CORPORATE CHARACTERISTIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL …seabc.unsri.ac.id/seabc2017/2016/015_SEABC_Adisti.pdf · [email protected]) ... high- profile and low-profile companies

Proceeding 2nd Sriwijaya, Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference 2016

ISBN 979-587-627-9 135

CORPORATE CHARACTERISTIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL

DISCLOSURE IN INDONESIA:

A Legitimacy theory approach

Adisti Gilang Cempaka1)

[email protected])

Zaldy Adrianto2)

[email protected])

1) 2)

Accounting Department, Universitas Padjadjaran

Abstract

This study examines the effect of the characteristics of the company environmental

disclosure in the annual report. Based on legitimacy theory, multiple linear regression

was used for analysis of content data on sustainibility report, particularly

environmenal disclosure part from 15 companies listed on the Kompas100 index in

2015. The analysis based on GRI4 indicators. This study showed that the

characteristics of the company corporate characteristic which included Size of

company, type of industry, ownership, profitability and leverage simultaneously have

positive but not significant effect on the environmental disclosure. Meanwhile, partial

test showed that only type of industry have positive and significant effect on

environmental disclosure.

Keyword : Environmental disclosure, Corporate characteristic, Legitimacy theory,

INTRODUCTION

The society‟s paradigm shift regarding awareness of environmental impact of

business activities created a demand for corporate environmental reporting. Therefore,

there is significant evidence that many companies disclose the information of their

environmental activities in the annual report, or a stand-alone reports, which is known

as sustainability report or corporate environmental report. However, because of

mandatory reporting regulations is limited it is possible that corporation have some

degree of freedom in choosing item to be disclosed or not.

This study will expand the literature regarding environmental disclosure by providing

empirical evidence regarding the determinant factor of environmental disclosure in

Indonesia. However, considerable amount of studies are conducted in developed

country with strong institusional structure. Therefore this research will fill the

research gap about the factors that determine environmental diclosure in Indonesia as

a developing country


ISBN 979-587-627-9 136

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPHOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Legitimacy theory

Legitimacy theory is the most cited theory used to explain social and environmental

area (Tilling, 2004; Deegan, 2002; Suttipun and Stanton, 2012;Zhang 2013)

Legitimacy has been defined by Lindblom (1994). “As a condition or status which

exist when an entity‟s vale system is congruent with the value system of the larger

social system of which the entity is take part. When a disparity, actual or potential,

exist between the two value system, there is threat to the entity‟s legitimacy”.

Legitimacy is a resource on which the organization‟s required to survive (Dowling,

1975), however the „ resources‟ itself can be manipulated and have an impact to the

organisation (Woodward, 2001) in (Deegan, 2002).

Legitimacy theory is associated with the system- oriented theory. According to Gray

(1996, p 45) as cited in (Deegan, 2002):

“A system oriented view of organization and society… permits us to focus on the role

of information and disclosure in the relationship(s) between organization, the state,

individuals and groups”. In the perspective of system, the organization is assumed

influenced by the society in which it operates (and vice versa). Management can

influence the perception of external entity by disclose corporate‟s policies and

performances (Deegan, 2002).

The concept of “social contract” will be directly related to with legitimacy of

corporation (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). Furthermore, the organization will be

threatened if the perception of the society shows it has been breached a social

contract. If the society dissatisfied with the operations of an organization in a

legitimate manner, then “the contract” in continuing corporate operation will be

revoked by the society (Deegan, 2002).

Social and political support are needed more by publicly owned companies than

privately owned companies, thus being expected to face greater pressures to disclose

more information due to reasons of accountability with the stakeholders (Cormier &

Gordon, 2001), even in developing countries (Suttipun & Stanton, 2012)(Gunawan,

2013) (Juhmani, 2014) (Lu & Abeysekera, 2014). In a same perspective, (Tsang,

1998) argues that a publicly owned bank may be expected to disclose more social

responsibility information than a privately owned one. While organizations may

continue to offer positive symbolic representation as a tactics for legitimacy from

society, study from (Mobus, 2005), shows the tendency to higher level of compliance

of environmental regulation because of mandatory disclosure. Eventhough in

financial market it need additional template and framework (Cormier, Lapointe-

Antunes, & Magnan, 2015).

Environmental Disclosure

In the last few decades, the awareness of about environmental issues amongst

environmental groups, customers, regulators and society has been increasing.

Furthermore, business and industries have been considered as the major contributors

to the damage of environment (Behram, 2015). Therefore businesses are required to

disseminate information about their activities and its impact to the society and

environment. (Mathews, 1997) defines social and environmental disclosure as:


ISBN 979-587-627-9 137

"Voluntary disclosures of information, both qualitative and quantitative disclosures,

may be in financial or non-financial terms”. Industry affects the social pressure that

potentially faced by the companies with environmental issues (Cho, Michelon, Patten,

& Roberts, 2015)

Companies in industries that have environmentally sensitives product are subject to

greater pressures to be in accordance with environmental concerns rather than firms

with less environmentally sensitive product. Furthermore because of the tendency to

produce higher pollution (especially in the big size of corporation), environmentally

sensitive industries are the subject to more rigourous requirements due to widely

ranges of regulations regarding environment to be complied. It is assumed that the

extent and content of environmental disclosure differs from each industry and the

level of environmentally sensitive product (Deegan & Gordon, 1996) (Cormier &

Gordon, 2001) (Campbell, 2003)(Campbell, 2004)(Cormier & Magnan, 2011)

(Giannarakis, Konteos, & Sariannidis, 2014).

However, most developing countries are considered to have weaker formal

institutional structures compared to developed countries (Haniffa & Cooke,

2005)(Meyer, Estrin, Bhaumik, & Peng, 2009). In emerging economies,

environmental policy makers often cast doubt on the environmental impact of foreign

investment. However, if the government is concentrated on the development

economics condition, the the government might take decisions that attract foreign

firms with better capabilities in environmental management, while enforcing

environmental regulations more strictly (Kim, Moon, & Yin, 2016) (Malarvizhi &

Matta, 2016).

Legitimacy theory and Environmental Disclosure

The theory of legitimacy is considered to be associated with the community or social

problems. The motivation of a company to disclose the information regarding social

and environmental is to legitimize its status in the society. Society, who may be

interested in social and environmental activities of the company, can be consisted of

shareholders, creditors, employees, customers, and suppliers. Therefore, disclosure of

the environment is important and related to the theory of legitimacy, due to the

disclosure of environmental management can assure that the activities in accordance

with the limits of norms that exist in society as well as the rules and regulations.

(Hartikayanti, Trisyardi, & Saptono, 2016). Legitimizing disclosure mean that the

organization is responding to particular concerns that have risen in the relations to

their operations, and linked to corporate survival (Deegan, Rankin, & Tobin, 2002)

Furthermore, Deegan (2002) argue that companies will adopt disclosure strategies to

fulfill society‟s expectation and companies‟ disclosure is best explained as a tool for

maintaining legitimacy.

The characteristics of companies have been identified as factors that potentially affect

the environmental disclosure. Some studies has been done in this particular area

(Nurhayati, Brown and Tower,2006; Zein, Hutabarat, Andriani, 2008; Pahuja,2009;

Suhardjanto and Miranti, 2011; Suttipun and Stanton, 2012; indrastuti, 2012; Effendi,

Sayekti and Wijayanti, 2012; Muliati, Pagulung, Harryanto, Pontoh, 2014; Aulia and

Agustina, 2015, Hartikayanti, Trisyardi and Saptono, 2016; Faisal, Tower and

Rusmin, 2012). However, those studies found inconclusive result regarding some

variables.


ISBN 979-587-627-9 138

HYPHOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Based on the legitimacy theoretical framework, six hypotheses and six predictor

variables have been develop in the current study. The variables were firm size, type of

industry, firm status, age of listing, profitability and leverage.

Size of company

Legitimacy theory suggests that since larger companies have more stakeholders who

may be concerned with the environmental program conducted by the company, they

are more likely to use disclosure in communicating their activities to have greater

impact on social expectations and to legitimize their business. (Cowen, Ferreri and

Parker (1987) cited in Suttipun and Stanton, 2012; Lu and Abeysekera,2014;

Hartikayanti, et al, 2016).

Larger firms would have more incentive to disclosure environmental disclosure due to

their intention to manage their social contract, to obtain public support for their going

concern and to legitimize their activities to a global audience (Zhang 2013;Hanifah

and Cooke, 2005; Cormier and Gordon, 2001)

Regarding the relationship between company size and the extent of disclosure, some

previous studies reported a significant positive association (Nurhayati, Brown and

Tower, 2006; Zein, et.al, 2008; Pahuja, 2009; Suttipun and Stanton , 2012; Effendi,et

al, 2012; Zhang 2013; Hadjoh and Surakarta, 2013, Muliati, et al,2014; Aulia and

Agustina, 2015), while others found those variables have insignificant association

(Suhardjanto and Miranti, 2011; Indrastuti, 2012; Hartikayanti, et al, 2016).

Interestingly, Jariya (2015) examined company listed in Colombo Stock Exchange

found that company size has negative correlation with environmental disclosure, this

result echoed by Indrabudiman (2016) in his study used data from 40 listed mining

company in Indonesia Stock Exchange during 2014. Although past studies suggest

inconsistent findings on the relationship between these two variables; it highlights the

likelihood findings on positive correlation between company size and the extent of

disclosure, hence the following hypothesis is proposed

H: There is a significant positive correlation between company size and

environmental disclosure by companies

Type of industry

Under legitimacy theory it is argued that the nature of industry type can influence

political visibility and drives disclosure to improve their accountability and visibility

in order to minimize pressure and criticism from society (Patten 1991 in Faisal,

Tower and Lusmin, 2012; Haniffa and Cooke,2005). Previous studies classified

companies according to various criteria. Commonly companies are separated into two

types; high- profile and low-profile companies (Hackston and Milne,1996). Roberts

1992 in Tower and Lusmin, 2012 explains high profile industries as those with

consumer visibility, a high level of political risk or concentrated intense competition.

Gunawan 2013 categorized the type of industries as sensitive industries and non-

sensitive industries. Hartikayanti et al (2016) stated that in relation to the theory of

legitimacy, the companies‟ environmental sensitivity will be considers by the

community, government, or other parties. Using the relationship between the levels of

corporate environmental disclosures and type of industry, studies have found that

entities in high profile industries disclose more environmental information than


ISBN 979-587-627-9 139

entities in lower profile industry (Nurhayati et al, 2006; Pahuja, 2009; Suhardjanto

and Miranti, 2011; Indriastuti, 2012; Effendi Et al,2012; Lu and Abeysekara,2014;

Hartikayanti et al,2016). Nurhayati et al 2006 in their study use 100 Indonesia listed

company during 2006 explained that high profile industry entities receive greater

scrutiny from government regulations and receive greater pressure from the public to

fulfill certain environmental expectations. In order to minimize such pressures, high-

profile company is encouraged to disclose more environmental information to

continue their activities. However, Suttipun and Stanton (2012) in their research in

Thailand found that types of industry are not good predictors of the environmental

disclosure. Based on the previous result, following hypothesis is proposed

H: There is a significant positive correlation between type of company and


Ownership

The ownership structure of the company may give rise to legitimacy gaps (Haniffah

and Cooke, 2005). Different shareholders may demand different disclosures. Under

the legitimacy theory, government companies or state-owned companies are under

scrutiny, and there is pressure from the owner, the state, and from the media to

comply with society‟s expectations. Since state-owned firms‟ operations and

activities are often exposed and directly related with the society, these firms would

receive close attention not only from public but also by the government (i.e. exposed

it with regulation) (Zhang, 2013;Gunawan 2013). Previous study cited in Suttipun and

Stanton (2012) found that government companies provide more environmental

disclosure. However, Suttipun and Stanton 2012 and Zhang, 2013 found that

government ownership had no significant relationship with disclosure. In Indonesia

context, Efendi et al 2012 found that Stated-Owned companies has positive

significant influence to the extent of environmental disclosure, this result echoed by

Ardian and Rahardja, 2013. Gunawan 2013 also found that there was a significant

difference in level of social and environmental disclosure between state owned

company and private company, where state-owned company has more extensive

social and environmental disclosure. Based on the previous result, following

hypothesis is proposed:

H: There is a significant positive correlation between company status and


Profitability

Zmijewski and Hagerman,1981 in Nurhayati et al stated legitimacy theory suggests

higher profitability increases entity visibility, as a consequent, the company receive

greater demand from the society to disclose more information to obtain approval to

continue their activities. Moreover, if companies failure to comply with society

legitimacy, this condition will threaten companies performance and survival

(Deegan,2002). Companies would survive if they show positive performance or able

to generate profit, therefore, management believe that disclosing environmental

information not only would reduce the social tension but also respond social needs

(Hackston and Milne,1996),furthermore, profitable companies have more motivation

in disclosing environmental information to show their contribution to society well

being (Haniffa and Cooke,2005). Many researchers have carry out this variable with


ISBN 979-587-627-9 140

different measurement (Return on Asset, Return on Equity and Profit Margin),

however past studies results are still inconclusive. Some Researcher found that the

more companies generate its profit, more extensive the environmental disclosure(

Haniffah and Cooke,2005 ; Pahuja,2009;Zhang,2013;and Lu and Abeysekera, 2014),

in Indonesia has been found by Suhardjanto and Miranti, 2011 and Suhardjanto ,

2011; Hadjoh and Surakarta,2013;Aulia and Agustina,2015; and Indrabudiman

(2016). Others found the profitability is not significant predictor to environmental

disclosure (Clarkson,2008;Faisal et al,2012;Suttipun and Stanton, 2012;Hartikayanti

et al,2016). Surprisingly, some studies found that there is inverse relationship between

profitability and the environmental disclosure (Zein 2008;Darlis,et al 2009; Indriastuti

2012; Muliati et al 2014).

Even though, past studies suggest inconclusive findings on the relationship between

these two variables; it likelihood more findings on positive correlation between

profitability and the extent of disclosure, hence the following hypothesis is proposed

H: There is a significant positive correlation between profitability and environmental

disclosure by companies

Leverage

Companies operation require a capital, the source of capital can be from its own

capital (shareholder capital) or loans from other parties. These different capital

structures will results in creating conflicts to management to disclose or not the

information. Legitimacy theory suggests that in a highly geared company,

management needs to legitimize its actions to shareholders as well as to the creditors

(Haniffah and Cooke,2005), increasing in companies debt derives to the increasing of

monitoring demand for information, the more pressure to provide information

(Clarkson,et al 2008). This variable has been carrying out as one of companies‟

characteristic regarding how extensive disclosures are. Leverage has positive

correlation with the disclosure, which means the more companies‟ debt the more

environmental disclosing related potential future liabilities (Clarkson, et al

,2008;Darlis, et al, 2009; Ardian and Rahardja (2013). However, other researchers

found that this variable does not have significant influence to environmental

disclosure (Zhang (2013) Aulia and Agustina (2015) Lu and Abeysekara, Suhardjanto

and Miranti, 2011 ). Notwithstanding these inconclusive results, the hypothesis

proposed:

H: There is a significant positive correlation between leverage and environmental

disclosure by companies

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

This research was conducted by testing the hypothesis to explain the relationship

between companies characteristics and environmental disclosures which has been

provided by the company. The data analysis use content analysis, the simplest form of

content analysis consists of detecting the presence or absence of social responsibility

information.


ISBN 979-587-627-9 141

Content analysis, a method that can perform in-depth discussion on the content of the

information written or printed in a media source, is a method of text analysis that is

fairly reliable, and aims to explain the variables of real symptoms so to understand a

phenomenon. Content analysis has been used in previous research on measuring

social responsibility as by (Patten, 2002). The environmental disclosure content

analysis based on GRI4 indicator.

Population and Sample

The study uses secondary data from the Annual Report published by the Stock

Exchange in 2015, and the sustainability report. The study population is company,

which index in Kompas 100 consistently in 2014 and 2015. The sample selection

using purposive judgment sampling method, with the criteria the company has

published the sustainability report, excluded banking and financial industry. Final

sample selected was 15 companies and the final data is 30 samples.

Research Model

The merger of existing models in the literature formed the research model before, to

test the hypothesis (the influence of the characteristics of companies on the disclosure

of social and environmental), then use the model:

EDi = α0 + α1SIZE + α2TYPE+ α3OWNERSHIP+α4 PROFITABILITY + α5LEVERAGE+ ℮1

ED = Environmental Disclosure

SIZE = Company size (Ln Net Asset)

TYPE = Dummy variable (1 = high profile , 0 = low profile)

OWNERSHIP = Dummy variable (1= state-owned company , 0 = private

company)

PROFITABILITY = ROE RATIO (NET INCOME / EQUITY)

LEVERAGE = DER RATIO (DEBT/EQUITY)

i = SAMPLE(1,2,3,4,...)

α0 = INTERCEPT

α1...n = COEFFICIENT SLOPE

Data Analysis Technique

Statistical analysis techniques used in this research is multiple linear regression with

the aim to find the relationship between the dependent variable and one or more

independent variables.

Results and Research

In this section presented the results of a test that has been carried out with SPSS

version 22. The classical assumption test has been done for this research and the result

shows the regression model pass the classical assumption test (the data is normaly

distributed,did not occur autocorrelation, multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity) .

Using multiple linear regressions testing the hypothesis in the research. Based on this

regression analysis further resulting in a value of derivatives, among others, the

correlation coefficient (R), the coefficient of determination (adjusted R2), and

Statistics F test and t test statistics, with a significance level of 0.05 were used. The

result of the correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (adjusted


ISBN 979-587-627-9 142

R2) can be seen in Table 1 as follows:

Table 1: Test Results Correlation Coefficient and Coefficient of Determination

R R.Square Adjusted R.Square

0.499 0.249 0.093

Based on data above, the correlation between independent variable and dependent

variable is a moderate strong relationship. The adjusted R Square is 0.093 which

means the independent variables is able to explain the variations on the environmental

disclosure 9.3%, while the rest is explained by other factors.

Statistic of the F test results can be seen in Table 2 below

Table 2: Result of F test

Model

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4880.166 5 976.033 1.593 .200

Residual 14704.610 24 612.692

Total 19584.775 29

From the F test results obtained F value of 1,593 with a significance level of 0.2, this

means that the independent variables together have a positive but not significant

effect in environmental disclosure.

Table 3: Results of partial test

Variable B p-value Results

Constant 14.77 0.851 Not significant

Size - 0.39 0.987 Not significant

Type 34.22 0.029 Significant

Ownership 2.587 0.820 Not Significant

Profitability 47.28 0.560 Not Significant

Leverage -8.12 0.082 Not Significant

The table presents that the biggest factor characteristics of companies that have

positive influence on the disclosure is type of companies. Meanwhile, the

characteristics of the factors that negatively affect the company's disclosure is size

and Leverage. That is, the larger the company and the higher the debt the fewer an

environmetal disclosure.

DISCUSSION

Corporate Characteristic on environmental disclosure.

Result of this study are consistent with several earlier empirical study about the effect

of corporate characteristic on the dislosure of environmental information, such as

(Suhardjanto and Miranti, 2011; Indrastuti, 2012; Hartikayanti, et al, 2016), who

found that the corporate characteristic has positive but unsignificant effect on the

environmental disclosure. Partially, only type of the industry has significant effect on

environmental disclosure, this finding consistent with previous research from

Hartikayanti et al (2016) that found about entities in high profile industries disclose

more environmental information than entities in lower profile industry (Nurhayati et

al, 2006; Pahuja, 2009; Suhardjanto and Miranti, 2011; Indriastuti, 2012; Effendi Et

al,2012; Lu and Abeysekara,2014; Hartikayanti et al,2016). Surprisingly, size of


ISBN 979-587-627-9 143

companies show reverse correlation with environmental disclosure, in this research it

could be occur because the large size of company is a low-profile company, therefore

the environmental disclosure is not extensive enough. Leverage variable show the

negative correlation, which means company with more debt is likely to disclose less

information regarding their environment activities, this condition could be derived the

debt use for the operating activities of the company rather than the environmentally

related activities. Companies with more profitability do not always engage in

environmental activities, therefore the information to be disclosed is limited. There is

no significant difference between state-owned companies and private companies due

to both type of companies has the same level of environmental awareness nowadays.

CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion on the previous section, we can conclude that the result of the

simultaneously testing showed that corporate characteristic which included Size of

company, type of industry, ownership, profitability and leverage together have

positive but not significant effect on the environmental disclosure. Partial test showed

that only type of industry have and positive and significant effect on environmental

disclosure. Therefore legitimacy theory only partially explain the determining factors

on disclosure the environmental information in Indonesia.

This sample used in this study limited only 15 companies listed in Kompas100 index

excluding banking and financial industry. Therefore it is expected in future studies to

collect more samples over a longer period of the year.


ISBN 979-587-627-9 144

REFERENCES

Aulia, F.Z. and Agustina, L., 2015. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan, Kinerja

Lingkungan, dan Liputan Media Terhadap Environmental Disclosure.

Accounting Analysis Journal, 4(3).

Ardian, H. and RAHARJA, S., 2013. Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kebijakan

Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Dan Lingkungan (Studi Empiris Pada

Seluruh Perusahaan Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2010)

(Doctoral dissertation, Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis).

Behram, N.K., 2015. A Cross-Sectoral Analysis of Environmental Disclosures in a

Legitimacy Theory Context. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 5(1),

pp.20–37.

Branco, M.C. & Rodrigues, L.L., 2006. Communication of corporate social

responsibility by Portuguese banks A legitimacy theory perspective. corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 11(3), pp.232–248.

Campbell, D., 2004. A Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analysis of Environmental

Disclosure in UK Companies – A Research Note. The British Accounting

Review, 36(October), pp.107–117.

Campbell, D., 2003. Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures :

evidence for legitimacy theory ? Business Strategy and the environment, 12(6),

p.357.

Cho, C.H. et al., 2015. CSR disclosure : the more things change … ? Accounting,

Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), pp.14–35.

Cormier, D. & Gordon, I.M., 2001. An examination of social and environmental

reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(5),

p.587.

Cormier, D., Lapointe-Antunes, P. & Magnan, M., 2015. Does corporate governance

enhance the appreciation of mandatory environmental disclosure by financial

markets ? Journal of Management & Governance, 19(4), pp.897–925. Available

at: "http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-014-9299-4.

Cormier, D. & Magnan, M., 2011. The informational contribution of social and

environmental disclosures for investors. Management decision, 49(8), pp.1276–

1304.

Deegan, C., 2002. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures -- a

theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3),

p.282.

Deegan, C. & Gordon, B., 1996. a study of the environmental disclosure practices of

australian corporations. Accounting and business research, 26(3), pp.187–199.


ISBN 979-587-627-9 145

Deegan, C., Rankin, M. & Tobin, J., 2002. An examination of the corporate social and

environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy Theory.

Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), p.312.

Deegan, Craig, Firms' Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian

Evidence. Accounting Forum, Vol. 24, No. 1. Available at SSRN:

https://ssrn.com/abstract=232474

Dowling, John and Pfeffer, Jeffrey (Jan., 1975). The Pacific Sociological Review

Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 122-136 DOI: 10.2307/1388226

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388226

Giannarakis, G., Konteos, G. & Sariannidis, N., 2014. Financial , governance and

environmental determinants of corporate social responsible disclosure.

Management Decision, 52(10), pp.1928–1951.

Gunawan, J., 2013. Determinant Factors of Corporate Social Disclosures in Indonesia.

Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 7(2), pp.113–134.

Hadjoh, R.A. and Sukartha, I., 2013. Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Kinerja Keuangan

dan Eksposur Media pada Pengungkapan Informasi Lingkungan. E-Jurnal

Akuntansi, 4(1), pp.1-18.

Hackston, D. & Milne, M. J. 1996, “Some determinants of social and environmental

disclosures in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 77-108.

Haniffa, R.M. & Cooke, T.E., 2005. The impact of culture and governance on

corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy ·,

24(September), pp.391–430.

Hartikayanti, H.N., Trisyardi, M.R. & Saptono, E.B., 2016. EFFECT OF

CORPORATE CHARACTERISTICS ON ENVIRONMENTAL DISLOSURE.

IJABER, 14(10), pp.6111–6134.

Indrabudiman, A., 2016. Social Enterprise Characteristics and Environmental

Disclosures in Annual Reports of Mining Companies of Indonesia. International

Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 2(1), pp.41-56.

Juhmani, O., 2014. Determinants of Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure

on Websites : the Case of Bahrain. Universal Journal of Accounting and

FInance, 2(4), pp.77–87.

Kim, N., Moon, J.J. & Yin, H., 2016. Environmental Pressure and the Performance of

Foreign Firms in an Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137,

pp.475–490. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2568-6.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=232474


ISBN 979-587-627-9 146

Lindblom, C. K. (1994, June). The implications of organizational legitimacy for

corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical perspectives on

accounting conference, New York (Vol. 120).

Lu, Y. & Abeysekera, I., 2014. Stakeholders ‟ power , corporate characteristics , and

social and environmental disclosure : evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 64, pp.426–436.

Malarvizhi, P. & Matta, R., 2016. “ Link between Corporate Environmental

Disclosure and Firm Performance ” – Perception or Reality ?

Rev.Integr.Bus.Econ.Res, 5(3), pp.1–35.

Mathews, M.R., 1997. Twenty-Five Years of Social and Environmental Accounting

Research : Is There a Silver Jubilee to Celebrate ? Accounting Auditing &

Accountability Journal, 10(4), pp.481–531.

Meyer, K.E. et al., 2009. Institutions , resources , and entry strategies in emerging

economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), pp.61–80.

Mobus, J.L., 2005. Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory

context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(4), p.492.

Muliati, Pagalung, G., Harryanto, Pontoh, G. T. 2014. Corporate Disclosure as

Mediating Variable on Effect of Financial Resources, Capability, and

Characteristic of Corporate to Environmental Performance. International

Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 3, 8, pp. 257-265

Nurhayati, R., Brown, A. and Tower, G., 2006. Understanding the level of natural

environment disclosures by Indonesian listed companies. Journal of the Asia

Pacific Centre for environmental accountability, 12(8), pp.4-11.

Nurhayati, R., Taylor, G. and Tower, G., 2015. Investigating social and

environmental disclosure practices by listed Indian textile firms. The Journal of

Developing Areas, 49(6), pp.361-372.

Oktariani, N.W. and Mimba, N.P.S.H., 2014. Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan dan

Tanggung Jawab Lingkungan pada Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial

Perusahaan. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 6(3), pp.402-418.

Pahuja, S., 2009. Relationship between environmental disclosures and corporate

characteristics: a study of large manufacturing companies in India. Social

Responsibility Journal, 5(2), pp.227-244.

Patten, D.M., 2002. Give or take on the Internet : An examination of the disclosure

practices of insurance firm web innovators. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3),

p.247.

Suaryana, A., 2012. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi Kebijakan Pengungkapan

Tanggung Jawab Sosial dan lingkungan pada Perusahaan Manufaktur di Bursa


ISBN 979-587-627-9 147

Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis, 7(1).

Suhardjanto, D., Tower, G. and Brown, A., 2008. INDONESIAN

STAKEHOLDERS‟PERCEPTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL

INFORMATION. Journal of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental

Accountability, 14(4), pp.2-11.

Suhardjanto, D. and Miranti, L., 2011. Indonesian Environmental Reporting Index

dan Karakteristik Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi & Auditing Indonesia, 13(1).

Suttipun, M. & Stanton, P., 2012. Determinants of Environmental Disclosure in Thai

Corporate Annual Reports. International Journal of Accounting and Financial

Reporting, 2(1), pp.99–115.

Tsang, E.W.K., 1998. A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in Singapore

The case of the banking , food and beverages and hotel industries. Accounting

Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(5), pp.624–648.

Tillling, 2004, Refinements to legitimacy theory in social environmental accounting.

Commerce Research Paper

Tower, G. and Rusmin, R., 2012. Legitimising corporate sustainability reporting

throughout the world. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal,

6(2), p.19.

Zhang, J., 2013. Determinants of corporate environmental and social disclosure in

Chinese listed mining, electricity supply and chemical companies annual reports.

Zein, Z,A.Hutabarat,Andriani 2008. Pengaruh ukuran perusahaan dan kinerja

keuangan terhadap pengungkapan informasi lingkungan dalam laporan tahunan

perusahaan yang rawan lingkungan, jurnal kajian akuntansi dan auditing.

Documents

CORPORATE CHARACTERISTIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL …seabc.unsri.ac.id/seabc2017/2016/015_SEABC_Adisti.pdf · [email protected]) ... high- profile and low-profile companies