Corporate Social Responsibility. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaima na Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), dengan berlandaskan falsafah kesenian tanjidor, dapat meningkatkan kinerja perusahaan. Metode yang digunakan adalah studi literatur dari berbagai sumber. Artikel ini mendapati titik balik antara falsafah kesenian tanjidor dengan konsep triple bottom line sebagai dasar CSR. Hal ini terwujud dalam pelaksanaan kegiatan bisnis, yang harus lebih mengutamakan integritas antara tu juan dan kewajiban. Selain itu, perusahaan seharusnya melaksanakan CSR tidak sekedar memuaskan diri sendiri, tetapi juga menghibur dan menyenangkan hati masyarakat sekitar.

Based on an extensive literature review and discussion with professionals and experts in the field of knowledge, this paper (a portion from the wider coverage thesis) will highlight some challenges faced by the industry players – approaching conversion – focusing on ASEAN countries namely Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines, from Shari’ah, regulatory, and corporate perspectives. Conversion from conventional banking to Islamic operation is one of the approaches taken in financial industries in Middle East, South Asia and Asia Pacific since 1990s. Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines are among ASEAN countries adopting the same approach. Financial institutions approach conversion in different ways based on their priorities, ecosystem and reasons. This article will cover conversion from regulatory perspectives, Fiqh perspectives and several reported conversion cases in ASEAN. Since there is no “absolute and correct” way of conversion, the industry players, the regulators and academicians will have to appreciate the uniqueness of each conversion exercise from conventional into Islamic operations. The demand for more Islamic financial institutions will provide better services and offer wider coverage based ontechnology advancement towards digital banking era. Conventional financial institutions focuses on Environmental Sustainable and Governance (ESG) products while Islamic financial institutions highlights the embedded MaqÉÎid al-SharÊ‘ahin Islamic Mu‘ÉmalÉt long before United Nation declaration.

IntroductionCorporate governance had gain popularity nowadays specially after the collapses of many companies who appeared giant and efficient while actually they were fragile. Expropriation of stakeholders by senior managers is widely evident with the collapses of companies such as Enron which is symbolic of shareholders failure to protect their interests due to asymmetrical information and conflict of interest in board of directors [1]. The inefficiency of corporate governance mechanisms in banks and financial institutions are blamed in each crises. However, after absorbing the impact of failure, many opinions call for re-designing corporate governance mechanisms to ensure board responsibility and accountability, risk management, transparency and disclosure in financial reports [2]. Despite the negative impact of Enron collapse, the case "has done for reflection on corporate governance what AIDS did for research on the immune system" [3]. The ties between executive managers and shareholders were destroyed because of manager's greed and willingness to benefit themselves over shareholders interest. Although shareholders should be supported by board and have a special position in the front line of interest to managers as providers of capital, sometimes board of directors do not choose to act and other times were myopic. Ibid: (p. 6) States: Boards of Directors often conspired with the executives (because the executives and their friends sat on the Board, controlling the agenda and directing important committees), or failed to exercise sufficient diligence in monitoring the executives; the shareholders, especially large institutional shareholders, paid insufficient attention to the quality of the Boards and to the reports of external auditors.According to stakeholders' theory, managers should make decisions that are in the best interest of stakeholders. However, Jensen[2] criticizes the ability of managers to satisfy all stakeholders at the same time and in this case the theory is "unassailable". As when a manager is trying to maximize shareholders wealth, current profits, market share, future growth in profits can destroy his ability to take the right decision. As "A manager directed to maximize both profit and market share has no way to decide where to be in the range between maximum profits and maximum market share". Managers under the supervision of the board should take all different dimensions in mind for the well-being of the firm and welfare of society. It is necessary to have internal control system to limit managerial actions. He states: (p. 242) Because stakeholder theory provides no criteria for what is better or what is worse, it leaves boards of directors and executives in firms with no principled criterion for problem solving … it leaves managers and directors unaccountable for their stewardship of the firm's resources. With no criteria for performance, managers cannot be evaluated in any principled way. Therefore, stakeholder theory plays into the hands of selfinterested managers allowing them to p...