Adaptation variation of easiness on environmental, social, and governance components in the selected sustainability developments

Sutikno, F.R.; Sasongko, N.A.; Djarot, I.N.; Dillon, H.S.

doi:10.22034/GJESM.2023.09.SI.02

Document Type : SPECIAL ISSUE

Authors

¹ Urban and Regional Planning Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Brawijaya, Jl. M.T. Haryono, Malang, Indonesia

² Research Center for Sustainable Production System and Life Cycle Assessment, National Research and Innovation Agency, Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia

³ Republic of Indonesia Defense University, Indonesia Peace and Security Centre, Bogor, Indonesia

⁴ PT Deloitte Konsultan Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2023.09.SI.02

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Environmental, Social, and Governance reporting is universally recognized as a pivotal component embraced by the industry to address climate change and serve as a safeguard to the physical and social environments of society. In the absence of global standards, organizations have developed standardized reporting frameworks for companies. This study provides an adaptation easiness measurement and a wide range of environmental, social, and governance disclosure components extracted from several standards. Multiple standards and a broader range of scaling measurements were used in this study to observe the characteristics of each industry where each environmental, social, and governance component is specific. The objective of this study is to investigate how companies in Indonesia comply with various environmental, social, and governance standards, given the importance of identifying variations of easiness on environmental, social, and governance on sustainability reports.
METHODS: Using multi-source analysis, content analysis, and exploratory data analysis, this study identified whether industries in Indonesia adopt selective patterns in the components included in their sustainability reports.
FINDINGS: This study identified 26 environmental, 8 social, and 23 governance popular components, which are components with high environmental, social, and governance report applicability and company adaptability. The environmental components that is easy to adapt primarily center around formal environmental, social, and governance framework data, in social component revolves around customary practices in corporate social responsibility, and in governance component emphasizes corporate reputation. By employing industry-specific environmental, social, and governance components, this study identifies three distinct groups, enabling the formulation of tailored policies to effectively address the unique needs of each group.
CONCLUSION: This study exposes several findings on how companies in Indonesia adopt different components of environmental, social, and governance reports according to their needs, regulations, and analysis complexity. The novelty of this study combined the use of unified comparison components, a wider range of scaling measurements, and specific environmental social, and governance components per-industry type.

Graphical Abstract

Highlights

Combining various standards, this research identified several ESG popular components; 26 environmental, 8 social, and 23 governance components;
Companies in Indonesia adopted the national guideline (POJK and SEOJK). They also used other detailed standards confirming Indonesia's non-binding ESG report guideline;
Companies in Indonesia tend to adopt components that have the potential to give positive impacts on the company's image and are less complicated to analyze;
There are three industry types: avoid complex components, accommodate complex components due to regulations, and must implement complex components because the standard requires these components to be declared.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Environmental analysis and methodology

OPEN ACCESS

©2023 The author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

PUBLISHER NOTE

GJESM Publisher remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

CITATION METRICS & CAPTURES

CURRENT PUBLISHER

GJESM Publisher

References

Abbot, W.; Monsen, R., (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Acad. Manage. J., 22(3): 501–515 (15 pages).

Adrianto, D.W.; Sutikno, F.R., (2011). Environmental decision making to support the sustainable development planning. J. Appl. Sci. Res., 7(6): 741–747 (7 pages).

Agarwal, S.; David, L.; Seru, A.; Trebbi, F., (2014). Inconsistent regulators: evidence from banking. Q. J. Econ., 129(2): 889–938 (50 pages).

Arora, A.S.; Rajput, H.; Changotra, R., (2021). Current perspective of COVID-19 spread across South Korea: exploratory data analysis and containment of the pandemic. Environ. Dev. Sustainability. 23(5): 6553–6563 (11 pages).

Arvidsson, S.; Dumay, J., (2022). Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Bus. Strategy Environ., 31(3): 1091–1110 (20 pages).

Ashforth, B.E.; Rogers, K.M.; Pratt, M.G.; Pradies, C., (2014). Ambivalence in organizations : A multilevel approach. Organ. Sci., 25(5): 1453–1478 (26 pages).

Berg, F.; Kolbel, J.; Rigobon, R., (2019). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. SSRN Electronic J., 26: 1315–1344 (30 pages).

Boffo, R.; Patalano, R., (2020). ESG investing : Practices, progress and challenges. OECD (88 pages).

Clark, G.L.; Feiner, A.; Viehs, M., (2015). From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder How Sustainability Can Drive Financial Outperformance.

Cosma, S.; Principale, S.; Venturelli, A., (2022). Sustainable governance and climate-change disclosure in European banking: The role of the corporate social responsibility committee. Corporate Governance. Int. J. Bus. Soc., 22(6): 1345-1368 (23 pages).

D’Agostino, R. B., (2017). Tests for the normal distribution in Goodness-of-fit techniques. Routledge, pp. 367–420 (54 pages).

Daub, C.H., (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. J. Cleaner Prod., 15(1): 75–85 (11 pages).

Daugaard, D.; Ding, A., (2022). Global drivers for ESG performance: The body of knowledge. Sustainability. 14(4): 1–21 (21 pages).

Dillon, H.S.; Laan, T., (2008). Biofuels at what cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in Indonesia. Global Subsidies Initiative., IISD (86 pages).

Drei, A.; Mortier, V.; Roncalli, T.; Sekine, T., (2019). ESG investing in recent years: New insights from old challenges. 1–23 (23 pages).

Gilad, S. (2014). Beyond endogeneity: How firms and regulators co‐construct the meaning of regulation. Law Policy. 36(2): 134–164 (31 pages).

Hassani, B. K.; Bahini, Y., (2022). Relationships between ESG disclosure and economic growth: A critical review. J. Risk Finance Manage., 15(11): 538 (23 pages).

Hastalona, D.; Sadalia, I., (2021). Literature Review ESG and Sustainability Finance. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Hum. Soc. Sci., 4(3): 3548–3557 (9 pages).

Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G., (2017). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard Bus. School Res. Working Pap., 11-100 (90 pages).

Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; Pal, D. K., (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol., Sciencedomain Int., 7(4), p. 396-403 (8 pages).

Kim, S.; Li, Z., (2021). Understanding the impact of esg practices in corporate finance. Sustainability. 13(7): 1–15 (16 pages).

Knorringa, P.; Nadvi, K., (2016). Rising power clusters and the challenges of local and global standards. J. Bus. Ethics. 133: 55–72 (18 pages).

Kocmanova, A.; Nemecek, P.; Docekalova, M., (2012). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Key Perform. Indic. Sustainable Rep., 655–662 (8 pages).

Laskar, N.; Gopal Maji, S., (2018). Disclosure of corporate sustainability performance and firm performance in Asia. Asian Rev. Accounting, 26(4): 414–443 (30 pages).

Leng, A.; Yang, X.; Jin, Z.; Cheng, F.; Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Mo, Y., Li, Y. (2023). Research on the localized ESG rating system based on China’s national policy construction. ICHCI. SPIE, 12509: 161-166 (6 pages).

Levis, J., (2006). Adoption of corporate social responsibility codes by multinational companies. J. Asian Econ., 17(1): 50–55 (6 pages).

Levitats, Z.; Vigoda-Gadot, E., (2020). Emotionally engaged civil servants: Toward a multilevel theory and multisource analysis in public administration. Rev. Public Personnel Administration. 40(3): 426–446 (21 pages).

Lockie, S.; Travero, J.; Tennent, R., (2015). Private food standards, regulatory gaps and plantation agriculture: Social and environmental (ir) responsibility in the Philippine export banana industry. J. Cleaner Prod., 107: 122–129 (8 pages).

Mavlutova, I.; Fomins, A.; Spilbergs, A.; Atstaja, D.; Brizga, J., (2022). Opportunities to increase financial well-being by investing in environmental, social and governance with respect to improving financial literacy under covid-19: The case of Latvia. Sustainability. 14(1) (25 pages).

Morhardt, J.E.; Baird, S.; Freeman, K., (2002). Environmental and sustainability reports and other criteria. Corporate Soc. Responsibility Manage., 9: 215–233 (19 pages).

Ng, A.W.; Yorke, S.M.; Nathwani, J., (2022). Enforcing double materiality in global sustainability reporting for developing economies: Reflection on Ghana’s oil exploration and mining sectors. Sustainability. 14(16) (22 pages).

Nicolăescu, E.; Alpopi, C.; Zaharia, C., (2015). Measuring corporate sustainability performance. Sustainability. 7(1): 851–865 (15 pages).

Orenstein, M.; Cooke, B., (2022). ESG, why should governments care and what can governments do? Canada West Foundation (40 pages).

Payus, C.M.; Sentian, J. (2022). Satellite imagery system in malaria transmission resulting from the land use/ land cover change. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 8(4): 545-560 (16 pages).

Pranesti, A., Larasati, K.S.; Widiyanti, A., (2022). Kinerja keterlanjutan dan nilai perusahaan: Sebuah kajian teoritis., Jurnal Ilmiah Universitas Batanghari Jambi. 22(3): 1624–1631 (8 pages).

Puno, G.R.; Puno, R.C.C.; Maghuyop, I.V., (2021). Two-dimensional flood model for risk exposure analysis of land use/land cover in a watershed. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 7(2): 225-238 (14 pages).

Rodelo-Torrente, S.; Torregroza-Espinosa, A.C.; Moreno Pallares, M.; Pinto Osorio, D.; Corrales Paternina, A.; Echeverría-González, A., (2022). Soil fertility in agricultural production units of tropical areas. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 8(3): 403-418 (16 pages).

Ryszawska, B.; Zabawa, J., (2018). The environmental responsibility of the world’s largest banks. Econ. Bus., 32(1): 51–64 (14 pages).

Sasongko, N.A.; Budiarto, R., (2022). Economic impact. In Surani, A.; Gozan, M.; Ibrahim, M.F.; Phang, Lai-Yee., Biorefinery of oil producing plants for value-added products, Volume II, First Edition (26 pages).

Scott, M., (2023). 100 most sustainable companies of 2023 still flourishing in tumultuous times.

Sharma, P.; Panday, P.; Dangwal, R. C., (2020). Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: a study of Indian companies. Int. J. Disclosure Governance, 17(4): 208–217 (9 pages).

Signori, S.; San-Jose, L.; Retolaza, J.L.; Rusconi, G., (2021). Stakeholder value creation: Comparing ESG and value added in european companies. Sustainability. 13(3): 1–16 (16 pages).

Singhania, M.; Saini, N., (2023). Institutional framework of ESG disclosures: comparative analysis of developed and developing countries. J. Sustainable Financ. Investment. 13(1), 516–559 (44 pages).

Thottoli, M.M., (2021). The relevance of compliance audit on companies’ compliance with disclosure guidelines of financial statements. J. Investment Compliance. 22(2): 137–150 (14 pages).

Ubeda, F.; Mendez, A.; Forcadell, F.J., (2023). Sustainable banking and financial inclusion in the global South: The “S” in ESG’, 2(1): 6–11 (6 pages).

Vormedal, I.H.; Ruud, A., (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway - an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Bus. Strategy Environ., 18(4): 207–222 (26 pages).

Whelan, T.; Atz, U.; Van Holt, T.; Clark, C., (2021). ESG and financial performance: Uncovering the relationship by aggregating evidence from 1,000 plus studies published between 2015-2020. NYU: STERN Report (19 pages).

Zeng, L.; Jiang, X., (2023). ESG and corporate performance: Evidence from agriculture and forestry listed companies. Sustainability. 15(8): 6723 (18 pages).

Yu, E. P. Yi.; Luu, B. Van., (2021). International variations in ESG disclosure – Do cross-listed companies care more? Int. Rev. Financ. Anal., 75: 1–14 (14 pages).

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

Name *

Email Address *

Affiliation *

Comments *

Security Code *

Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management

Adaptation variation of easiness on environmental, social, and governance components in the selected sustainability developments

References

References

Letters to Editor

Send comment about this article

Volume 9, Special Issue (Eco-Friendly Sustainable Management)
November 2023
Pages 21-34

Adaptation variation of easiness on environmental, social, and governance components in the selected sustainability developments

References

References

Letters to Editor

Send comment about this article

Volume 9, Special Issue (Eco-Friendly Sustainable Management)November 2023Pages 21-34

Volume 9, Special Issue (Eco-Friendly Sustainable Management)
November 2023
Pages 21-34