# Introduction n Indonesia, aside of business ethic excuse, CSR implementation is based on the law of limited company n.40 year of 2007. As one of the BUMN (stated owned enterprises) in Indonesia, PT. Pelindo III has also implemented one of the government policy which is CSR program to increase company's environment management and to synergize with the government through their Program Kemitraan Bina Lingkungan (PKBL). Unfortunately, after 10 years of MDGs declaration, PKBL implementation is not running smooth. This is cause by not only the wide range of their operation region location, but also the complex state of society and environment they try to build. The problems faced by several manager and executor of PT. Pelindo III (Persero) is the non-existent of criteria condition making funds allocation decisions which will be given to their parents in each operation regions. As known that PT. Pelindo III (Persero) is a stated owned enterprise that runs communication sector. They are given task, authority and responsibility to manage public harbor in seven provinces: East Java, Central Java, Bali, South Borneo, Central Borneo, East Nusa Tenggara and West Nusa Tenggara. PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia III (Persero) that runs the core business as facilitator for port service holds the key role to assure the fluency of sea transport so by the provision of sufficient sea transportation facility, it will be able to propel and o excite economy activity of the country and society. In accordance with this role, vision and mission is being set to as a direction in achieving organization's objectives. To make the implementation of PKBL program works, research will be needed for the following goals: (1) program mapping from corporation operation regional based on criteria consideration; company reputation, conflict potency, income contribution, manpower absorption, business opportunity, growth of region economy, and even distribution, (2) decision making of funds allocation based on set criteria, (3) deciding the amount of PKBL funds allocation just like the priority scale and needs based on existing criteria. All of these are expected to help succeeding government's policies in increasing pro poor, pro growth, pro job and pro environment. # II. # Literature Study At the end of the 20th century, CSR study has been getting massive attention from all circle and society. The Earth summit that was conducted in 1992 in Rio de Jenairo , Brazil, has agreed the change of development paradigm from economy development into sustainable development, basing on the protection of the environment, economy and social development as an obligation. A big step in CSR context was done by Elkington (1997) through 3P (Profit, People, Planet) concept in 1998. This concept has a purpose that company responsibility is not limited to collecting profit but also to give positive contribution for the people and actively protecting the planet itself. The World Business council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is an international institution with multinational companies as their member that defines CSR as an action based on ethical consideration directed to increase economy as well as to increase the quality of life for employees and their families and also to increase the quality of life of society in surroundings and in wider sense (WBCSD, 2005). WBCSD meeting in New York (2005) has created an agreement that CSR practice is a form of business world commitment to help UNO in implementing MDGs target. In Indonesia, other than ethical business matter, CSR implementation is base on the law of limited company N.40 year of 2007 on Limited Company chapter IV section 66 verse 2b and chapter V section 74 verse 1 explaining that company's annual report should reflect social responsibility. Even though government cannot change the direction for corporation CSR policies related to CSR connectivity with core business of a company, every program can be directed to achieve government's target in order to fulfill MDGs (Millenium Development Goals) achievement commitment in 2015. The rationale for a more civilized corporation has already surfaced for quite some time as one of the voluntary approach placed in beyond compliance level. The implementation of CSR nowadays has a rapid development in Indonesia as a business response in seeing environment and social response aspect as an opportunity to increase their competitive quality as well as a part for risk management for their business sustainability. CSR implementation in Indonesia was existed in early 2000s, even though activities with the same essence has already implemented way back in 1970s with a variety of level, starting from the simplest such as donation to integration of business operation (Sumardiyono, 2007). In fact, CSR promotion in Indonesia has been marked by government's initiative and privates' (Uriarte, 2008). This means that CSR is well accepted. In Indonesia, companies are categorized into several stages; (1) most companies are in subservience stage in which they adopted policy-based compliance business working cost, (2) managerial stage, where they pay attention on social problems in their core management process, (3) several companies are in strategic steps, where companies integrating social issue into their core business strategy (Uriarte, 2008). Partnership principle is actively requiring companies to work together with the society, central government, local authorities, and other related parties to achieve collective commitment based on trust and openness. All of this aims to achieve agreed goals and collective involvement. Companies work together with government, organization and other public institution in formulating partnership policies with the society just as participating in dialogue with said institutions to expect that rational and effective policies can be wellformulated. Companies are very respectful for every partnership activity that contributes to society and increasing company's social value. In relation to environmental aspect, by modification from Program Penilaian Peringkat Kinerja Perusahaan (PROPER) there are four levels set by the ministry of environment: (1) black, this means companies run their business merely for their own sake and do not care for their surroundings, be it social or environmental aspect, (2) red, this means companies have the tendency to exploit resources more than what ecology, social and economy can support and collectively creating negative impact in regional and global level, (3) blue, this means companies take CSR to give positive impact for their businesses because CSR is seen as an investment and not as cost and (4) honeybee or green, which places CSR as core strategy and the heart of their business. CSR is not only a requirement but also a need for a company. Companies in this level believe that a business will sustain if they are having social capital aside of financial capital. PROPER is incentive and disincentive-based environmental control. This means that the announcement of PROPER attendants with green, blue, red and black is known by society, it will give an effect for their image just as their level. PROPER is an innovation in controlling contamination in industrial sector (Sumardiyono, 2007). Moreover, based on many literature consideration and empirical studies as well as focus group discussion, funds allocation mapping and PKBL in PT. Pelindo III (Persero) has agreed on seven criteria. This considers statements from several experts and findings from several empirical researches. Tilt (1994) stated that stakeholders pressure influences CSR exposure, forming corporate image (Branco & Rodriguez, 2006;Cerin, 2002;Fombrun & Shanley, 1990), Juholin (2005), and also influencing or influenced by organization's objectives achievement (Moir, 2001). Choi, et al. (2010) considers physical environment and social factors. While Dowling & Pfeffer (1975) added that a company needs to own a legitimate strategy that can be adopted when they are facing hardships on their legitimacy or when they see gaps in their legitimacy. There is a contradiction however that CSR can be seen as business orientation (Silberhorn & Warren, 2007). By this, PT. Pelindo III (Persero) needs to consider company's reputation aspect as well as conflict potency, income contribution, manpower absorption, business opportunity, region economy growth and even distribution. # III. # Research Methodology Methods used in this study is survey method which is by giving away questionnaire to managers and the implementers of PKBL PT. Pelindo III (Persero) on seven provinces in Indonesia. The type of this research is descriptive research because it was meant to obtain the description on (1) program mapping from corporation operation region is 9 PKBL distributor branches based on the criteria of company reputation, conflict potency, income contribution, manpower absorption, business opportunity, region economy growth, and event distribution, (b) decision making of funds allocation based on set criteria, (2) determining the amount of PKBL based on priority scale and needs based on set criteriawith the result of this study, it is hoped that there will be a built data and information system as a foundation for strategic planning of PKBL PT. Pelindo III (Persero) to help local authority in formulating many development policies in regions. The population is all managers and implementers staff PKBL PT. Pelindo III (Persero) from seven provinces in Indonesia. Sample used in this research is part of population with relative characteristics and is considered able to represent the population. Sampling technique used in this study is stratified random sampling which is a technique where the samples are taken from population by observing each stratum in population (Hair et al., 1995). The amount of samples in this study is 60 respondents originated from managers and implementers of PKBL Pt. Pelindo III (Persero) in 9 PKBL distributor branches. Statistic technique in this research is Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The use of AHP is requiring logic consistency in making comparison between criteria (Anderson et al., 2005(Anderson et al., : 2003)). From consistency calculation result, it is known that value of CR < 0.10, so the comparison between criteria has fulfilled logic consistency requirement. Thus, the validity of this research's result is accountable. # IV. # Results And Discussion This sub chapter will discuss on 60 data that has been gathered. Next is descriptive analysis with AHP technique. Just as known, PT. Pelabuhan III (Persero) is centered in Surabaya. To the day of this research was conducted, the main office still lacks the correct criteria for (1) program mapping from corporation operation region is 9 PKBL distributor branches based on the criteria of company reputation, conflict potency, income contribution, manpower absorption, business opportunity, region economy growth, and event distribution, (b) decision making of funds allocation based on set criteria, (2) determining the amount of PKBL based on priority scale and needs based on set criteria. Hence why this research is important. There are nine PKBL distributor branches of PT. Pelindo III (Persero): Tanjung Perak, Tanjung Intan, Banjarmasin, Tanjung Wangi, Benoa, Kupang, Sampit and Lembar. # a) Pair Wise Comparison Between Criteria This research used two data input categories for the implementation of AHP method which is pair wise comparison matrix between criteria and pair wise comparison of each alternative for each criteria. The matrix can be seen in the following Table 1. # Table 1 : Matrix of Pair wise Comparison between Criteria i. Criteria Valuation Criteria valuation is used to determine which criteria is the most significant. This is done by dividing each comparison value with total value. Data input is matrix of pair wise comparison between criteria. Matrix of value between criteria is presented in Table 2. This matrix is arranged by assuming that the amount of value from all criteria is 1 or 100%. Criteria with the highest score is the one with the highest priority. From the matrix of value between criteria, it is known that income contribution criteria received highest proportion with the value of 0.31462 or 31.46%. this shows that income contribution criteria is considered the most important/significant and with its high value (close to 50%), experience factor may also be considered as a decisive selecting factor of PKBL funds allocation. Meanwhile, manpower absorption gained the lowest value of 3.66%. After the value between criteria is known, next step is arranging matrix of relative value comparison between criteria for each PT. Pelindo III (Persero) branches. There are 9 brances with 7 criteria, so that means there are valuations on 9 alternatives and 7 criteria. This valuation focused on determining how significant each PT. Pelindo III (Persero) branches are as PKBL distributors. On a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 as the highest number showing that the branch is seen as the most able and takes the highest position to fulfill the criteria more than any other branches. The first step is by giving comparison on alternative in every criteria and then determining the value. Respectively as following: i. Reputation Tanjung Perak 0,432767 0,265823 0,375469 0,394737 0,388601 0,686275 0,233333 0,272727 0,235294 3,285026 36,50% Tanjung Emas 0,061824 0,037975 0,015019 0,02193 0,025907 0,038126 0,033333 0,015152 0,088235 0,3375 3,75% Tanjung Intan 0,086553 0,189873 0,075094 0,197368 0,07772 0,022876 0,133333 0,136364 0,147059 1,066241 11,85% Banjarmasin 0,072128 0,113924 0,025031 0,065789 0,07772 0,038126 0,1 0,227273 0,088235 0,808227 8,98% Tanjung Wangi 0,086553 0,113924 0,075094 0,065789 0,07772 0,038126 0,166667 0,045455 0,088235 0,757564 8,42% Benoa 0,072128 0,113924 0,375469 0,197368 0,233161 0,114379 0,166667 0,227273 0,205882 1,706251 18,96% Kupang 0,061824 0,037975 0,018773 0,02193 0,015544 0,022876 0,033333 0,015152 0,029412 0,256818 2,85% Sampit 0,072128 0,113924 0,025031 0,013158 0,07772 0,022876 0,1 0,045455 0,088235 0,558527 6,21% Lembar 0,054096 0,012658 0,015019 0,02193 0,025907 0,01634 0,033333 0,015152 0,029412 0,223846 2,49% Total Tanjung Perak 0,267176 0,223881 0,209302 0,314685 0,189873 0,365854 0,172414 0,2 0,333333 2,276518 25,29% Tanjung Emas 0,267176 0,223881 0,209302 0,314685 0,189873 0,121951 0,172414 0,2 0,238095 1,937377 21,53% Tanjung Intan 0,089059 0,074627 0,069767 0,034965 0,113924 0,04065 0,103448 0,12 0,142857 0,789298 8,77% Banjarmasin 0,089059 0,074627 0,209302 0,104895 0,189873 0,121951 0,103448 0,12 0,142857 1,156013 12,84% Tanjung Wangi 0,053435 0,044776 0,023256 0,020979 0,037975 0,04065 0,103448 0,04 0,015873 0,380392 4,23% Benoa 0,089059 0,223881 0,209302 0,104895 0,113924 0,121951 0,172414 0,12 0,047619 1,203045 13,37% Kupang 0,053435 0,044776 0,023256 0,034965 0,012658 0,02439 0,034483 0,04 0,015873 0,283836 3,15% Sampit 0,053435 0,044776 0,023256 0,034965 0,037975 0,04065 0,034483 0,04 0,015873 0,325413 3,62% Lembar 0,038168 0,044776 0,023256 0,034965 0,113924 0,121951 0,103448 0,12 0,047619 0,648108 7,20% Total From Table 6 and Figure 2, it is known that to fulfill manpower absorption criteria as an impact of PKBL funding, Tanjung Perak is also seen as the best branch with the value of 25.29%. Next is Tanjung Emas (21.59%) and Tanjung Benoa (13.37%) as well as Banjarmasin (12.84%). While for other branches, they are still below 10%. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 iii. Conflict Potency For conflict potency criteria, Tanjung Intan is the most vulnerable branch on conflict potency by 32.24%. This is why if conflict potency aspect is the only criteria to be considered in allocating PKBL funds, Tanjung Intan will have the biggest portion. This assessment shows that conflict potency criteria is indirectly related with two previous criteria. So that the selection from Tanjung Perak drastically change to Tanjung Intang if seen from just one criteria. While Benoa and Sampit is still very conducive so there will be non need of large PKBL funds because each of them gained low scores (2.17% and 2.72%). Tanjung Perak 0,13757 0,558087 0,079848 0,230769 0,245902 0,2 0,222615 0,25 0,235955 2,161 24,01% Tanjung Emas 0,019653 0,079727 0,13308 0,138462 0,147541 0,175 0,222615 0,15625 0,168539 1,241 13,79% Tanjung Intan 0,687848 0,23918 0,39924 0,230769 0,344262 0,175 0,371025 0,21875 0,235955 2,902 32,24% Banjarmasin 0,027514 0,026576 0,079848 0,046154 0,016393 0,075 0,024735 0,03125 0,101124 0,429 4,76% Tanjung Wangi 0,027514 0,026576 0,057034 0,138462 0,04918 0,075 0,024735 0,09375 0,101124 0,593 6,59% Benoa 0,017196 0,01139 0,057034 0,015385 0,016393 0,025 0,010601 0,03125 0,011236 0,195 2,17% Kupang 0,045857 0,026576 0,079848 0,138462 0,147541 0,175 0,074205 0,09375 0,101124 0,882 9,80% Sampit 0,017196 0,015945 0,057034 0,046154 0,016393 0,025 0,024735 0,03125 0,011236 0,245 2,72% Lembar 0,019653 0,015945 0,057034 0,015385 0,016393 0,075 0,024735 0,09375 0,033708 0,352 3,91% Total This also applies for Lembar and Banjarmasin in which only gained less than 5% value, meaning that these branches are safe. This shows that the use of PKBL in Tanjung Intan, Perak and Emas will have positive influence on conflict potency in the society. Tanjung Perak 0,353535 0,445545 0,36 0,314685 0,225806 0,294118 0,230769 0,283019 0,355932 2,86341 31,82% Tanjung Emas 0,117845 0,148515 0,12 0,314685 0,16129 0,176471 0,164835 0,169811 0,152542 1,525995 16,96% Tanjung Intan 0,117845 0,148515 0,12 0,104895 0,096774 0,176471 0,098901 0,056604 0,152542 1,072547 11,92% Banjarmasin 0,117845 0,049505 0,12 0,104895 0,096774 0,176471 0,164835 0,169811 0,152542 1,152679 12,81% Tanjung Wangi 0,050505 0,029703 0,04 0,034965 0,032258 0,019608 0,010989 0,018868 0,016949 0,253845 2,82% Benoa 0,070707 0,049505 0,04 0,034965 0,096774 0,058824 0,098901 0,169811 0,050847 0,670335 7,45% Kupang 0,050505 0,029703 0,04 0,020979 0,096774 0,019608 0,032967 0,018868 0,016949 0,326353 3,63% Sampit 0,070707 0,049505 0,12 0,034965 0,096774 0,019608 0,098901 0,056604 0,050847 0,597911 6,64% Lembar 0,050505 0,049505 0,04 0,034965 0,096774 0,058824 0,098901 0,056604 0,050847 0,536925 5,97% Tanjung Perak 0,430696 0,41112 0,461974 0,679172 0,192661 0,195822 0,2 0,223881 0,22314 3,018465 33,54% Tanjung Emas 0,086139 0,082224 0,197989 0,027167 0,192661 0,195822 0,175 0,223881 0,173554 1,354436 15,05% Tanjung Intan 0,061528 0,027408 0,065996 0,045278 0,082569 0,117493 0,175 0,223881 0,173554 0,972707 10,81% Banjarmasin 0,086139 0,41112 0,197989 0,135834 0,192661 0,195822 0,175 0,223881 0,173554 1,791999 19,91% Tanjung Wangi 0,061528 0,011746 0,021999 0,019405 0,027523 0,007833 0,075 0,014925 0,008264 0,248224 2,76% Benoa 0,086139 0,016445 0,021999 0,027167 0,137615 0,039164 0,075 0,014925 0,123967 0,542421 6,03% Kupang 0,053837 0,011746 0,009428 0,019405 0,009174 0,013055 0,025 0,014925 0,024793 0,181364 2,02% Sampit 0,086139 0,016445 0,013199 0,027167 0,082569 0,117493 0,075 0,044776 0,07438 0,537169 5,97% Lembar 0,047855 0,011746 0,009428 0,019405 0,082569 0,117493 0,025 0,014925 0,024793 0,353215 3,92% Total # 27% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9,000 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 April received bigger funds than other branches so it will automatically make them to have more experience in seeing new business potency as the effect from PKBL funds allocation in their partnership. This is not the sole possibility, other is that Tanjung Perak is in the second biggest city in Indonesia so it is possible for them to have more business opportunities than other branches. 6, it is known that based on region economic growth opportunity criteria, Tanjung Perak is the best option with 30% value followed by Banjarmasin (20.12%) and Tanjung Emas (14.9%). Other branches scored lower than 12% which means there are very small amount of PKBL contribution in these branches for region economic growth. # Perak Assessment value close to 50& shows that by allocating PKBL in Tanjung Perak will be trust that there will be more business opportunity to surface as business development of PT. Pelindo III (Persero). This is possible if based on the fact that Tanjung Perak is tested in knowing company's external condition more than other branches so they have the best possibility in getting more opportunities. Tanjung Perak 0,355781 0,350195 0,238095 0,522388 0,189189 0,211268 0,203883 0,376884 0,252632 2,700316 30,00% Tanjung Emas 0,118594 0,116732 0,142857 0,058043 0,135135 0,211268 0,145631 0,226131 0,189474 1,343864 14,93% Tanjung Intan 0,071156 0,038911 0,047619 0,034826 0,081081 0,023474 0,087379 0,025126 0,094737 0,504308 5,60% Banjarmasin 0,118594 0,350195 0,238095 0,174129 0,189189 0,211268 0,145631 0,226131 0,157895 1,811126 20,12% Tanjung Wangi 0,050826 0,023346 0,015873 0,024876 0,027027 0,023474 0,009709 0,015075 0,010526 0,200732 2,23% Benoa 0,118594 0,038911 0,142857 0,058043 0,081081 0,070423 0,145631 0,025126 0,094737 0,775402 8,62% Kupang 0,050826 0,023346 0,015873 0,034826 0,081081 0,014085 0,029126 0,015075 0,010526 0,274765 3,05% Sampit 0,071156 0,038911 0,142857 0,058043 0,135135 0,211268 0,145631 0,075377 0,157895 1,036272 11,51% Lembar 0,044473 0,019455 0,015873 0,034826 0,081081 0,023474 0,087379 0,015075 0,031579 0,353215 3,92% Total # 33% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 # vi. Region Economic Growth Opportunity There is a possibility that because Tanjung Perak has already received bigger funds than other branches so it will automatically make them to have more experience in growing region economic as the effect from PKBL funds allocation in their partnership. This is not the sole possibility, other is that Tanjung Perak is in the second biggest city in Indonesia so the multiplier effect from PKBL funds implementation higher than any other branches. This notion is supported by the data that all other branches is not placed in cities where the industrial area is not as advanced as Surabaya. Assessment value close to 50% shows that by allocating PKBL in Tanjung Perak will influence region economic growth faster and more effective than other branches. This is probably based on criteria of region economic which is business opportunity where Tanjung Perak got the highest value, this means Tanjung Perak has the highest value as well for this criteria than other branches. Tanjung Perak 0,030303 0,015873 0,008499 0,014085 0,022901 0,022222 0,061224 0,027027 0,034483 0,237 2,63% Tanjung Emas 0,090909 0,047619 0,127479 0,014085 0,038168 0,2 0,061224 0,027027 0,034483 0,641 7,12% Tanjung Intan 0,151515 0,015873 0,042493 0,126761 0,022901 0,022222 0,102041 0,027027 0,034483 0,545 6,06% Banjarmasin 0,090909 0,142857 0,014164 0,042254 0,038168 0,022222 0,061224 0,027027 0,034483 0,473 5,26% Tanjung Wangi 0,151515 0,142857 0,212465 0,126761 0,114504 0,2 0,102041 0,243243 0,057471 1,351 15,01% Benoa 0,090909 0,015873 0,127479 0,126761 0,038168 0,066667 0,102041 0,081081 0,057471 0,706 7,85% Kupang 0,151515 0,238095 0,127479 0,211268 0,343511 0,2 0,306122 0,243243 0,517241 2,338 25,98% Sampit 0,090909 0,142857 0,127479 0,126761 0,038168 0,066667 0,102041 0,081081 0,057471 0,833 9,26% Lembar 0,151515 0,238095 0,212465 0,211268 0,343511 0,2 0,102041 0,243243 0,172414 1,875 20,83% This phenomenon happends because there are many programs used by Tanjung Perak so event distribution I needed for other branches especially if they are serving ship. # Conclusion The seven criteria can be used as corporate consideration in decision making for program mapping from corporate operation region based on the criteria of: company reputation, conflict potency, income contribution, manpower absorption, business opportunity, region economic growth, even distribution and decision making of funds allocation based on set criteria. # VI. # Suggestion This research recommends stated owned enterprises in indonesia to base their funds allocation and PKBL programs on beneficial criteria for stakeholders PKBL funds allocation pattern must be appropriate with priority and need scales from stakeholders perception To gain legitimacy, company may explain their PKBL activity into their annual reports and other company's documents to form corporate image (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006;Cerin, 2002) and to ensure their stakeholders through national/regional/local media such as publicity, social activity, official website and other supporting activy. Abbot & Monsen (1979) # Limitation This research is a case study research, hence there are few limitations: (1) the result used primary data with perception measurement, and also originated from one company, (2) this research suffers bias in data interpretation and presenting facts because of author's subjectivity. 1![Figure 1 : PKBL Funds Allocation based on Reputation Based on Table 3 and Figure 1. It is known that to influence PT. Pelindo III (Persero) reputation in society's mind, the best alternative is by allocating PKBL through Tanjung Perak branch, next is Benoa and Tanung Intan while the last are Kupang and Lemar. This respondents assessment shows the existence of high level of trust on Tanjung Perak especially in terms of corporate image in society's mind.](image-2.png "Figure 1 :") 2![Figure 2 : PKBL funds Allocation based on Manpower Absorption](image-3.png "Figure 2 :") 43![Figure 4.3 : PKBL funds Allocation based on Conflict Potency](image-4.png "Figure 4 . 3 :") 44![Figure 4.4 : PKBL funds Allocation based on income contribution criteria For income congtriution criteria, Tanjung Perak once again valued as the best alternative with score of 31.92%. This assessment means that PKBL funds allocation in Tanjung Perak is very effective in giving income to PT. Pelindo III although this happens indirectly.](image-5.png "Figure 4 . 4 :") 5![Figure 5 : PKBL Funds allocation based on branch business opportunity](image-6.png "Figure 5 :") 7![Figure 7 : PKBL Funds Allocation based on event distribution only While for Tanjung Perak, it also seen by corporate as loaded so transfering experience to other branches is necessary so the process can be run faster to advance together.](image-7.png "Figure 7 :") 9![Figure 9 : Summary of PKBL funds allocation for each branch of PT. Pelindo III based on 7 (seven) criteria](image-8.png "Figure 9 :") 2 3b) Comparison Of Relative Value Between TheAlternatives For Each Criterion 4CriteriaReputattionManpower absorptionConflict PotencyBranch Income contributionBranch opportunity businessGrowth Region EconomicDistributiionTotalMeanReputation0,0643780,20,4838710,0210970,0114070,0980390,0574710,936260,13375Manpowerabsorption0,0128760,040,0537630,0210970,0190110,0980390,0114940,256280,03661Conflict potency0,0214590,120,161290,7383970,1711030,0980390,1724141,482700,21181Branch IncomeContribution0,4506440,280,0322580,1476790,399240,4901960,4022992,202320,31462BranchOpportuniy business0,3218880,120,0537630,0210970,0570340,0980390,0114940,683320,09762Region EconomicGrowth0,0643780,040,161290,0295360,0570340,0980390,2873560,737630,10538Distribution0,0643780,20,0537630,0210970,2851710,0196080,0574710,701490,1002111111117,000001,00000ReputationTanjungTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarmas inTanjung WangiBenoaKupang SampitLembarTanjung Perak175656768Tanjung Emas 0,14285714310,20,3330,33333333 0,3333333310,333333333Tanjung Intan0,251310,2435Banjarmasin0,16666666730,3333333110,33333333353Tanjung Wangi0,231110,33333333513Benoa0,16666666735331557Kupang0,14285714310,250,33333330,20,210,333333331Sampit0,16666666730,33333330,210,2313Lembar0,1250,3333333330,20,3333333 0,33333333 0,1428571410,333333331Total2,310714286 26,33333333 13,31666715,2 12,8666667 8,74285714302234ReputatitonTanjung PerakTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarma sinTanjung WangiBenoaKupang Sampit Lembar Jumlahmean 5ii. Manpower Absorption 6Reputation19%3%6% 2%37%Tanjung Perak Tanjung Emas Tanjung IntanBanjarmasinTanjung WangiBenoa8%9%12%4%Kupang Sampit LembarManpower absorptionTanjungTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarmas inTanjung WangiBenoaKupangSampitLembarTanjung Perak113353557Tanjung Emas 7 8 9 10 iv. Income ContributionTotal11111111191Tanjung PerakTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarmasinTanjung WangiBenoaKupangSampitLembar 11 12This notion is understandable because theportion is close to 50%, while other branches is farbehind. Even for 5 branches, they arestill below 10%:Tanjung Wangi, Benoa, Kupang, Sampit and Lembar.v. Branch Business OpportunityTanjung Perak is seen as the best option with33.54% value. Next is Banjarmasin (19.9%), TanjungEmas (15.05%) and Tanjung Intan (10.81%). There is apossibility that because Tanjung Perak has already 13 15 16DistribuTanjungTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarmas inTanjung WangiBenoaKupangSampitLembarTanjung Perak10,3333333330,20,33333330,20,333333330,20,333333330,2Tanjung Emas3130,3333333 0,3333333330,20,333333330,2Tanjung Intan50,333333333130,20,33333333 0,333333 0,333333330,2Banjarmasin330,333333310,33333333 0,333333330,20,333333330,2Tanjung Wangi5353130,33333330,333333Benoa30,333333333330,3333333310,33333310,333333Kupang553533133Sampit33330,3333333310,33333310,333333Lembar5555330,33333331Total3321 23,533333 23,666667 8,7333333315 3,266667 12,33333335,8DistributionTanjung PerakTanjung EmasTanjung IntanBanjarma sinTanjung WangiBenoaKupang Sampit Lembar Totalmean tionPerakAprilTotal111111111919%3%11%4%30%Tanjung Perak Tanjung Emas Tanjung IntanBanjarmasin2%20%Tanjung Wangi Benoa15%Kupang6%Sampit LembarFigure 4.6 : PKBL Allocation Funds based on region economic growth 17Distribution9%21%3% 7% 6% 5%Tanjung Perak Tanjung Emas Tanjung Intan Banjarmasin26%15%Tanjung Wangi Benoa8%Kupang SampitLembarKeteranganreputationManpower absorptionConflict PotencyContibution Incomebusiness Branch Opportunitygrowth Region economicDistributionTotalMeanTanjung Perak0,34170,06480,35600,70070,22920,22130,01841,932127,60%Tanjung Emas0,03510,05520,20440,37340,10280,11010,05000,931113,30%Tanjung Intan0,11090,02250,47810,26250,07390,04130,04251,031614,74%Banjarmasin0,08410,03290,07060,28210,13610,14840,03690,791111,30%Tanjung Wangi0,07880,01080,09780,06210,01880,01650,10530,39015,57%Benoa0,17750,03430,03220,16400,04120,06360,05510,56788,11%Kupang0,02670,00810,14540,07990,01380,02250,18230,47866,84%Sampit0,05810,00930,04040,14630,04080,08490,06500,44476,35%Lembar0,02330,01850,05790,13140,02680,02890,14610,43296,18%Total0,93630,25631,48272,20230,68330,73760,70157,0000 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue VII Version I © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US) ## April Based on Figure 8, it can be seen that PKBL funds allocation for each branch can be classified into three groups: first group is 3rd class PKBL fund which are: Tanjung Wangi, Benoa, Kupang, Sampit and Lembar (5 branches), where each branch only holds value less than 8% from total PKBL budget by PT. Pelindo III (Persero). If totaled, these branches will only receive 33% from PKBL funds. While the second group is 2nd class for the following branches: Tanjung Emas, Tanjung Intan and Banjarmasin (3 branches), where each branch only holds to 15% or less from PKBL funds. Meanwhile, these are 5 criteria with logical connection from: reputation, income contribution, conflict potency, branch business opportunity, manpower absorption and region economic growth. If a certain branch has a high conflict potency so it will need bigger PKBL fund. If the effect of fund in muffling conflict is on point, it will influence company repitation and increase PT. Pelindo III(Persero) profit, because safe harbour will help the customers feel safe either. From different perspective, this safe situation will directly help branch business development and also increase region economic growth. Economic increase and business development will be very effective if this branch is in area with rapid economic growth potency, such as Tanjung Perak. This is shown by quantitative analysis result numerically that in these 5 criteria, Tanjung Perak has always been the branch with highest score. The summary for each branch and each criteria can be seen from Table 4 * On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported an Methode of Measurement Corporate Social Involvement WFAbbot RJMonsen Academy of Management Journal 22 1979 * An Introduction to Management Science, Quantitative Approaches to Decision making DRAnderson DJSweeney TAWilliams 2003 South Western Mason, Ohio 10th ed. * A Multi-Tactic Approach to Manage Weed Population Dynamics in Crop Rotations RAnderson Agronomy journal 97 6 2005 * CSR and Resource Based-Percpectives MBranco LDan Rodrigues Journal of Business Ethics 69 2006 * PCerin Communication in Corporate Environmental Management 9 2002 * Jong-SeoChoi * Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from Korea Young-MinKwak ChongwooChoe 2010. April 2010 22159 6 Pusan National University, Pusan National University, Monash University * Ethical Standards in Advertising: A Worldwide Perspective DeArruda MariaCeciliaCoutinho DanDe Aruda MarceloLeme Journal of Business ethics 19 1999 * Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behaviour JDowling JPfeffer Pacific Sociological Review 18 1975 * Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21aacaentury Bussiness JEklington 1997 Capstone Oxford, Ux K * What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy CFombrun MShanley Academy of Management Journal 33 2 1990 * Funds Allocation Mapping and Corporate Social Responsibility Program (Program Kemitraan Dan Bina Lingkungan-Pkbl): Case in Indonesia 11 JFHair REAnderson RTathan WCBlack 1995 Prentice Hall New Jersey Multivariate Data Analysis, Fourth Edition * For Business or The Good of All? A Finnish Approach to CSR EJuholin Corporate Governance Journal 4 3 2004 * What Do We Mean By Corporate Social Responsibility ? LMoir Corporate governance Journal 1 2 2001 * UU Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas PemerintahIndonesia 2007 * Defining Corporate Social Responsibility, A View from Big Companies in Germany and UK RSilberhorn Warren European Business Review 19 5 2007 * Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Community Development Dalam Perolehan Proper Hijau (Studi Kasus di PT. Pupuk Kaltim Bontang), tesis, Magister Ilmu Lingkungan, Undip Semarang 17. Tilt, C. A, 1994 ESumardiyono Accounting, Auditing and Accountibility Journal 7 4 2007 The Influence of External Presure Groups on Corporate Social Disclosure, Some Empirical Evidence * FUriarte Corporate Social Responsibility in ASEAN, LCF CSR CONFERENCE Manila, Philippines 2008. July 2008 * World Business Council for Sustainability Developement 2005 WBCSD * Case Study Research Design and Method RYin 2003 Sage Publication California 2nd Edition