Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pengaruh dari corporate governance dilihat dri jumlah dewan direksi, komposisi dewan direksi masa jabatan, ukuran perusahaan.Penelitian menggunakan kuantitatif dengan data sekunder dan menggunakan metode regresi panel dengan menggunakan sofiware statistic.Hasil yang diperoleh ada hubungan corporete governance signifikan mempengaruhi struktur model perusahaan, apppppppppppppppakah bersumber hutang atau model intern."

"Extreme poverty continues to afflict the world, and it requires urgent action. Social innovation can be the driving force to spark change and to find common ground for shared value creation, particularly when it is directed at low-income markets. Leading companies have recently developed innovative forms of social innovation by combining three elements, the concept of shared value creation, the theory of the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, and a corporate social entrepreneurship approach, which they use to enter low-income markets by helping to solve global challenges while simultaneously generating profits.The book identifies the main forms of social innovation : social business models, social products and social communication strategies. Further, it shows how companies can successfully implement social innovation and presents new forms of social business models that can be used to target low-income markets. Finally, the book presents key success factors related to the social product innovation process and corresponding communication."

"Law is frequently illustrated as something inconvenient and tends to perceive as contra productive against business principles which rely on speed and accuracy. But business requires legal assurance. regulation or law deriving from the Act or bearing as contractual consequence will be a compass for businessmen in running secure business and safe. Legal advice or legal opinion in business activities have been grounded by laws consist of prevailing rules and arrangement of existing transaction, also how to bind agreement reached by contract or into a comprehensive agreement which will give optimum protection for every business actor."

"Dalam hukum persaingan usaha dikenal dua pendekatan, yaitu per se dan rule of reason. Umumnya, pasal-pasal di UU Monopoli menggunakan salah satu dari pendekatan tersebut, namun ternyata terdapat pasal yang dapat diperiksa dengan keduanya, salah satunya adalah Pasal 15 ayat (2) tentang tying agreement. Kaidah ini dapat ditemukan dalam Peraturan KPPU No 5 Tahun 2011 tentang Pedoman Pasal 15, namun belum secara menyeluruh diaplikasikan. Jauh sebelum Indonesia, negara Amerika Serikat sebagai negara pelopor hukum persaingan usaha ternyata telah menerapkan dua pendekatan tersebut pada tying agreement lebih dulu, dan tampaknya lebih konsisten dalam membedakan antar kedua pendekatan tersebut. Tulisan ini menganalisis: (1) pengaturan tying agreement di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat; dan (2) penerapan pendekatan per se dan rule of reason pada perkara tying agreement di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat. Untuk menganalisis fenomena tersebut, tulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi perbandingan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan tying agreement di kedua negara tersebut dilandasi oleh model pengaturan dan instrumen pengubah yang berbeda, yaitu Indonesia pada UU Monopoli diikuti dengan perkembangan pada Peraturan KPPU tentang Pedoman Pasal 15, dan Amerika Serikat pada Sherman Act dan Clayton Act diikuti dengan perkembangan melalui presedens. Dalam penerapannya, hakim Amerika Serikat lebih konsisten memisahkan antara kedua pendekatan dibandingkan Majelis Komisi yang tidak secara menyeluruh menerapkan Peraturan KPPU tentang Pedoman Pasal 15. Maka, penting bagi Majelis Komisi untuk menerapkan pedoman tersebut secara menyeluruh, juga bagi KPPU untuk membentuk pedoman baru yang lebih tegas atau setidak-tidaknya mensosialisasikan pedoman yang sudah ada kepada masyarakat.

---

In antitrust law, there are two approaches, namely per se and rule of reason. Generally, articles in the Monopoly Law use one of these approaches, but there are articles that can be examined with both, one of which is Article 15 paragraph (2) on tying agreements. This provision can be found in KPPU Regulation No. 5/2011 on Article 15 Guidelines, but it has not been thoroughly applied. Long before Indonesia, USA as a pioneer of antitrust law has applied the two approaches to tying agreements and has been more consistent in distinguishing between them. This paper analyzes: (1) the regulation of tying agreements in Indonesia and USA; and (2) the application of per se and rule of reason approaches in tying agreement cases in Indonesia and USA. To analyze the phenomenon, this paper uses normative juridical research method with comparative study. The results show that the regulation of tying agreements in both countries is based on different regulatory models and changing instruments, Indonesia in Monopoly Law followed by developments in KPPU Regulation on Article 15 Guidelines, and USA in Sherman Act and Clayton Act followed by developments through precedence. In its application, USA judges are more consistent in separating between the two approaches than the Majelis Komisi which does not thoroughly apply the KPPU Regulation on Article 15 Guidelines. Therefore, it is important for Majelis Komisi to apply the guidelines thoroughly, for KPPU to establish new guidelines that are stricter or at least socialize the existing guidelines to the society."