Local Environment

The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

How do local government strategies advance

social accountability? The challenges from
environmental management of Slaughterhouse in
Semarang City, Indonesia

Hartuti Purnaweni, Titik Djumiarti, Ali Roziqin & Budi Santoso

To cite this article: Hartuti Purnaweni, Titik Djumiarti, Ali Roziqin & Budi Santoso (16 Nov
2023): How do local government strategies advance social accountability? The challenges
from environmental management of Slaughterhouse in Semarang City, Indonesia, Local
Environment, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2023.2282094

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2282094

Published online: 16 Nov 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cloe20
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2282094

How do local government strategies advance social

accountability? The challenges from environmental management
of Slaughterhouse in Semarang City, Indonesia
Hartuti Purnawenia,b, Titik Djumiartia, Ali Roziqinc and Budi Santosob
a
Department of Public Administration, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia; bPost Graduate Program of
Environment Science, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia; cDepartment of Government Studies,
Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to analyze local government strategies in advancing Received 4 July 2022
social accountability regarding the environmental impact of Accepted 13 October 2023
Slaughterhouses in Semarang City, Indonesia. It also highlighted the
KEYWORDS
significant challenges experienced by managers in fulfilling social Social accountability;
accountability. This social accountability is necessary because it relates environmental
to SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), which have become a global management; transparency;
commitment, with a particular focus on point 11 concerning sustainable institutional; local
cities and communities. The data were obtained through semi- government; slaughterhouse
structured interviews, observation, scientific literature, government
official reports, and actual news using a qualitative approach case
study. This study identified several policy problems, including the
technical requirements for a hygienic, clean, and healthy environment
that had not been met at the Semarang City Slaughterhouse. In
addition, there was no preventive mechanism from the manager to
identify diseases in animals before being slaughtered. The institutional
changes of the slaughterhouse, through several regional regulations,
had also not succeeded in realising social accountability due to the
negative environmental aspects caused. The community lacked a
bargaining value and the right channel to pressure the slaughterhouse
to carry out social accountability for environmental management.
Therefore, this study suggested that the institutional approach and
emphasis from CSOs/NGOs will have more impact in realising social
accountability for environmental management in public organisations.

1. Introduction
Public organisations often function in a “complex web of accountability”, with several accountabil-
ity venues scrutinising them (Bracci and Llewellyn 2012; Brummel 2021; Fontaine, Carrasco, and
Rodrigues 2022; Frink et al. 2008; Meixi 2020). According to Frink et al. (2008), accountability
should be applied in the entire social system, as a form of control over the public organisation
and as a prediction for the future. However, in developing countries, social accountability
systems are often unfulfilled and challenging to access by the public (Herrera and Mayka 2020).
The public has the right to obtain information and make complaints against public organisations
when the elements are detrimental to the community in fulfilling public services (Gurung et al.
2020; Meixi 2020). According to Ali and Pirog (2019), the public organisations can also be encour-
aged to report and answer questions regarding their services. On this basis, social accountability

CONTACT Hartuti Purnaweni hartutipurnaweni@gmail.com

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

in public organisations is inseparable in a country, specifically in a democratic state, and the realis-
ation of good governance, which is a mandatory principle in the sphere of public administration
(Wibowo, Hadi, and Purnaweni 2017).
Strengthening social accountability is emerging as a critical strategy for improving public services
and attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (Joshi and Houtzager 2012). In general, social
accountability refers to the community’s demand for accountability from public service providers.
Gurung et al. (2020) stated that it demands community involvement as a form of democratic
control. By implementing the right social accountability strategy, public organisations can gain
trust and transparency from the public (Naher et al. 2020). However, the practice in several develop-
ing countries, such as Indonesia, shows that social accountability has not been most effective in the
scope of local government (Kanyane, Mutema, and Zikhali 2020; Lele 2019; Naher et al. 2020). Brin-
kerhoff and Wetterberg (2016) emphasised that the goals of social accountability in Indonesia often
place aspects of service delivery effectiveness and empowerment as secondary and tertiary goals,
rather than making them top priorities.
Social accountability in the context of environmental management refers to the responsibility and
commitment of public organisations to safeguard environmental sustainability (Belal 2015; Murmura
and Bravi 2020). Environmental issues have become a strategic concern that requires attention from
public organisations, considering their impact and influence on future survival (Frink et al. 2008).
Formal and institutional mechanisms of accountability in the environmental context are aligned
with the agenda of good governance (Ruppen and Brugger 2022). According to Hickey and King
(2016), strengthening social accountability in the environmental context emphasises the manage-
ment of risks associated with environmental impacts. The importance of social accountability in
achieving environmental sustainability functions as an “umbrella”, both institutionally and in
policy strategies by public organisations.
One public organisation relevant to this issue is the Slaughterhouse in Semarang City, Central
Java, Indonesia. In the Indonesian context, Slaughterhouse is a public organisation that the City/
Regency government should own to deliver public service of meeting the people’s need for meat.
It is part of the state’s responsibility to meet the needs of its people. The rapid population
growth, rising incomes, and changing lifestyles contribute to the increase in the fulfilment of the
need for animal or meat products (Neno et al. 2022). Therefore, the existence of a slaughterhouse
is a crucial instrument for local food security.
According to Agriculture Ministerial Regulation No. 13 of 2010 concerning requirements for rumi-
nant slaughterhouses and meat handling units, slaughterhouse is defined as a building or complex
of buildings with particular designs and conditions for the purpose of slaughtering animals for
general public consumption. A slaughterhouse is a service unit that provides safe, healthy, whole,
and halal meat (permissible in Islam for consumption) for the public (Djumiarti, Purnaweni, and
Santoso 2022). Halal meat is important in Indonesia because the majority of the population are
Muslims who can only eat meat that is safe according to Islamic rules. Besides, slaughterhouse man-
agement should comply with technical standards, human resources, and all stages, including waste
management (Lawu, Yuliawati, and Saraswati 2014; Saputra, Nuraini, and Priyanto 2015; Tolistiawaty
et al. 2015). Previously, the provisions regarding its standard has been regulated by the Decree of the
Minister of Agriculture No. 555/Kpts/TN.240/9/1986 and designated as the Indonesian National Stan-
dard (SNI) 01-6159-1999, a standard issued by the Indonesian government aims to regulate the tech-
nical and hygienic requirements that should be met in the infrastructure of slaughterhouses.
The existence of Slaughterhouse is one of the government’s efforts to achieve food security in
Indonesia. Slaughterhouses are tasked with providing ready-to-eat meat, particularly beef, and
meet animal protein needs (Adesokan and Raji 2014; Dario Pighin et al. 2016). In the last few
years, public consumption of beef has continued to increase, reaching 700,000 tons or equivalent
to 3.6 million head of cattle (national cash) nationally in 2021. Previous data from the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2018 showed that meat consumption in
Indonesia in 2017 averaged only 1.8 kg for beef, 7 kg for chicken, 2.3 kg for pork, and 0.4 kg for
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 3

mutton (Kemendag RI 2019). The same report also highlighted Indonesia’s ranking, which was far
behind other ASEAN countries, such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. The Indonesian govern-
ment relies on imported commodities, mainly from Australia, to meet most beef needs of its large
population. On this regard, the government has implemented a policy to organise the supply of
meat needs by optimising slaughterhouses’ role (Santoso, Eko, and Hartuti 2020). It is also essential
for the government to optimise the role of slaughterhouses in the future.
Based on data from Statistics Indonesia in 2019, the number of Slaughterhouse in Indonesia
reached 1331, distributed across all 34 provinces. Nearly 40% of the slaughterhouses are in Java,
with a total of 514. This number is certainly insufficient, considering the population of Java island
in 2022, which was predicted to be 150,320,000 people. Other regions with a distribution of more
than 10% are Sumatra with 266 (19.98%), Sulawesi with 199 (14.95%), as well as Bali and Nusa Teng-
gara with 140 (10.52%). The rest are found in Kalimantan, with 116 (8.72%), as well as Maluku and
Papua, with 96 (7.21%). Further details of the number of Slaughterhouse per province in 2019 are
as follows.
Based on Table 1, as mentioned by Lawu, Yuliawati, and Saraswati (2014) and Saputra, Nuraini,
and Priyanto (2015), most of the abattoirs in Java and Nusa Tenggara conditions were in poor con-
dition and not up to good standard. Saputra, Nuraini, and Priyanto (2015) identified three crucial pro-
blems related to abattoirs in Indonesia, namely technical requirements, service quality, and
environmental impact. These problems require attention, considering that abattoir activities can
result in health risks and environmental pollution (Dada et al. 2021). The Semarang City Slaughter-
house has three sub-sections based on the type of animal, namely cattle and buffalo, pigs, as well as

Table 1. Number of Slaughterhouse in Indonesia in 2019.

No Province Number of Slaughterhouse Percentage (%)
1 Aceh 25 1.88
2 North Sumatera 37 2.78
3 Wes Sumatera 78 5.86
4 Riau 20 1.50
5 Jambi 12 0.90
6 South Sumatera 20 1.50
7 Bengkulu 12 0.90
8 Lampung 34 2.55
9 Bangka Belitung Islands 20 1.50
10 Riau Islands 8 0.60
11 Jakarta 11 0.83
12 West Java 144 10.82
13 Central Java • Slaughterhouse of Semarang City (Penggaron) 128 9.62
14 Special Region of Yogyakarta 7 0.53
15 East Java 202 15.18
16 Banten 22 1.65
17 Bali 52 3.91
18 West Nusa Tenggara 56 4.21
19 East Nusa Tenggara 32 2.40
20 West Kalimantan 70 5.26
21 Central Kalimantan 17 1.28
22 South Kalimantan 13 0.98
23 East Kalimantan 11 0.83
24 North Sulawesi 16 1.20
25 Central Sulawesi 29 2.18
26 South Sulawesi 92 6.91
27 Southeast Sulawesi 29 2.18
28 Gorontalo 27 2.03
29 West Sulawesi 6 0.45
30 Maluku 20 1.50
31 North Maluku 18 1.35
32 West Papua 16 1.20
33 Papua 42 3.16
Total 1331 100
Sources: Statistics Indonesia, 2019.
4 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

goats and poultry slaughters. In addition to animal slaughtering activities, this Slaughterhouse also
includes animal cultivation (BHP), which further increases the potential for negative impacts on
health and the environment.
Previous studies highlighted that a dirty environment and equipment could cause bacteria con-
tamination in the meat cut at the Slaughterhouse (Jang et al. 2021). Salines et al. (2018) emphasised
the importance of the role of stakeholders in monitoring the risks arising from the existence of a
Slaughterhouse. The existence of abattoirs that do not pay attention to cleanliness and environ-
mental health indeed poses significant risks for the transmission of infectious diseases from livestock
to humans. Therefore, it is necessary to make systematic efforts, starting with the implementation of
strict policies as well as educating managers and the community (Dada et al. 2021).
In Indonesia’s context, the existence of slaughterhouses in a city contributes to the supply of
animal consumption in the community (Khasrad and Yuni 2012). However, the lack of hygienic main-
tenance of the facilities and infrastructure by managers has an impact on disease infections by live-
stock in Sigi Regency, Central Sulawesi, and Pontianak City (Tantri, Setyawati, and Khotimah 2013;
Tolistiawaty et al. 2015). According to regarding the slaughterhouse in Mataram City, the malfunc-
tion of the waste treatment plant had an impact on environmental pollution. Similar issues were
also observed in the RPH in Merauke City (Nurcholis and Muchlis 2018). However, RPH waste,
within certain parameters, can be used as raw material for compost (Hartono, Hiola, and Nur 2014).
Lawu, Yuliawati, and Saraswati (2014) revealed that the Semarang City Slaughterhouse did not
fully comply with standard operating procedures. Waste management (faeces, urine, rumen/
stomach contents, meat/fat rejected blood, washing water) had not been carried out optimally,
resulting in negative impacts on the surrounding environment (Istikomah, Budiyono, and Darundiati
2018; Oktiawan et al. 2015; Prabowo et al. 2016; Rizki, Oktiawan, and Wardhana 2015; Sutrisman,
Sutrisno, and Nugraha 2016). In addition, it also has an impact on the yield of agricultural land
around the location which is not optimal. As a public organisation, such condition certainly sets a
detrimental precedent for the public and institutionally accountability mechanisms.
Based on previous studies related to Slaughterhouses, the discussion of Slaughterhouse from the
side of public administration is still limited. Most studies focus on agriculture, public health, and
environmental engineering. The present study aimed to fill this gap by examining the social account-
ability of public organisations, with emphasis on environmental sustainability, policy, and citizen par-
ticipation. In order to address this, the following research questions will be answered;
RQ 1: What are the main problems of environmental management policies of the Slaughterhouse in Semarang
city?

RQ 2: What is the strategy for social accountability in environmental management of the Slaughterhouse in
Semarang City?

RQ 3: What are the forms of community participation in supporting social accountability in the Slaughterhouse
of Semarang City?

This paper is structured as follows. First, the introduction explaining why this paper is suitable for
discussion. Second, the literature review of social accountability in a public organisation. Third,
research methodology. Fourth, the discussion of findings. Finally, the conclusion of the study. This
study is expected to contribute theoretically and practically to how public organisations can
improve social accountability. Achieving social accountability at Slaughterhouse is an integral part
of achieving one of the SDG’s targets and fulfilling the principles of Good Governance.

2. Social accountability in public organization

Although the term “accountability” in public administration has been discussed widely, there is no
clear and non-debatable definition (Kanyane, Mutema, and Zikhali 2020). Accountability refers to the
obligation of one actor to produce information and reason for their activities in response to requests
made by another actor with the authority to punish non-compliance (Ali and Pirog 2019; Brinkerhoff
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 5

and Wetterberg 2016; Herrera and Mayka 2020; Hickey and King 2016). According to Moran et al.
(2021), accountability contains five essential elements, namely Political, Legal, Administrative, Pro-
fessional, and Social. Consequently, it is divided into two types, namely horizontal accountability,
as a control mechanism of public institutions based on policies/the rule of law (Ankamah 2016; Brin-
kerhoff and Wetterberg 2016; Brummel 2021; Ma 2012; Varga 2013) and vertical accountability,
which focuses on citizen participation (Brinkerhoff and Wetterberg 2016; Joshi and Houtzager 2012).
One form of horizontal accountability is social accountability. Brummel (2021) argued that
accountability to citizens, stakeholders, or civil society – is referred to as social accountability.
Social accountability is a core part of public organisations (Ma 2012). Its concept, specifically in gov-
ernments, is an essential instrument for achieving good governance (Abbas and Ahmed 2016).
According to UNDP (United Nations Development Program), accountability is an element that the
government needs to fulfil in order to achieve goals effectively and efficiently. Social accountability
is a form of collective community involvement that is intrinsically linked to key concepts and govern-
ment agendas, including normative ideals and development goals. Its mechanisms have a pivotal
role in improving governance (Wildermuth 2014).
Social accountability by civil society is an integral part of strengthening democratic governance
and improving the delivery of public services (Houtzager et al. 2021). Scholars assume it represents a
step forward in governance because communities can control public organisations when traditional
control mechanisms (political context) fail (Joshi and Houtzager 2012). The concept of citizen-led
accountability is also tied to social accountability (Abbas and Ahmed 2016). According to a World
Bank report from 2005, social accountability is a demand-side initiative of good governance that
describes how communities can effectively interact with local governments, service providers, and
state actors to demand better service delivery in education and health care. In public administration,
these two mentioned services are the essential service obliged by the government.
Valdez-Juárez et al. (2019) stated that social accountability in public organisations is a form of
organisational learning in the global and sustainable era. Increasing social demands and environ-
mental sustainability have always been the main demands for modern society. Rodriguez-Plesa,
Dimand, and Alkadry (2022) also argued that it aims to maintain a balance in three areas, namely
social, economic, and environmental. Social accountability covers various categories of participatory
behaviors, such as citizen supervision and oversight, public information access and dissemination
systems, public complaints, as well as deliberative decision-making activities (Meixi 2020; Tirivanhu
2020). Accountability within the state refers to state institutions that limit the abuse of power by
public organisations. External actors, including individual citizens, the media, Non-Governmental
Organisations, and the private sector, also carry out checks and balances against public organisations
(Palareti et al. 2016).
In recent years, the issue of social accountability has continued to increase along with community
involvement in the era of information disclosure (Ma 2012). It is not uncommon for people to use
social media or other information technology tools to voice social accountability in public organisa-
tions (Kanyane, Mutema, and Zikhali 2020; Wildermuth 2014). They play the role of ICT to encourage
public organisations to provide information and transparency on policies or their work in the mean-
time. This fact has led to an open debate in the public sphere (Brummel 2021). Social control in society
influences institutional changes to effectively fulfil social accountability for public organisations.
In the context of the environmental impact caused by public organisations (Semarang City
Slaughterhouse), social accountability mechanisms can also be referred to as social and environ-
mental accountability (Coglianese and Starobin 2020). Their role is increasingly important in addres-
sing environmental problems in modern society, such as global warming, climate change,
environmental damage, among others. According to Belal (2015), social and environmental account-
ability emerged as a consequence of the activities carried out by public organisations. The primary
purpose of social and environmental accountability is to improve an organisation’s openness and
accountability. As a result, social and environmental accountability can be linked to the discharge
of accountabilities associated with a public organisation’s social and environmental performance.
6 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

Figure 1 shows that social and environmental accountability plays a crucial role for public organ-
isations in addressing global environmental problems. It is a complex process that can be cate-
gorised into two forms, namely direct and indirect. Meanwhile, society’s challenges and demands
are increasing to ensure the availability of sound environment in the future. Several organisational
developments have attempted to establish adequate mechanisms to transform organisations into
more socially responsible and environmentally sustainable entities. Among the most notable initiat-
ives are environmental accounting, environmental auditing, and the development of tools to hold
organisations accountable under the term of Corporate Environmental Governance (CEG).
Figure 1 shows that aspects of good governance can be realised through the fulfilment social and
environmental accountability at the Semarang City Slaughterhouse. The environmental impacts
caused by abattoir activities do not only occur in Indonesia. For instance, several slaughterhouses
in Denmark have made technological and biological changes to reduce environmental impact
(Dorca-Preda et al. 2021). According to Thomas et al. (2017), environmental conditions can affect
halal meat preparation. In Nigeria and France, Dada et al. (2021) dan Salines et al. (2018) argued
that the environmental impact of abattoir activities was very complex and multidimensional, neces-
sitating the need for policies to minimise these effects. Meanwhile, Santagata, Ripa, and Ulgiati (2017)
explained the effort of EU countries to utilise Slaughterhouse waste in generating new and environ-
mentally friendly renewable energy. Considering these facts, it is crucial to comprehensively study the
fulfilment of social and environmental accountability from the Semarang City Slaughterhouse.

3. Methods
3.1. Study design and area
This study aimed to examine the application of public slaughterhouse organisations in fulfilling
social accountability, specifically those related to environmental management. A qualitative case

Figure 1. The framework of social accountability for environmental impact.

 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 7

study approach was used (Yin 2003), which descriptively examined public organisations’ ability to
fulfil social accountability. This method was chosen because the study experts consider that the
results of the analysis will be more profound about the “who”, “where”, “when”, “how” and “why”
of specific problems (Hamilton and Finley 2019; Walsh 2017). The study was conducted in Semarang
City, specifically focusing on the Slaughterhouse located at Pedurungan area, as shown in Figure 2.
The Slaughterhouse is a unit of Regional Owned Enterprises operating under Regional Regulation
No. 5 of 2006 concerning Regional Companies for Animal Slaughterhouses and Animal Cultivation in
Semarang City. Its organisational structure was led by the Main Director and directly responsible to
the Mayor of Semarang. Established in 1981, this slaughterhouse served as a place for slaughtering
animals and livestock, such as cows, goats, pigs, and chickens. Its establishment was also intended to
provide an alternative source of regional income and promote community economic development.
Institutionally, the slaughterhouse organisation was led by a prominent director under the direct
coordination of the mayor.

3.2. Data collection and analysis

This study used primary data obtained from interviews and observations conducted at the Semarang
City Slaughterhouse as well as secondary data from scientific literature, journal articles, actual news,
government reports, and public policies related to slaughter houses, accountability, and the environ-
ment. The study was conducted over a period of seven months (February–August 2021). The infor-
mants who were successfully interviewed were ten people, including four informants from the
Slaughterhouse Semarang City, one person from the Semarang City Environmental Service, as
well as two experts from chemical engineering and environmental science, Diponegoro University,
Semarang. Each participant was given a variety of questions according to their capacity. For example,
the four informants were questioned about policy and strategy issues, technical provisions,

Figure 2. Location of Slaughterhouse in Semarang City.

8 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

environmental and social impacts, as well as community involvement. Meanwhile, the Semarang City
Environmental Service focused on answering questions related to environmental issues from the
aspect of infrastructure and the impact of its activities. The two experts from chemical engineering
and environmental science, at Diponegoro University focused on the risks of environmental pol-
lution caused by slaughterhouses.
The selection of informants was purposive and followed a list of questions in the interview guide-
line. Other data were descriptively selected from various sources in qualitative case studies. The
primary and secondary data were subsequently linked in a qualitative causality, which was the
most considerable limitation of this study. Qualitative Data Analysis Software, namely the NVIVO
12 Plus software, through the word cloud analysis feature was used for data validation and analysis
(Zamawe 2015). The results of the word cloud analysis aimed to strengthen the arguments found in
the field compared with other relevant sources.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. The policy problem
Policy problems related to the fulfilment of social accountability in Slaughterhouse are prevalent in
Indonesia, including Semarang City Slaughterhouse, particularly concerning environmental manage-
ment conditions. The government regulates the cleanliness of the abattoir environment through the
Agriculture Ministerial Regulation No. 13 of 2010 concerning Requirements for Ruminant Slaughter-
houses and Meat Cutting Plants. This is because clean and hygienic environmental conditions can
help provide quality meat. The regulation states that the activity of slaughtering ruminant
animals has a risk of spreading and transmitting infectious animal diseases, including zoonotic or
meat-borne diseases. This can threaten human, animal, and environmental health. Therefore, estab-
lishing a slaughterhouse requires compliance with administrative and technical requirements invol-
ving various stakeholders.
The technical requirements for establishing a slaughterhouse encompass five aspects, namely
location, supporting and hygienic facilities, basic construction, building design, and equipment.
These points should consider environmental management and be sited far from residential areas.
The competency of implementers, such as animal feed supervisors and veterinarians also need to
be improved. However, the facts in several abattoirs show contradictory conditions. According to
Lawu, Yuliawati, and Saraswati (2014), several conditions at the Semarang City Slaughterhouse
were not fulfilled, one of which was the location. Its location in the middle of the city does not
create enough area for development. Budi, Eko and Hartuti (2020) also emphasised technical chal-
lenges related to land. Many of the abattoirs pay less attention to animal welfare. Mandala,
Swacita, and Suada (2016) stated that animal welfare is a caring effort made by humans to
provide comfort to animals. However, in reality, many slaughterhouses still disregard this aspect
and maintain unsanitary conditions (Mail et al. 2021), particularly regarding animal cages.
As Ma (2012) explained, one form of social accountability is state-oriented, meaning that the state
or government is the subject of the executor, followed by the people who receive the benefits. This
indicates that the approach should be more bottom-up. Halal certification for Slaughterhouse is a
basic form of social accountability based on Law No. 33 of 2014 concerning the guarantee of
halal products. This certification provides comfort, security, safety, and certainty of the availability
of halal food products in the supply of food ingredients in the form of meat, both for the supply
of industrial materials and for public consumption (Mail et al. 2021).
Halal status in a Muslim-majority country like Indonesia guarantees that meat comes from animals
slaughtered in an Islamic acceptable way. Otherwise, the Muslims are forbidden to eat the non-halal
meat. Halal regulations related to meat quality and slaughterhouses are contained in Law No. 18 of
2009 concerning Livestock and Animal Health, Agriculture Ministerial Regulation No. 13 of 2010 con-
cerning Requirements for Ruminant Slaughterhouses (Slaughterhouse) Meat Handling Units, articles
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 9

38 and 39, as well as Ministry of Agriculture No. 50 of 2011 concerning Recommendations for
Approval for Importing Carcass, Meat, Offal, and their processed products into the Republic of Indo-
nesia (Mail et al. 2021). Some of these regulations demand that Slaughterhouse slaughter livestock
with safe, hygienic, sanitary, and halal standards to prevent foodborne disease.
The existence of policies related to the requirements for Slaughterhouses has not been able to
overcome the problems that occur, such as unsanitary buildings, decreased quality of meat,
watery meat, fake meat, anthrax meat (inflammation of the spleen), and environmental pollution
produced by slaughterhouse waste (Murugan, Rao and Kumar, 2003). In addition, often in Semarang
City Slaughterhouse, a large amount of water is used during the processing of animals and poultry,
resulting in wastewater and solid waste. The wastewater discharged from the two activity sources,
after passing through the wastewater treatment plant, is channeled into a public sewer flowing to
the north, which as seen in Figure 2 is paddy fields, and some residential housing to the northwest.
This causes unpleasant odor around the rice fields, which the affected farming community once
complained about. The enforcement of the Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) policy on
Slaughterhouse is necessary to prevent damage to other ecosystems.
Abattoirs can also be a source of disease contamination because of the possibility that livestock
brought for slaughter come from an area currently experiencing subclinical infection of disease.
Therefore, existing policies or regulations related to abattoirs should be better equipped with sus-
tainable food inspectors to protect consumers (Mail et al. 2021). The inspection of slaughtered
animals, especially by veterinarians, is also essential, either before or after slaughter. In principle,
inspections should be conducted before slaughter (antemortem) and after slaughter (post-
mortem). The antemortem inspections are carried out to identify and prevent the slaughter of live-
stock infected with diseases, specifically those that can be transmitted to humans who consume
them (Tolistiawaty et al. 2015). Post-mortem inspections are carried out to ensure the meat produced
is safe and suitable for distribution or public consumption. They also aim to protect consumers from
diseases caused by consuming unhealthy meat or carcass and from the adulteration of meat
(Kuntoro, Maheswari, and Nuraini 2012).
These problems occur because of the lack of counseling and training among the staff, resulting in
lack of awareness about the standards that should be followed to obtain carcass products that are
ASUH (Safe, Healthy, Whole, and Halal). Therefore, the government’s policy to create quality meat
with the ASUH (Safe, Healthy, Whole, and Halal) management principle and the HACCP (Hazard Analy-
sis Critical Control Point), principle starting from the Slaughterhouse is essential (Mail et al. 2021).

4.2. Social accountability in environmental management through legal strategies

The results of the identification showed that there were two types of wastes generated from animal
slaughter activities in Semarang City Slaughterhouse, namely solid and liquid waste. Solid waste is
usually in the form of manure produced from the slaughtering process and from the animals them-
selves. Part of this solid waste is used to make organic fertilizer and biogas. On the other hand, the
liquid waste includes water generated from animal cleaning activities, as well as cleaning of cages
and animal innards. The liquid waste from the cage is processed into biogas, while the wastewater
from the cutting process is processed in the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Liquid waste in
the form of rumen is widely used for study, while urine can also be used as a source of nutrition for
the waste treatment unit. Wastewater that has been treated in the WWTP unit is discharged into
canals and eventually flows north and into the rice fields.
The existence of sewerage that flows into the rice fields poses potential harms to the community.
Slaughterhouse wastewater (SWW) is rich in soluble and insoluble organic compounds and consists
of various putrefactive and thick deposits/mud; this, of course, requires exceptional management
and treatment (Budiyono, Widiasa, and Johari 2011). Disposing SWW directly without appropriate
treatment can be highly detrimental. Therefore, waste from the cutting should be managed, and
a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is necessary (Bazrafshan et al. 2012). This means that the
10 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

mechanism of responsibility for protecting the environment needs to be considered by public organ-
isations as social accountability (Abbas and Ahmed 2016). This was suggested under the Regional
Regulation of Central Java Province No. 5 of 2012 and Regulation of the Minister of the Environment
of Indonesia No. 5 of 2014 concerning Wastewater Quality Standards, regulating the feasibility of
wastewater quality from the abattoir industry. These regulations and guidelines are an essential
component in minimising the environmental impact caused by SWW.
It was found that the Semarang City Slaughterhouse only had 1 WWTP consisting of 4 tanks with
an aerobic mechanism, specifically the attached media system (attached bacteria). However, due to
the porous framework of the adhesive media, it was eventually removed from the aerobic pool. This
is confirmed by the informant’s statement as follows.
“ … effluent WWTP still does not meet the requirements of environmental quality standards. One of the impacts
is that wastewater pollutes the rice fields in the north of the Slaughterhouse site” (translated from an anonymous
informant, 24 August 2021).

The Slaughterhouse has a biogas unit built close to the cage to treat solid and liquid waste
from animal cages. However, observations indicates that this unit is less than optimal and
poorly maintained. According to information from existing officers, the gas produced is no
longer utilised due to minimal production. These observation reinforces that the suboptimal
functioning of the biogas unit is caused by lack of maintenance by officers, as explained in
Figure 3.
The lack of social accountability in environmental management should have been anticipated by
the Semarang City Slaughterhouse, considering that it underwent an institutional change to become
a semi-private institution or a locally owned enterprise (Ningtyas et al. 2020). This is further
reinforced by the data analysis in Figure 4, which shows a close relationship between the social
accountability of public organisations and environmental impacts. Another side, Figure 4, which
was obtained through document analysis using the wordcloud feature in the NVIVO application, pro-
vides information about keywords that are often the topic of discussion regarding social accountabil-
ity in the context of environmental management. Figure 4 means that the existing conditions are
currently being the attention of the scholars. Public organisations have the authority to manage,

Figure 3. The condition of the biogas unit is less maintained.

 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 11

develop, and regulate the impact arising from organisational activities (Ali and Pirog 2019; Ma 2012).
Through the mechanism of regional companies, Semarang City Slaughterhouse as a company is
expected to carry out Corporate Social Responsibility mechanisms (Murmura and Bravi 2020) as a
form of social accountability. In 2017, through the Semarang City Regional Regulation No. 3 of
2016 concerning the Establishment of a Limited Liability Company Holding Company Bhumi Panda-
naran Sejahtera (PERSERODA) Semarang City, the government merged the slaughterhouse with a
printing company to form a Holding Company under the name PT. Bhumi Pandanaran Sejahtera.
This merger was initially aimed to change the long bureaucratic chain into simpler ones, including
environmental management, as well as to maximise regional opportunities and the potential to
manage them effectively and efficiently. However, it is evident that the situation has not
changed. The staff even complained that with the smaller amount of financial support, they were
expected to perform effectively and become a better municipal income source. As a company,
the slaughterhouse needs to implement good corporate governance. However, until now, the
board of directors still does not have a clear vision regarding waste management. Even in 2021,
reports from the public indicate that the Semarang City Environment Service has issued two warn-
ings regarding its environmental impacts.
In the future, Semarang City Slaughterhouse should be equipped with modern environmental
treatment equipment, similar to those in South Tangerang and Surakarta. According to the director
of the Semarang City Slaughterhouse, investors who are willing to invest, specifically in the waste
management process are needed. This is because good waste management requires sophisticated
equipment and other supporting infrastructure, especially in accordance with social accountability.
In addition, local governments also need to emphasise social accountability by addressing or even
sanctioning public organisations that are proven to have polluted the environment.

Figure 4. Wordcloud Analysis by Nvivo 12 Plus Application.

12 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

4.3. Citizen participatory

Community involvement in the process of social accountability is highly needed. This is because
social accountability is a social contract between public organisations and the community, where
community participation is at the core of the social contract to ensure that the implementation of
accountability in every policy, budgeting, and public service can run effectively. Therefore, failure
to understand this concept can lead to harmful interactions (Abbas and Ahmed 2016). Social
accountability plays a crucial role in overcoming environmental problems resulting from Slaughter-
house activities in Semarang City. It is also one of the principles that should be fulfilled in good gov-
ernance. The implementation of social accountability in Semarang City Slaughterhouse has not been
effective. This can be seen from the five dimensions of accountability assessment related to the
Slaughterhouse waste, namely transparency, controllability, responsiveness, liability, and responsi-
bility (Gading, Respati, and Suryanto 2021). The slaughterhouse has been very poor in managing
solid and liquid waste, especially in transparency and responsiveness. Moreover, it does not
provide a space for complaints from the community, such as conducting dialogues or polls with
the surrounding community regarding the perceived impact of the Slaughterhouse waste.
Many local residents complain about the impact of Slaughterhouse waste polluting the environ-
ment. The community, specifically the farmers in the northern part of the slaughterhouse, reported
the entry of waste into the rice fields and waterways to the manager but did not receive a good
response. The surrounding community has also played its role by participating in inspecting the
waste handling. Their role could be carried out more by actively reporting the progress of repairing
the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the slaughterhouse. However, when reviewed by the
Environmental Office, the complaints or reports did not receive appropriately response, and the
Slaughterhouse has not repaired the WWTP (Kuntoro, Maheswari, and Nuraini 2012). The lack of
response to the complaints has made the community reluctant to voice their opinions again even
though most of them work as farmers and depend on irrigation from rivers that have been polluted
by the Slaughterhouse waste.
Community complaints that lacks effective response by the Slaughterhouse should follow their
complaints up by conducting advocacy with NGOs. Civil Society Organizations cannot accomplish
much on their own. Therefore, their ability to form coalitions with others working on similar
issues is crucial to amassing the influence needed to effect change (Hickey and King 2016). In this
case, the community can cooperate with NGOs to encourage the realisation of changes in environ-
mental management. The location of the Semarang City Slaughterhouse has not met the feasibility
of the aspect of a population-free location (Fauzan, Syarifuddin, and Hadi 2021). Because of the con-
ditions provided, a Slaughterhouse cannot be located in a densely populated area (Fauzan, Syarifud-
din, and Hadi 2021). In addition, the disposal of waste from slaughtering activities has not followed
the Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL), thereby damaging other ecosystems, such as rice fields
and rivers (Bello and Oyedemi 2009). Based on the Government Regulation No. 29 of 1986, AMDAL is
a study of the significant impact of a planned Business and/or Activity on the environment which is
necessary for the decision-making process regarding the organiser of a Business and/or Activity. The
policy regarding Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) on Slaughterhouse should be enforced not
to harm the surrounding community (Loganath and Mazumder 2020).
Environmental pollution resulting from activities in slaughterhouses is a prominent issue in almost
every country (Feron, Mensah, and Boateng 2014). Poor waste management can be caused by the
attitude and behavior of the abattoir managers and workers themselves (Kehinde and Abiodun
2014; Murni 2003). Animal waste is one type of waste that humans can reuse because it is a renewable
material (Suparman and Arif 2019). Therefore, waste from abattoir activities should be appropriately
used, for instance, by processing the all animal waste into organic fertilizer (Muharsono 2021). The
actual content of the waste can be processed into fertilizer using the fermentation method with a
mixture of other ingredients that are easy to find (Suhardjadinata and Pangesti 2016). Processing
Slaughterhouse waste into organic fertilizer can help minimise environmental pollution.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 13

The surrounding community can use the existence of environmental pollution caused by Slaughter-
house waste to process the waste into organic fertilizer (Pertiwi et al. 2019). The waste content can be
used to make fertilizer through fermentation method with a mixture of other ingredients that are readily
available (Suhardjadinata and Pangesti 2016). Most of the fertilizers currently used by farmers still rely on
chemical fertilizers that negatively impact the development of production and soil contours (Nursyabani
2019). The continuous use of chemical fertilizers can decrease soil fertility which will consequently affect
crop productivity in the future. Therefore, the participation of the surrounding community can be
increased through training on the processing of Slaughterhouse waste into organic fertilizer.
The participatory manufacture of organic fertilizers by the community/farmers can reduce pro-
duction costs and the purchasing price of fertilizers (Suhardjadinata and Pangesti 2016). Through
this waste management training activity, farmers can improve their skills, independence, and pro-
ductivity. In addition, waste in the form of blood and animal that previously polluted the river
can be minimized by processing them into fertilizer (Nursyabani 2019). Processed fertilizers
derived from Slaughterhouse waste are applied to their respective lands and sold to neighboring
villages. The processing of this waste into organic fertilizer not only helps reduce environmental pol-
lution but also has the potential for mass-production and trade, thereby increasing the income of the
local community (Pertiwi et al. 2019).

5. Conclusion
This study emphasised that every public organisation should have social accountability as a form of
control over its services. In the case of Semarang City Slaughterhouse, there were several negative
impacts, especially the environmental impacts of slaughtering animals. Solid and liquid wastes gen-
erated from the Slaughterhouse activities can cause environmental (water) pollution. As a public
organisation, failure to handle environmental pollution indicates suboptimal implementation of
social accountability implementation. Weak social accountability in environmental management
in Semarang City Slaughterhouse is caused by several policies related to Slaughterhouse regulation
that are not optimally implemented. This includes the prerequisites for site hygiene, animal feed
supervisors, and veterinarians.
Institutional changes in the slaughterhouse through regional regulations have also not been able
to change the fulfilment of social accountability optimally by the company. Precisely with the change
of its status to a company under the Holding Company of PT. Bhumi Pandanaran Sejahtera, the
Slaughterhouse should be able to realise social accountability through the use of investors.
However, certain waste treatment units are not working optimally due to insufficient finance. The
lack of community involvement in social accountability in the form of control, which is still prevalent
today, has influenced environmental pollution. The surrounding communities or farmers lack bar-
gaining power as they do not have advocacy channels, such as collaboration with NGOs (Non-Gov-
ernment Organizations). In addition, the slaughterhouse has not paid attention to the participatory
approach of assisting waste management, which should be improved for waste treatment.
This study provided theoretical and practical contributions by discussing forms of social account-
ability in public organisations, specifically Semarang City Slaughterhouse. As a local-owned enterprise,
this study is still relatively new and has not been widely discussed, specifically regarding the discussion
of environmental management from the framework of public administration and policy. Therefore,
future studies, institutional approach, and emphasis from CSOs/NGOs will have more impact in realis-
ing social accountability in public organisations, especially concerning environmental sustainability.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Faculty of Social Science and Political Science, Universitas Diponegoro for funding this
study. The authors are also grateful to all informants, specifically the Director of the Semarang City Slaughterhouse, who
gave crucial information.
14 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Abbas, Muhammad Hamza, and Vaqar Ahmed. 2016. “Challenges to Social Accountability and Service Delivery in
Pakistan.” Social Change 46 (4): 560–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085716666601.
Adesokan, H. K., and A. O. Q. Raji. 2014. “Safe Meat-Handling Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Private and
Government Meat Processing Plants’ Workers: Implications for Future Policy.” Journal of Preventive Medicine and
Hygiene 55 (1): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2014.55.1.419.
Ali, Mir Usman, and Maureen Pirog. 2019. “Social Accountability and Institutional Change: The Case of Citizen Oversight
of Police.” Public Administration Review 79 (3): 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13055.
Ankamah, Samuel S. 2016. “Toward a Framework of Improving Horizontal and Social Accountability Mechanisms Case
Studies in Asia.” Asian Education and Development Studies 5 (3): 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1108AEDS-09-2015-0043.
Bazrafshan, Edris, Ferdos Kord Mostafapour, Mehdi Farzadkia, Kamal Aldin Ownagh, and Amir Hossein Mahvi. 2012.
“Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment by Combined Chemical Coagulation and Electrocoagulation Process.”
PLoS One 7: e40108. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040108.
Belal, Ataur Rahman. 2015. “Social and Environmental Accountability in Developing Countries.” Development-Oriented
Corporate Social Responsibility, 1: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351285568.
Bello, Y., and D. T. A. Oyedemi. 2009. “The Impact of Abattoir Activities and Management in Residential
Neighbourhoods: A Case Study of Ogbomoso, Nigeria.” Journal of Social Sciences 19 (2): 121–127.
Bracci, Enrico, and Sue Llewellyn. 2012. “Accounting and Accountability in an Italian Social Care Provider:Contrasting
People-Changing with People-Processing Approaches.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 25 (5): 806–
834. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211234268
Brinkerhoff, Derick W., and Anna Wetterberg. 2016. “Gauging the Effects of Social Accountability on Services, Governance,
and Citizen Empowerment.” Public Administration Review 76 (2): 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12399.
Brummel, Lars. 2021. “Social Accountability Between Consensus and Confrontation: Developing a Theoretical Framework
for Societal Accountability Relationships of Public Sector Organizations.” Administration & Society 53: 1046–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720988529.
Budi, Santoso, Prasetiyono Bambang Waluyo Hadi Eko, and Purnaweni Hartuti. 2020. “The Priority of Beef Cattle Farm
Development Strategy in Semarang Regency Using Ahp and Swot (a’Wot) Method.” Journal of Sustainability Science
and Management 15 (6): 125–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.46754/jssm.2020.08.011.
Budiyono, I. N., S. Widiasa, and Sunarso. Johari. 2011. “Study on Slaughterhouse Wastes Potency and Characteristic for
Biogas Production.” International Journal of Waste Resources 01 (2): 4–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2252-5211.1000102.
Coglianese, C., and S. M. Starobin. 2020. “Social Science and the Analysis of Environmental Policy.” Review of Policy
Research 37 (5): 578–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12376.
Dada, Olanrewaju Timothy, Bashir Olufemi Odufuwa, Adewumi Israel Badiora, Hafeez Idowu Agbabiaka, Nathaniel
Oluwaseun Ogunseye, and Omoniyi Sunday Samuel. 2021. “Environmental Hazard and Health Risks Associated
with Slaughterhouses in Ibadan, Nigeria.” Environmental Hazards 20 (2): 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17477891.2020.1747382.
Dario Pighin, Adriana Pazos, Verónica Chamorro, Fernanda Paschetta, Sebastián Cunzolo, Fernanda Godoy, Valeria
Messina, Anibal Pordomingo, and Gabriela Grigioni. 2016. “A Contribution of Beef to Human Health: A Review of
the Role of the Animal Production Systems.” The Scientific World Journal, 26989765. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/
8681491.
Djumiarti, Titik, Hartuti Purnaweni, and Budi Santoso. 2022. “Semarang City’s Slaughterhouse: Adaptation Through
Organizational Change.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Social and Political Enquiries, ICISPE
2021. Semarang: EAI (European Alliance for Innovation). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.14-9-2021.2321406.
Dorca-Preda, Teodora, Lisbeth Mogensen, Troels Kristensen, and Marie Trydeman Knudsen. 2021. “Environmental
Impact of Danish Pork at Slaughterhouse Gate – a Life Cycle Assessment Following Biological and Technological
Changes Over a 10-Year Period.” Livestock Science 251: 104622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104622.
Fauzan, Fianti, Hutwan Syarifuddin, and Syafril Hadi. 2021. “ANALISIS KEBERLANJUTAN KELAYAKAN RUMAH POTONG
HEWAN KOTA JAMBI (STUDI KASUS: KAJIAN TEKNIS DAN LINGKUNGAN).” Jurnal Pembangunan Berkelanjutan 4 (1):
1–10.
Feron, J., S. B. Mensah, and V. Boateng. 2014. “Abattoir Operations, Waste Generation and Management in the Tamale
Metropolis: Case Study of the Tamale Slaughterhouse.” Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology 6 (1): 14–19. https://
doi.org/10.5897/JPHE2013.0574.
Fontaine, Guillaume, Camila Carrasco, and Carlos Rodrigues. 2022. “How Transparency Enhances Public Accountability:
The Case of Environmental Governance in Chile.” The Extractive Industries and Society, 9: 101040. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.exis.2021.101040.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 15

Frink, Dwight D., Angela T. Hall, Alexa A. Perryman, Annette L. Ranft, Gerald R. Ferris, Wayne A. Hochwarter, and M. Todd
Royle. 2008. “Meso-Level Theory of Accountability in Organizations.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, edited by J. J. Martocchio, 177–245. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0742-7301(08)27005-2.
Gading, Besse Mahbuba We Tenri, Adib Norma Respati, and Edi Suryanto. 2021. “Studi Kasus: Permasalahan Limbah Di
Tempat Pemotongan Hewan (TPH) Amessangeng, Kota Sengkang.” Jurnal Triton 12 (1): 68–77. https://doi.org/10.
47687/jt.v12i1.164.
Gurung, Gagan, Sarah Derrett, Philip C. Hill, and Robin Gauld. 2020. “The Role of Social Audit as a Social Accountability
Mechanism for Strengthening Governance and Service Delivery in the Primary Health Care Setting of Nepal: A
Qualitative Study.” Critical Public Health 30 (5): 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2019.1667487.
Hamilton, Alison B., and Erin P. Finley. 2019. “Qualitative Methods in Implementation Research: An Introduction.”
Psychiatry Research 280 (April): 112516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516.
Hartono, St. Fatma Hiola, and Surahman Nur. 2014. “Parameter Kualitas Limbah Padat Rumah Potong Hewan
Tamangapa Kota Makasasar Sebagai Bahan Baku Pembuatan Pupuk Kompos.” Jurnal Bionature 15 (2): 137–
141. https://doi.org/10.35580/bionature.v15i2.1561.
Herrera, Veronica, and Lindsay Mayka. 2020. “How Do Legal Strategies Advance Social Accountability? Evaluating
Mechanisms in Colombia.” The Journal of Development Studies 56 (8): 1437–1454. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220388.2019.1690134.
Hickey, Sam, and Sophie King. 2016. “Understanding Social Accountability: Politics, Power and Building New Social
Contracts.” The Journal of Development Studies 52 (8): 1225–1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1134778.
Houtzager, Peter P., Arnab K. Acharya, Julia Amancio, Aheli Chowdhury, Monika Dowbor, and Suchi Pande. 2021. “Social
Accountability in Metropolitan Cities: Strategies and Legacies in Delhi and São Paulo.” Development Policy Review 39
(1): 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12481.
Istikomah, Maysaroh Nur, Budiyono Budiyono, and Yusniar Hanani Darundiati. 2018. “Efektivitas Variasi Dosis Kalsium
Hipoklorit Dalam Menurunkan Koloni Salmonella Sp Dan Bakteri Coliform Pada Limbah Cair Rumah Potong Hewan
Penggaron Semarang.” Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat 6 (2): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Jang, Yong-Seok, Jin-San Moon, Hye Jeong Kang, Dongryeoul Bae, and Kun-Ho Seo. 2021. “Prevalence, Characterization,
and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Listeria Monocytogenes from Raw Beef and Slaughterhouse Environments in
Korea.” Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 18 (6): 419–425.
Joshi, Anuradha, and Peter P. Houtzager. 2012. “Widgets or Watchdogs?” Public Management Review 14 (2): 145–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.657837.
Kanyane, Modimowabarwa, Edson P. Mutema, and Thobekile Zikhali. 2020. “Social Accountability in Local Government:
Lessons from Vuwani (South Africa) and Gweru (Zimbabwe).” Journal of Public Affairs: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pa.2581.
Kehinde, A., and S. M. Abiodun. 2014. “Poor Slaughterhouse Waste Management: Empirical Evidences from Nigeria and
Implications on Achieving Millennium Development Goals.” Affrev Stech 3 (1): 110–127.
Kemendag RI. 2019. “Mencukupkan Konsumsi Daging.” https://ews.kemendag.go.id/berita/NewsDetail.aspx?v=7812.
Khasrad, J. Hellyward, and A. D. Yuni. 2012. “The Bandar Buat Slaughter House Performances as A Contributor for
Slaughter Houses in Padang, West Sumatera.” Jurnal Peternakan Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Animal Science)
14 (2): 373–378. https://doi.org/10.25077jpi.14.2.373-378.2012.
Kuntoro, B., R. Maheswari, and H. Nuraini. 2012. “Hubungan Penerapan Standard Sanitation Operational Procedure
(Ssop) Terhadap Mutu Daging Ditinjau Dari Tingkat Cemaran Mikroba.” Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan 15: 70–
80. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiiip.v15i2.1794.
Lawu, Michelia Rambu, Sri Yuliawati, and Lintang Dian Saraswati. 2014. “Gambaran Pelaksanaan Rumah Pemotongan
Hewan Babi (Studi Kasus Di Rumah Pemotongan Hewan Kota Semarang).” Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat (Undip) 2
(2): 127–131. https://doi.org/10.14710jkm.v2i2.6387.
Lele, Gabriel. 2019. “Asymmetric Decentralization and the Problem of Governance: The Case of Indonesia.” Asian Politics
& Policy 11 (4): 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12493.
Loganath, Radhakrishnan, and Debabrata Mazumder. 2020. “Performance Study on Enlarged-Clarifier Hybrid Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor for Treating the Slaughterhouse Wastewater.” Water and Environment Journal 34,
528 https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12555.
Ma, Jun. 2012. “The Rise of Social Accountability in China” Australian Journal of Public Administration 71 (2): 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00770.x.
Mail, Dwi Aprilia Anggraini, Norma Farizah Fahmi, Devi Anggraini Putri, and Moh, Saiful Hakiki. 2021. “Kebijakan
Pemotongan Sapi Di RPH (Rumah Potong Hewan) Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Prinsip Manajemen Halal Dan HACPP
(Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point).” Halal Research Journal 1 (1): 20–38. https://doi.org/10.12962/j22759970.
v1i1.33.
Mandala, A. Y., I. B. N. Swacita, and I. K. Suada. 2016. “Penilaian Penerapan Animal Welfare Pada Proses Pemotongan.”
Indonesia Medicus Veterinus 5 (1): 1–12.
Meixi, Zhuang. 2020. “Social Accountability Under Authoritarianism: Public Supervision of Local Governments in China.”
China Information 34 (1): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X19860326.
16 H. PURNAWENI ET AL.

Moran, Valerie, Pauline Allen, Marie Sanderson, Imelda McDermott, and Dorota Osipovic. 2021. “Challenges of
Maintaining Accountability in Networks of Health and Care Organisations: A Study of Developing Sustainability
and Transformation Partnerships in the English National Health Service.” Social Science & Medicine 268 (November
2020): 113512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113512.
Muharsono. 2021. “Strategi Pemerintah dalam Pengelolaan Limbah Peternakan Peternakan (Studi di Desa Sendang
Kecamatan Sendang Kabupaten Tulungagung).” Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik 14 (1): 188–212. https://doi.
org/10.36563/publiciana.v14i1.300.
Murmura, Federica, and Laura Bravi. 2020. “Developing a Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy in India Using the SA
8000 Standard.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (8): 3481 https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083481.
Murni, Surya Dewi Anggoro. 2003. Kinerja Satuan Organisasi Pelayanan Jasa Pemotong Ternak Pada Rumah Potong Hewa
(RPH) Dinas Peternakan Dan Perikanan Kabupaten Banyumas. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Murugan, R, K. Panduranga Rao, and T. S. Sampath Kumar. 2003. “Heat- Deproteinated Xenogeneic Bone from
Slaughterhouse Waste: Physico-Chemical Properties.” Bulletin of Materials Science 26 (5): 523–528. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02707351.
Naher, Nahitun, Dina Balabanova, Eleanor Hutchinson, Robert Marten, Roksana Hoque, Samiun Nazrin Bente Kamal
Tune, Bushra Zarin Islam, and Syed Masud Ahmed. 2020. “Do Social Accountability Approaches Work? A Review
of the Literature from Selected Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the WHO South-East Asia Region.” Health
Policy and Planning 35: I76–I96. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa107.
Neno, Victor Manuel, Hartuti Purnaweni, Ida Hayu Dwimawanti, and Teuku Afrizal. 2022. “Implementasi Kebijakan
Penertiban Ternak Di Kecamatan Pante-Makassar, Oe-Cusse, Timor Leste.” Journal of Education, Humaniora and
Social Sciences (JEHSS) 4 (3): 1300–1305. https://doi.org/10.34007/jehss.v4i3.818.
Ningtyas, Trimurti, Endang Larasati, Hardi Warsono, and Hartuti Purnaweni. 2020. “Describe Changes Management
System for Public Organization in Indonesia (Case Study of Bureaucracy Innovation at Margono Hospital
Purwokerto).” In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, 3839–3847. Semarang: IOEM Society International.
Nurcholis, D. and Dirwan Muchlis. 2018. “Preliminary Study of Contamination Wastewater on Environment in
Slaughterhouse of Merauke City.” In The 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Information
System (ICENIS 2018), E3S Web of Conference, Vol. 73, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20187305018.
Nursyabani, Fira. 2019. “Undip Berdayakan Kelompok Tani Atasi Masalah IPAL RPH Cagar Budaya.” Ayosemarang.Com.
Oktiawan, Wiharyanto, Anik Sarminingsih, Purwono Purwono, and Mahfud Afandi. 2015. “Strategi Produksi Pupuk
Organik Cair Komersial Dari Limbah Rumah Potong Hewan (RPH) Semarang.” Jurnal Presipitasi : Media Komunikasi
dan Pengembangan Teknik Lingkungan 12 (2): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.14710/presipitasi.v12i2.86-94.
Palareti, G., C. Legnani, B. Cosmi, E. Antonucci, N. Erba, D. Poli, S. Testa, and A. Tosetto. 2016. “Comparison between
Different D-Dimer Cutoff Values to Assess the Individual Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: Analysis of
Results Obtained in the DULCIS Study.” International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 38 (1): 42–49. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijlh.12426.
Pertiwi, Kartika, Retno Wulansari, Nurullah, Irsyad Amrulllah, Farkhan Atoillah, and Arya Rezagama. 2019.
“Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Desa Kupang Rejo Melalui Lingkungan.” Jurnal Pasopati 1 (3): 5–7.
Prabowo, Adrianus Kristyo, Agnes Priska Tiarasukma, Marcelinus Christwardana, and Dessy Ariyanti. 2016. “Microbial
Fuel Cells for Simultaneous Electricity Generation and Organic Degradation from Slaughterhouse Wastewater.”
International Journal of Renewable Energy Development 5 (2): 107–112. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.5.2.107-112.
Rizki, Achmy, Wiharyanto Oktiawan, and Irawan Wisnu Wardhana. 2015. “Pengolahan Limbah Rumah Pemotongan
Hewan (RPH) Menjadi Pupuk Cair Yang Diperkaya Dengan Unsur Magnesium (Mg) Yang Berasal Dari Limbah
Garam.” Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan 4 (3): 1–10.
Rodriguez-Plesa, Evelyn, Ana-Maria Dimand, and Mohamad G. Alkadry. 2022. “Community Social Capital, Political
Values, or Organizational Capacity? Indicators of Engagement in Sustainable Public Procurement at the Local
Level.” Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (January): 130556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130556.
Ruppen, Désirée, and Fritz Brugger. 2022. ““I Will Sample Until Things get Better – or Until I die.” Potential and Limits of
Citizen Science to Promote Social Accountability for Environmental Pollution” World Development 157. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105952.
Salines, Morgane, Virginie Allain, Catherine Magras, and Sophie Le Bouquin. 2018. “Rethinking Inspection in
Slaughterhouses: Opportunities and Challenges Arising from a Shared Risk Management System in Poultry
Slaughterhouses.” Food Control 93: 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.03.022.
Santagata, R., M. Ripa, and S. Ulgiati. 2017. “An Environmental Assessment of Electricity Production from Slaughterhouse
Residues. Linking Urban, Industrial and Waste Management Systems.” Applied Energy 186: 175–188. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.073.
Santoso, Budi, Prasetiyono Bambang Waluyo Hadi Eko, and Purnaweni Hartuti. 2020. “The Priority of Beef Cattle Farm
Development Strategy in Semarang Regency Using Ahp and Swot (a’Wot) Method.” Journal of Sustainability Science
and Management 15 (6): 125–136. https://doi.org/10.46754/jssm.2020.08.011.
Saputra, H S, H Nuraini, and R Priyanto. 2015. “Kajian Teknis Operasional Dan Lingkungan Rumah Potong Hewan
Taliwang Kabupaten Sumbawa Barat Study of Operational Technic and Environmental of Slaughterhouse in
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 17

Taliwang, West Sumbawa Regency.” Journal of Animal Production & Processing Technolog 03 (2): 89–94. https://
journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/ipthp/article/view/12339.
Suhardjadinata, Suhardjadinata, and Dwi Pangesti. 2016. “Proses Produksi Pupuk Organik Limbah Rumah Potong
Hewan Dan Sampah Organik.” Jurnal SIliwangi 2 (2): 101–107.
Suparman, and Muhammad Arif. 2019. “Persepsi Masyarakat Terhadap Keberadaan Rumah Potong Hewan Di Kelurahan
Tahoa, Kolaka, Sulawesi Tenggara” [Community perception on existence of abattoir in Tahoa village, Kolaka district,
South East Sulawesi Province, Indonesia]. Jurnal Veteriner 20 (4): 583–592. https://doi.org/10.19087/jveteriner.2019.
20.4.583.
Sutrisman, M. Haris, Endro Sutrisno, and Winardi Dwi Nugraha. 2016. “Studi Pemanfaatan Ulat Hongkong (Meal Worm)
Dalam Pengolahan Limbah Darah Sapi Menjadi Pupuk Kompos (Studi Kasus : Rumah Pemotongan Hewan Dan
Budidaya Hewan Potong Kota Semarang).” Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan 5 (2): 1–8.
Tantri, Novese, T. R. Setyawati, and S. Khotimah. 2013. “Prevalensi Dan Intensitas Telur Cacing Parasit Pada Feses Sapi
(Bos Sp.) Rumah Potong Hewan (RPH) Kota Pontianak Kalimantan Barat.” Jurnal Protobiont 2 (2): 102–106. http://
jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jprb/article/view/2753/2731.
Thomas, Angerlique M., Gareth R.T. White, Eoin Plant, and Peng Zhou. 2017. “Challenges and Practices in Halal Meat
Preparation: A Case Study Investigation of a UK Slaughterhouse.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
28 (1–2): 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1044892.
Tirivanhu, Precious. 2020. “A Realist Assessment of the Facilitation Process for Improving Social Accountability by
Community Based Organizations.” Development Southern Africa 37 (6): 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0376835X.2020.1761295.
Tolistiawaty, Intan, Junus Widjaja, Rina Isnawati, and Leonardo Taruk Lobo. 2015. “Gambaran Rumah Potong Hewan /
Tempat Pemotongan Hewan Di Kabupaten Sigi, Sulawesi Tengah Discription of Slaughterhouse in Sigi District,
Central Sulawesi.” Jurnal Vektor Penyakit 9 (2): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.22435vektorp.v9i2.5793.45-52.
Valdez-Juárez, Luis Enrique, Dolores Gallardo-Vázquez, and Elva Alicia Ramos-Escobar. 2019. “Organizational Learning
and Corporate Social Responsibility Drivers of Performance in SMEs in Northwestern Mexico.” Sustainability 11
(20): 5655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205655.
Varga, Mihai. 2013. “State Strategies of Resisting Social Accountability: Post-Soviet Insights.” East European Politics and
Societies: And Cultures 27 (4): 727–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325413493114.
Walsh, Patrick F. 2017. “Improving Strategic Intelligence Analytical Practice Through Qualitative Social Research.”
Intelligence and National Security 32 (5): 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2017.1310948
Wibowo, Agus Harto, Sudharto P Hadi, and Hartuti Purnaweni. 2017. “A Collaborative Management on Small-Scale
Mining in Pemalang Regency.” Advanced Science Letters 23 (3): 2539–2541. https://doi.org/10.1166asl.2017.8688.
Wildermuth, Norbert. 2014. “Communication for Transparency and Social Accountability.” In The Handbook of
Development Communication and Social Change, edited by Karin Gwinn Wilkins, Thomas Tufte, and Rafael
Obregon, 370–392. John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118505328.ch22.
Yin, Robert K. 2003. “Case Study Research: Design and Methods 3Ed.” Adoption Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J145v03n03_07.
Zamawe, F. C. 2015. “The Implication of Using NVivo Software in Qualitative Data Analysis: Evidence-Based Reflections.”
Malawi Medical Journal 27 (1): 13–15. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4.