ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ КОМПАНИЙ ПО ДОСТИЖЕНИЮ ЦЕЛЕЙ

УСТОЙЧИВОГО РАЗВИТИЯ (SDGS) НА РЫНКАХ РАЗВИВАЮЩИХСЯ СТРАН

Ридхо Тариди Касби Факультет экономики и бизнеса, Государственный исламский университет «Syarif

Hidayatullah» Джакарта, Индонезия Виниченко Михаил Васильевич

Кафедра управления персоналом и кадровой политики Российского государственного социального университета, Россия Макушкин Сергей Анатольевич

Кафедра управления персоналом и кадровой политики Российского государственного социального университета, Россия

Аннотация: Цели устойчивого развития (SDGs) были приняты 15 сентября

2015 года на Генеральной Ассамблее Организации Объединенных Наций, чем был дан старт движению к процветания, созданию благоприятных условий для жизни и деятельности людям всего мира. Цели устойчивого развития включают 17 целей и 169 подцелей, которые должны быть достигнуты целиком в 2030 году. Для достижения 17 SDGs потребовалось многостороннее сотрудничество между правительствами, частным сектором, научными кругами и гражданским обществом всех стран. В этом исследовании изучалась роль компаний в развивающихся странах в реализации SDGs.

PARTICIPATION OF COMPANIES IN EMERGING MARKETS TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGS)

Taridi Kasbi Ridho

Faculty of Economics and Business, State Islamic University “Syarif Hidayatullah” Jakarta, Indonesia

Mikhail V. Vinichenko Department of Personnel Management and Personnel Policy, Russian State Social University,

Russia Sergey A. Makushkin

Department of Personnel Management and Personnel Policy, Russian State Social University, Russia

Abstract. 15 September 2015 was a historical day when global leaders in United

Nations General Assembly adopted a global agenda for the world people, planet, and prosperity, called The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It consisted 17 goals and 169 targets to be achieved entirely in 2030. A multi stakeholders collaboration among government, private sector, academia, and civil society from all countries was required to achieve the 17 SDGs). This research investigated the role of companies in emerging countries in the implementation of SDGs. The first focus was on the implementation of SDGs by top 200 Indonesian listed companies, in terms of revenue in three years period of 2014-2016. Content analysis of companies’ reporting, consisted of annual report, sustainability reporting, and CSR information on companies web sites, using SDG Compass: Linking the SDGs and GRI was employed to identify the engagement of each company to each goals of SDGs. The analysis of the Russian companies' actions in the implementation of SDGs was fragmented. Results revealed that biggest companies in three sectors had contributed well to certain number of SDGs. However, lot of efforts from government, business association, and companies themselves are required to increase company’s implementation in other goals of SDGs.

Key words: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Indonesia, Russia, business and society

Основное внимание было сосредоточено на внедрение SDGs топ-200 индонезийских компаний с учетом получения ими доходов за три года 2014-2016 гг. Контент-анализ отчетности компаний состоял из годового отчета, отчетности по устойчивому развитию и информации по корпоративной социальной ответственности (КСО), взятых с веб-сайтов компаний с использованием SDGs Compass. Сопоставление Целей устойчивого развития (SDGs) и Глобальной инициативы по отчетности (GRI) проводилось по каждой компании с рассмотрением всех целей SDGs по отдельности. Фрагментарно был проведен анализ исследования действий российских компаний в реализации SDGs. Результаты показали, что крупнейшие компании в трех исследуемых секторах внесли значительный вклад в достижении большинства Целей устойчивого развития (SDGs). Тем не менее, необходимо приложить еще много усилий со стороны правительства, бизнес-ассоциации и самих компаний для повышения эффективности реализации всего комплекса SDGs.

Ключевые слова: Цели устойчивого развития (SDGs), Корпоративная социальная ответственность (CSR), Индонезия, Россия, бизнес и общество

1. INTRODUCTION Sustainable development introduces in 1987 was defined as development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). At the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, all UN members agreed to the eight international development goals called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of 2000-2015. To continue and to complete what the MDGs did not achieve, the General Assembly of United Nations on 25 September 2015 adopted a resolution titled “Transforming Our Word: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity. They seek to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental (UN, 2015). The resolution called all countries and all stakeholders of governments, private sectors, academic communities, as well as civil societies to act in collaborative partnership to implement all of 17 SDGs.

Private sector in any countries had an indispensable role in the process of SDGs implementation. First, companies had a role to help to raise the standard of living through the creation of fair and equal jobs, the development of skills and technology, and more equitable distribution of wealth. Second, business might play its function to transform their strategies, procedures, standards and metrics to integrate sustainable development within the core of their missions and business models (OECD, 2016). Third, private investment is very important in certain areas such as agriculture and nutrition (SDG 2), health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), water supply and sanitation (SDG 6), climate and energy (SDG 7), infrastructure (SDG 9), biodiversity and ecosystem services (SDG 14 and 15), and technology, including a data revolution (Sachs and Schmidt-Traub, 2014). Finally, business is an important stakeholder on account of its resources, its ability to innovate and its scale and reach (Oxfam, 2017).

As a respond to the agreed 17 SDGs by world leaders in 2015, Indonesian President Jokowi signed Presidential Decree no 59/2017 on 4 July 2017. This decree was intended to provide a national guidance, governance structure, and planning to controlling procedures in order to achieve SDGs through mutual collaboration among related stakeholders in Indonesia. This presidential decree had gain a positive appreciation from international agencies such as UNDP and Indonesia was called as one of the world’s best examples of civil society, private sector, philanthropy and academic institutions actively embracing the SDGs. UNDP also stated that Indonesia had some innovative finance in achieving SDGs for example by issuing a sovereign Green Sukuk, an Islamic based bond (Bahuet and Sopacua, 2018). Nine months later on 26 April 2018, as been mandated by the presidential decree, the Minister of National Development Planning issued the minister decree no. 7/2018 on coordination, planning,

monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of SDG implementation as a further regulation to achieve SDGs.

The involvement of Indonesian companies in the area of sustainable development by engaging in social and environmental activities actually had been initiated two decades before. It was started by Indonesian state’s owned companies (SOEs). As described by Ridho (2017), The Ministry of SOEs of Indonesia issued a Minister Decree Number Kep-216/M-PBUMN/1999 on 28 September 1999 that mandated every SOE had to allocate 4% of its net profit on partnership with small and medium enterprises and environmental management programs, equally 2% each for partnership program and for environmental management programs.

The promotion to engage more in sustainable development was extended to all companies either government, private domestic, or foreign owned companies in eight years later. In 2007 the government and parliament of Republic of Indonesia passed Law Number 40 year 2007 regarding Corporation. Article 74 of the Law said that all companies operate in and/or related to natural resources have to follow social and environmental responsibilities. One step forward had been also initiated by National Center for Sustainability Reporting since 2005 to conduct the Indonesia Sustainability Reporting Award (ISRA) to give award to companies that has published sustainability reporting. The Indonesian Capital Market and Financial Institutions Supervisory Board (now under Indonesian Financial Service Authority/FSA) through the issuance of the regulation Number X.K.6 year 2006 stated that all annual report of listed companies have to describe activities and cost related to corporate social responsibilities to societies and environment (Ridho, 2017).

Incorporating sustainable development in business means ensuring that business does good for people and for planet, while at the same time also gaining well profit. More and more research showed that investing in sustainable development was not charity, but fundamental and smart investment and brought positive impact both to company and society. The cooperation of companies with state structures and the population allows achieving almost all goals of sustainable development (Bondaletov et al, 2014). This applies fully to Agriculture. In Russia, the State program for the development of agriculture and regulation of markets for agricultural products, raw materials and food products for 2013-2017 (State program, 2012) is implemented. Within the framework of this Program, practically all the goals of sustainable development have been implemented, to varying degrees.

Recent interviews with executives from 40 big companies concluded that companies that invested in sustainable development had performed above the industry average in terms of both financial and sustainability-performance metrics. It means that companies that introduce sustainability into their business models are profitable and successful. Sustainable actions had, in fact, led to reduce risk, diversify market and portfolio, increase revenue, reduce costs, and improve products. Shareholders and consumers want and value sustainable development. (OECD, 2016)

As Dunn (2016) emphasized, society expects business to create social value along with shareholder value and is prepared to punish those that do not. Firms that embraced it gained strategic advantage, while some ignored it at their peril and will end up paying a price for doing that. Moreover, Dunn (2016) continued that SDG partnerships can help business with social license, product marketing, employee retention and recruitment, regulatory friction, brand development and a host of other areas. His research correlates the results of studies on satisfaction with work by the elderly (Ryabova et al, 2017) and by young workers in the implementation of SDG (Vinichenko, Karácsony et al, 2017), their peculiarities in the agro-industrial sector of the economy (Dorzhieva, 2017, Demchenko et al, 2018).

As been explained by Chandler (2015) profit is representation of economic value plus social value. Social value is the value that is derived above and beyond the functional purpose of a product or service. Economic success of a firm is determined by the firm’s decisions regarding production as well as the consumer’s decisions regarding consumption which encapsulate of both economic and social value. If a society permits a firm to continue its operations, they are

acknowledging that the firm adds those values. Among the most important aspects of social value, labor conditions (Wharton & Blair-Loy, 2002, Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005, Bharadwaj, 2014, Wenhua et al, 2016), including people with disabilities (Makhov & Medvedev, 2018), the application of health preservation technologies (Vinichenko et al, 2018, Makhov & Medvedev, 2018).

Previously, Porter (2011) had argued that a firm need to focus on creating shared value, a concept that involves creating economic value for shareholders while also creating social value by addressing society’s needs and challenges. This will not only allow companies to gain and sustain a competitive advantage but also reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. He explained that that markets are defined not only by economic needs but also by societal needs. The shared value creation framework seeks to enhance a firm’s competitiveness by identifying connections between economic and social needs, and creating a competitive advantage by addressing these two challenges. Young people can significantly help in solving these problems. It is important to correctly reconcile the wishes of young professionals with the opportunities of companies for their employment (Demchenko et al, 2017), the full use of their talents (Vinichenko, Ridho et al, 2017), further development, career growth (Kirillov et al, 2017).

In Indonesia, research on top 200 listed companies in Indonesia in 2014-2015 period concluded that CSR implementation associated significantly and positively with financial performance both ROE (return on equity) and ROA (return on assets). This result was consistent with the previous findings that CSR implementation shall have positive impact to the financial performance of Indonesian listed companies. There was a change in the influence of CSR implementation on customer performance from no significance impact in 2014 to become significantly had positive impact in 2015. This shifting might indicate a good signal from market that became appreciate companies that have good business practice. However, CSR implementation had still no influence on employee perspective both in 2014 and 2015 which might be interpreted that Indonesian employees did not consider CSR practiced by a company as a reason to work in that company (Ridho, 2016 and 2017).

The objective of this research is to describe the companies contribution to SDGs, with emphasis on the three industrial sectors, in Indonesia and in Russia as a comparative analysis. It described how Indonesian companies engaged in SDGs, explained by each goal and by year to year.

2. METHODS This research used data from top 200 Indonesian listed companies in terms of revenue in

three years period of 2014, 2015, and 2016. For analysis purpose, the companies from three sectors was then selected. They were agriculture sector, mining sector, and basic industry and chemicals sector. Secondary data was collected from many means of corporate reporting, i.e. annual report, CSR report, and CSR information on company’s web site. To measure company participation to each goal of SDGs, content analysis was employed on corporate reporting using “SDG Compass: Linking the SDGs and GRI”, an instrument that offers businesses the tools and knowledge to put sustainability at the heart of company’s strategy developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Score of 0 was given on one goal of SDGs, if the company’s reports did not disclose any specific information as required by the SDG Compass. On the other the score was 1, if the company’s reports provided one of indicators required by one goal of SDGs. As there were 17 SDGs, therefore if a company participate in all SDGs, its score shall be 17. On the other extreme, if a company did not engage in any activities related to SDGs, then its SDG participation score shall be 0. The typical SDG participation score then had range from 0 to 17.

The indicators of each goal of SDGs was set as the following. SDG 1 (no poverty) required information on the respected corporate reporting, (i) availability of products and services for those on low incomes, (ii) economic development in areas of high poverty and (iii)

physical and economic displacement. SDG 2 (zero hunger) indicators were (i) food safety and (ii) healthy and affordable food. Indicators in SDG 3 (good health and well being) was access to medicine. SDG 4 (quality education) was explained by (i) education for sustainable development and (ii) media literacy. SDG 5 (gender equality) had five indicators, (i) equal remuneration for women and men, (ii) gender equality, (iii) non-discrimination, (iv) parental leave, and (v) women in leadership.

Furthermore, SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) needed disclosure about (i) sustainable water withdrawals, (ii) waste, (iii) water efficiency, and (iv) water quality. SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) contained (i) electricity access, (ii) electricity availability and reliability, (iii) environmental investments, and (iv) renewable energy. SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) included indicators of (i) abolition of child labour and elimination of forced or compulsory labour, (ii) freedom of association and collective bargaining, (iii) diversity and equal opportunity, (iv) earnings, wages and benefits &, (v) economic performance, (vi) employee training and education, (vii) employment, (viii) indirect impact on job creation, and (ix) occupational health and safety. SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) had one indicator of infrastructure investments. Indicators of SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) were (i) access to financial services, (ii) accessibility of media content, and (iii) responsible finance.

Moreover, SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) consisted of (i) access to affordable housing, (ii) disaster/emergency planning and response, (iii) noise, and (iv) sustainable buildings. SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) had the following indicators, (i) materials efficiency/recycling, (ii) procurement practices, (iii) product and service information and labelling, (iv) resource efficiency of products and service, and (v) sustainable sourcing. SDG 13 (climate action) consisted of (i) energy efficiency, (ii) GHG emissions, and (iii) risks and opportunities due to climate change. SDG 14 (life below water) contained (i) marine biodiversity, (ii) spills, and (iii) water discharge to oceans. SDG 15 (life on land) consisted of (i) deforestation, (ii) genetic diversity of farmed and domesticated animals, (iii) land remediation, and (iv) on land biodiversity. SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institution) had seven indicators of (i) compliance with laws and regulations, (ii) effective, accountable and transparent governance, (iii) ethical and lawful behaviour, (iv) grievance mechanisms, (v) inclusive decision making, (vi) protection of privacy (vii) responsible content dissemination. Finally, SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals) required information of significant indirect economic impacts.

3. RESULTS Content analysis of corporate reporting of top 200 Indonesian listed companies for the

year 2014-2016 using SDG Compass: Linking the SDGs and GRI revealed the number of companies that had engaged in each SDG during the three years were as shown in the following figure 1:

Figure 1: Number of Companies Participated To SDGs

The chart showed that there were three SDGs—SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institution), and SDG 17 (partnership for the goals)—that categorized as the most implemented SDGs by the top 200 listed companies in Indonesia during 2014-2015 period with implementation of around 100%. Two SDGs—SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 4 (quality education)—has been implemented by majority of the companies in which more than 75% to below 97.5% of companies had participated in achieving those goals.

Around half of companies (40% to less than 75%) had engaged in seven SDGs—SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 3 (good health and well being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG 13 (climate action). A quarter of companies were active in SDG 15 (life on land).

Finally, there were four SDGs—SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 14 (life below water)—that might be regarded as the least implemented SDGs by top 200 listed companies in Indonesia during 2014-2016 period as less than 25 % of companies involved in those SDGs.

The following charts showed participation of companies in three industrial sectors in the implementation of 17 SDGs. There were figure 2 for agriculture sector, figure 3 for mining, and figure 3 for basic industry and chemicals during 2014-2016 period. The engagement in each goal of SDGs was considered good if at least 75% of companies in the sector participated in certain goal, fair if the participation was around 50% to less than 75%, and poor for participation of around 25% or less.

Figure 2: Agriculture – Percentage of Companies Participating to SDGs It can be seen from the figure 2 above that agricultural companies in Indonesia had engaged very well in implementing eight SDGs (figure 2). Together with the most three implemented SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institution), and SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) plus the SDG 4 (quality education), the agricultural sector had also performed well and surpassed the industry average in four other SDG—SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 15 (life on land). Fair participation had been shown to six SDGs, i.e. SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well being), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), while poor participation were shown to three SDGs, i.e. SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 14 (life below water).

Figure 3: Mining – Percentage of Companies Participating to SDGs

Companies in mining sector as shown in figure 3 had implemented SDGs very well in eight goals (figure 3). Apart from implementation in the three plus two most participated SDGs (SDG 8, SDG 16, SDG 17 plus SDG 5 and SDG 4, this mining sector had supported clearly to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), and SDG 13 (climate action).

They had fair SDGs implementation in six SDGs, i.e. SDG 3 (good health and well being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production). Even though this sector contributed fairly but they had outperformed average companies in SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). This group performed poorly only in three SDGs, i.e. SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities).

Figure 4: Basic Industry & Chemicals – Percentage of Companies Participating to SDGs Compare to other two previous sector, companies in basic industry and chemicals sector

as revealed in figure 4 were less active in implementation of SDGs (figure 4). They were only well participated in the four most implemented SDGs (SDG 8, SDG 16, SDG 17, and SDG 5). Even though this sector outperformed the average industry to perform fairly in SDG 15 (life on land), this sector only performed fairly in other six SDGs, i.e. SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG 13 (climate action). Accompanying poor and below industry average performance in SDG 3 (good health and well being) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), this sector performed poorly in the four least implemented SDGs (SDG 2, SDG 7, SDG 10, and SDG 14).

4. DISCUSSION The study found that all companies in the research sectors are fully involved in achieving

goals such as SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Similarly, as a rule, all companies in the research sectors carried out activities related to the implementation of SDG 17 (partnerships for achieving the goals).

Most companies generally promoted SDG 5 (gender equality). Their number varied from 90% in Basic Industry & Chemicals sector; 80% in Mining sector and up to 70% in Agriculture sector. Similarly, Most companies in different industries are very interested in supporting SDG 4 (quality education). The largest number of Mining companies of 92%, followed by Agriculture of 91%, and finally Basic Industry & Chemicals of 66%.

Substantial support was given to SDG 1 (fight against poverty). Most companies from the sectors Agriculture (88%) and Mining (87%) actively joined in the implementation of this goal. Likewise, Mining companies have demonstrated great support for SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) - 83%. Somewhat lower the figures for Agriculture - 55% and Basic Industry & Chemicals - 46%.

SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) had received strong support from the Agriculture companies. About 85% of companies in this industry actively carried out activities to improve responsible consumption and the production environment. Then the support came from Basic Industry & Chemicals (57%). Less than half of the companies in Mining (40%) paid attention to SDG 12.

The participation of Agriculture Sector companies in achieving SDG 13 (climatic action) was different. Starting from 91% in 2014, then rose to a peak of 100% in 2015 and 2016 of companies in this industrial group, engaged in activities related to the prevention of climate change. High participation in climate change mitigation was also demonstrated by the Mining sector, in which, on average, 78% of its companies carried out climate-related activities, followed by Basic Industry & Chemicals - 56%.

In the industrial sectors under study, moderate support was provided for the implementation of SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) with the participation of about 70% of all their companies, ie companies in Mining (72%), Basic Industry & Chemicals, and Agriculture70%.

Only two sectors had a fair participation in SDG 15 (life on land). This was the Agriculture sector with an average support of 76% of companies and Mining with 60%. Sector Basic Industry & Chemicals was not too interested in achieving this SDG with the number of companies involved below 50%.

The data also showed that all companies in all sectors are fully involved in efforts to achieve SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Similarly, as a rule, all companies in all sectors carried out activities related to the implementation of SDG 17 (partnerships to achieve goals).

Support for SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) has gained popularity in Mining - 53% of companies supported the idea of implementing this SDG. The support was given to Agriculture (42%) and Basic Industry & Chemicals (32%).

The involvement of the private sector in SDG 3 (good health and well-being) was not really obvious. The largest number was registered only in Agriculture, in which 61% of companies in this industry were engaged in activities related to good health and well-being. The remaining companies accounted for less than 50%, which was shown by companies in Mining (45%), Basic Industry & Chemicals (32%).

The support shown by SDG 14 (life below water) was very modest. Less than half of Mining companies (42%) supported SDG 14, and in the remaining research areas even less: Agriculture 24%, Basic Industry & Chemicals 11%.

Only one sector of the industry showed real participation in the achievement of SDG 2 (zero starvation) - this is Agriculture (61%). Much less participation was shown to the company Basic Industry & Chemicals - 17%.

A small part in achieving SDG 10 (reduction in inequality) was associated with Agriculture (3%). Mining, Basic Industry & Chemicals, did not participate at all in achieving SDG 10.The smallest contribution to the private sector was demonstrated by SDG 7 (available and clean energy), in which only two sectors had a relatively significant share over three years in periods, that is an average of 18% of Agriculture, 23% of Mining. On average, 12% of Basic Industry & Chemicals companies took part in this SDG.

Veretehina S. V. studies have proved that in the conditions of digital transformation of society the economic growth of companies in the market is achieved through the use of Big Data. Cloud storage of information and documentation ensures competitiveness of industries and agriculture, the education system. Using Big Data is the beginning of creating the knowledge base needed for management (Khitskov et al, 2017).

5. CONCLUSIONS

From above figure and tables it can be concluded that the top 200 listed companies in Indonesia had made significant contribution to SDGs during 2014-2016 period even though with different level of engagement for each goal. The best Indonesian private sector participation had been made to the creation of decent work and stimulate economic growth (SDG 8) and to the development of the company itself to be strong, transparent, and accountable institutions (SDG 16). The SDG 16 has an importance to be extended to governance at large in the public sector as bad governance practices in public sector in Indonesia was not difficult to find. The better governance in this private sectors might be taken as model to achieve good public governance . Likewise, the business sector in Indonesia had performed well in building partnership to achieve the SDGs (SDG 17).

Participation level of the Indonesian largest companies to improve the quality of human resources through quality education (SDG 4) was considered good. Therefore, during the 2014-2016 period the private sector in Indonesia had made important contribution in solving one of the big SDG challenges in Indonesia. These findings are correlated with the results of various scholars who proposed improving education (Walter, 2012, Pucciarelli, & Kaplan, 2016), increasing the role of teachers in this system (Ilina, et al, 2018), optimizing training (Słowikowski, 1998, Long & OweeKowang, 2015; Zdravkova, 2016).The same big contribution was also performed to promote gender equality in workplace (SDG 5).

On the other hand, Indonesian biggest companies still need to do more to overcome challenges related to poverty alleviation (SDG 1), water conservation and sanitation (SDG 6), infrastructure development (SDG 9), climate change mitigation (SDG 13), health quality (SDG 3), sustainable cities (SDG 11), as well as responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). Increasing the participation level to those seven SDGs need to identify and encourage certain industrial sectors whose contribution were still low in those SDGs.

Even though the participation was relatively high, agricultural and mining companies as the sector that have very high correlation to not do harm to life on land (SDG 15), participation from this two sectors have to be maximized from current level. Also low participation to this SDG 15 from consumer goods industry companies which contains many food companies should be increased in order to ensure that their operation will not discompose genetic diversity of farmed and domesticated animals, land remediation, and land biodiversity. However, as the engagement was still low, more focus should be put on mining companies in order to ensure that their operations will not destroy life below water (SDG 14). The same effort should be also enforce to any other industries that use seas or oceans for as a means for production and transportation. Participation of companies to SDG 2, SDG 7, and SDG 10 were really far below satisfactory.

Beside general roles of government to provide enabling environment with clear and strong laws and regulations for sustainable development, policy intervention might be necessary to encourage certain industrial sector to more active in participating to several SDGs that is currently still low in terms of private sector contribution. Referring to the proactive movement by FSA to regulate the finance industry, active role from other government agency such as the Ministry of National Planning Agency, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Trade and others are necessary to push and regulate certain industry to take steps forward to achieve SDGs more comprehensively. The role of industry associations are not less important to facilitate their companies member to be more active in SDGs activities. For the company itself, as company’s resources are limited, focus must be always put on certain SDGs that are strategically related to objective strategy of the company that can maximize both economic and social value.

As end notes, this research only included top 200 Indonesian listed companies in 2014 and 2015. Further research need to study all top Indonesian companies, including Indonesian SOEs which had not been going public in order to have better findings on the participation of private sector to SDGs in Indonesia. The longer time of study might improve the conclusion of this research. Also, research with emphasis more on the quality of company participation with

involving activities impact analysis in the future study shall have better contribution in understanding the private sector – SDGs relations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The publication was prepared with the financial support of the RFBR, project No. 17-03-00059-ОГН. REFERENCES Ali, Sajjad , Talib Hussain, Guoliang Zhang , Mohammad Nurunnabi and Benqian Li. 2018, The

Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in “BRICS” Countries, Sustainability 10(7), 2513;

Bahuet, C and Sopacua, J.A. (2018), “SDGs in Indonesia: 2018 and Beyond”, Jakarta Post 19 March 2018, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/03/19/sdgs-indonesia-2018-and-beyond.html

Bondaletov, V.V., Medvedeva, N.V., Senicheva, L.V., Frolova, E.V., Santos, E. (2014). LOCAL POLITICS, BUSINESS, PEOPLE: ISSUES AND COOPERATION STRATEGIES. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 5(2). 63-73. DOI: 10.14505/jarle.v5.2(10).02.

Bharadwaj, A. (2014). Planning Internal Communication Profile for Organizational Effectiveness. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 3(2), 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277975214542059

Chandler, David, 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Perspective, Business Expert Press, New York

Demchenko, T.S., Peter Karácsony, Ilina, I.Y., Vinichenko, M.V., Melnichuk, A.V. (2017). Self-Marketing Of Graduates Of High Schools And Young Specialists In The System Of Personnel Policy Of The Organization. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 7(9), 58-65.

Demchenko, T.S., Melnichuk, A.V., Ilina, I.Y., Vinichenko, M.V., Buley, N.V. (2018). Improvement Of Corporate Youth Programs Of The Agro-Industrial Complex. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 8(5), 404-419.

http://www.mjltm.org/en/downloadpaper.php?pid=470%20&%20p=A Dorzhieva, E.V. (2017). Ensuring stable development of the regional agro-industrial complex on

the basis of its clustering. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 8(2), 354-365.

Dunn, Wayne. (2016). “CSR and Shared Value Partnership for the SDGs”, https://www.linkedin.com/ pulse/public-private-partnerships-csr-shared-value-sdgs-wayne-dunn, 11 August 2016

Ilina, I.Y., Oseev, A.A., Vinichenko, M.V., Kirillov, A.V., Kaurova, O.V., Nakhratova, E.E. (2018). Transformation Of Social Status Of Teachers Of Russian Universities. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 8(3), 381-392.

Khitskov E.A., Veretekhina S.V., Medvedeva A.V., Mnatsakanyan O.L., Shmakova E.G., Kotenev A. (2017). Digital Transformation of Society: Problems Entering in The Digital Economy. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry. Т. 12. № 5b. С. 855-873.

Kirillov, A.V., Ushakov, D.S., Vinichenko, M.V., Makuchkin, S.A., Melnichuk, A.V. (2017). Career Opportunities for the Management’s Personnel Reserve. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 12(5b), 723-733. DOI 10.12973/ejac.2017.00205a

Long, C.S., OweeKowang, T. (2015). Improving organizational performance through training function. Engineering Technology, Engineering Education and Engineering Management - International Conference on Engineering Technology, Engineering Education and Engineering Management, ETEEEM, 119-122.

Makhov, A. S., Medvedev, I. N. (2018). Functional State of Muscles In Sports and Physical Training. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences. Volume: 9. Issue: 4. Pages: 965-968.

Makhov, A. S., Medvedev, I. N. (2018) Sport as a Means of Social Rehabilitation of People With Disabilities. Research Journal Of Pharmaceutical Biological And Chemical Sciences. Volume: 9. Issue: 4. Pages: 170-174.

OECD (2016). Development Co-operation Report 2016: The Sustainable Development Goals as Business Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OXFAM (2017). Raising The Bar: Rethinking the role of business in the Sustainable Development Goals, OXFAM Discussion Papers, February 2017

Porter, ME, and Kramer, MR (2011). “Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash innovation and growth,” Harvard Business Review, January–February

Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.003

Ridho, T.K. (2016). “The Influence of CSR on Performance and Its Determinants in Listed Companies in Indonesia”, Actual Problems of Economics, Scientific Economic Journal No. 10 (184). Pp. 259-268

Ridho, T.K. (2017). “CSR in Indonesia: Company’s Perception and Implementation”. Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics – EURASEANs No. 3 (4) May – June 2017. Pp. 68-75

Ryabova, T.M.; Frolova, E.V.; Rogach, O.V.; Kirillov, A.V. (2018). Status and Role Transformations of the Elderly in Modern Russia. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(1), 132-141. DOI: 10.7596/taksad.v7i1.1462.

Sachs, J.D. and Schmidt-Traub, G. 2014, “Financing sustainable development: Implementing the SDGs through effective investment strategies and partnerships”, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York, http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Full-FSD-draft-for-public-consultation_clean.pdf.

Słowikowski, J. (1998). A Draft of a System of Teaching Occupational Safety and Ergonomics at Universities in Poland. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 4(2), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.1998.11076391

State program for the development of agriculture and regulation of markets for agricultural products, raw materials and food for 2013 - 2020, approved by Government Decree of July 14, 2012 № 717.

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). New York: United Nation

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee relations, 27(2), 160-174. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510572685

Vinichenko, M.V., Peter Karácsony, Demchenko, T.S., Melnichuk, A.V., Makuchkin, S.A. (2017). Satisfaction of Employees of Moscow Region Organizations by Implementation of Youth Personnel Policy. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 12(5b), 697-704. DOI 10.12973/ejac.2017.00203a

Vinichenko, M.V., Taridi, Kasbi Ridho, Kirillov, A.V., Makushkin, S.A., Melnichuk, A.V. (2017). Development Of Skills Management In The System Management Of Talents. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 7(9), 50-57.

Vinichenko, M.V., Peter Karácsony, Kirillov, A.V., Oseev, A.A., Сhulanova, O.L., Makushkin, S.A., Shalashnikova, V.Ju. (2018). Influence Of Time Management On The State Of Health Of Students And The Quality Of Their Life. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 8(5), 165-183.

Walter, F. (2012). The Idea of a Public Education. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11421114

Wharton, Amy S. and Blair-Loy, Mary (2002). The “Overtime Culture” in a Global Corporation: A Cross-national Study of Finance Professionals' Interest in Working Part-time. Work and Occupations. 29(1), 32-63. doi:10.1177/0730888402029001003

Wenhua, L. I. U., Licheng, R. E. N., & Ru, Z. H. A. O. (2016). Exploration on the Relationship between Occupational Stress and Well-being of the Junior Administrative Staff in Universities of China from the Perspective of Social Network. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 53, 145.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press

Zdravkova, K. (2016). Reinforcing social media based learning, knowledge acquisition and learning evaluation. 2nd International Conference on Higher Education Advance. HEAd`16, 21-23 June 2016, Valencia, Spain, Social and Behavioral Science, 228, 16-23.