, Setyaningtyas

Honggowati

Weighted Index of Cultural Heritage Disclosure in Indonesia

1667

UNESCO. (2009). Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. In UNESCO

World Report.

UNESCO. (2015). Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective

into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage and

Sustainable Development, 1–18.

Wang, Xiaorui. (2017). Regulatory compliance as fulfilment of corporate social

responsibility: an interpretative textual analysis on sustainability reports of two

Chinese listed agribusinesses. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social

Responsibility, 2(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-017-0014-7