PERANGKAP KUANTIFIKASI DALAM SUSTAINABILITY BALANCED SCORECARD: ILUSI PRESISI DALAM PENGUKURAN ISU SOSIAL DAN ETIKA DI SEKTOR PERTAMBANGAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69714/8m9g9s39Keywords:
Sustainability Balanced Scorecard, Quantification Trap, Theory of Change , Illusion of Precision, Social and Ethical Performance, Indonesian Mining SectorAbstract
This conceptual article examines the “quantification trap” in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC), which is the tendency to treat numbers as clear and certain proof of social and ethical performance, even though they often reflect only inputs or administrative outputs. Using a critical literature review for the 2020-2025 period and the Theory of Change (ToC) lens, the article applies a reconstruction approach by mapping indicators from the 2024 Sustainability Reports of PT Adaro Andalan Indonesia Tbk and PT Vale Indonesia Tbk into the four Balanced Scorecard perspectives as a framework to reconstruct an SBSC (Learning and Growth, Internal Process, Stakeholder, and Financial). The review finds that many indicators are easy to count, such as training hours, the Community Satisfaction Index, Social Return on Investment, the percentage of complaints resolved, and “zero cases” integrity numbers. These indicators can create an illusion of precision and lead to wrong classification of social and ethical performance when they are not linked to outcomes and real impacts. The findings also show a contrast in measurement quality: safety metrics are usually stronger because they use clear ratios with clear denominators, while social and ethics metrics often stop at aggregated numbers or process outputs. This article proposes redesigning SBSC indicators using ToC through input-output-outcome ratios and leading-lagging pairing to improve measurement quality, clarify cause-and-effect links, and strengthen managerial recommendations for the Indonesian mining sector.
References
C. Mio, A. Costantini, and S. Panfilo, “Performance measurement tools for sustainable business : A systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use,” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Enviromental Manag., vol. 29, pp. 367–384, 2022, doi: 10.1002/csr.2206.
M. Chehimi, “Balanced Scorecards and sustainability Balanced Scorecards for corporate social responsibility strategic alignment : A systematic literature review,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 367, no. July, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122000.
S. Jassem, Z. Zakaria, and A. C. Azmi, “Sustainability balanced scorecard architecture and environmental performance outcomes : a systematic review,” Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1728–1760, 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-12-2019-0582.
A. Eifert and C. Julmi, “Challenges and How to Overcome Them in the Formulation and Implementation Process of a Sustainability Balanced Scorecard ( SBSC ),” Sustainability, vol. 14, pp. 1–21, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214816.
C. A. Adams and S. Abhayawansa, “Critical Perspectives on Accounting Connecting the COVID-19 pandemic , environmental , social and governance ( ESG ) investing and calls for ‘ harmonisation ’ of sustainability reporting,” Crit. Perspect. Account., vol. 82, p. 102309, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102309.
H. Al-shaer and K. Hussainey, “Sustainability reporting beyond the business case and its impact on sustainability performance : UK evidence,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 311, no. March, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114883.
F. Berg, J. F. Ko, and R. Rigobon, “Aggregate Confusion : The Divergence of ESG Ratings,” Rev. Financ., no. May, pp. 1315–1344, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033.
M. Billio, M. Costola, and L. Pelizzon, “Inside the ESG ratings : ( Dis ) agreement and performance,” Corp. Soc. Responsibili, vol. 28, pp. 1426–1445, 2021, doi: 10.1002/csr.2177.
K. Komnitsas, “Social License to Operate in Mining: Present Views and Future Trends,” resources, vol. 9, no. 79, pp. 1–15, 2020.
L. S. Matikainen, “Addressing Sustainability in the Mining Industry Through Stakeholder Engagement,” South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 35–48, 2022, doi: 10.1177/22779779221078673.
L. Feor and A. Clarke, “Social Impact Measurement : A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions,” World, vol. 4, pp. 816–837, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/world4040051.
D. L. Reinholz and T. C. Andrews, “Change theory and theory of change : what ’ s the difference anyway ?,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3.
Z. Hoque, “Outcome budgets in government entities : rhetoric or a reality !,” Account. Manag. Rev., vol. 26, no. 26, pp. 155–173, 2022, doi: DOI https://doi.org/10.55486/amrrcg.v26i.7a.
Beske, Haustein, and Lorson, “Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports,” Emerald Publ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12- 2018-0343 This.
A. Papoutsi and M. S. Sodhi, “A Sustainability Disclosure Index Using Corporate Sustainability Reports,” J. Sustain. Res., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200020.
Adaro Andalan Indonesia, Laporan Berkelanjutan. Jakarta: PT Adaro Andalan Indonesia Tbk, 2024.
E. Trisyulianti, B. Prihartono, M. Andriadi, and K. Suryadi, “RESEARCH ARTICLE A conceptual framework for a value-based sustainability balanced scorecard,” Sustain. Dev., pp. 1536–1552, 2023, doi: 10.1002/sd.2465.
H. Wilkinson, D. Hills, and P. Barbrook-johnson, “Building a system-based Theory of Change using Participatory Systems Mapping,” Eur. Eval. Soc., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 80–101, 2021, doi: 10.1177/1356389020980493.
Vale Indonesia, Resourcing for a Greener Future: Leading With Impact Through Sustainability. Jakarta: PT Vale Indonesia Tbk. Jakarta, 2024.
G. Emma and M. Jennifer, “Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic ? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 298, p. 126781, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126781.
N. F. Damtoft, D. Van Liempd, and R. Lueg, “Sustainability performance measurement – a framework for context-speci fi c applications,” no. December, 2025, doi: 10.1108/JGR-05-2023-0082.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
