“Analyzing the quality disclosure of Global Reporting Initiative G4 sustainability

report in Indonesian companies”

Wika Harisa Putri https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1552-3993

AUTHORS Handoko Arwi Hasthoro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7911-2640
Ghea Maudhia Putri

Wika Harisa Putri, Handoko Arwi Hasthoro and Ghea Maudhia Putri (2019).
Analyzing the quality disclosure of Global Reporting Initiative G4 sustainability
ARTICLE INFO
report in Indonesian companies. Problems and Perspectives in Management,
17(4), 453-468. doi:10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37

RELEASED ON Wednesday, 08 January 2020

RECEIVED ON Thursday, 13 June 2019

ACCEPTED ON Monday, 25 November 2019

LICENSE This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License

JOURNAL "Problems and Perspectives in Management"

ISSN PRINT 1727-7051

ISSN ONLINE 1810-5467

PUBLISHER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”

FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”

NUMBER OF REFERENCES NUMBER OF FIGURES NUMBER OF TABLES

39 0 4

© The author(s) 2024. This publication is an open access article.

businessperspectives.org
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Wika Harisa Putri (Indonesia), Handoko Arwi Hasthoro (Indonesia),

Ghea Maudhia Putri (Indonesia)

Analyzing the quality

BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES disclosure of Global
Reporting Initiative G4
sustainability report in
LLC “СPС “Business Perspectives”
Hryhorii Skovoroda lane, 10,
Indonesian companies
Sumy, 40022, Ukraine
Abstract
www.businessperspectives.org
The establishment of a company cannot be separated from its environmental and social
factors. Sustainability reports start from those applied to current companies because
there are forms of corporate accountability to stakeholders and community consider-
ations of the company to provide social responsibility. This study finds out and em-
pirically proves that there are differences in each Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
G4 indicator in the company’s sustainability report in each industry classification. The
authors investigate the dominant indicators in each industry classification based on
sustainability reports. The data are obtained from 28 GRI G4-based company sustain-
ability reports in 2016 and 2017. The analytical method in the study is the K-means
clustering analysis. The results of study indicate the differences in GRI G4 in 2016 and
Received on: 13th of June, 2019 2017. The researchers find out that the dominant indicator expressed in the financial
Accepted on: 25th of November, 2019 industry is an economic indicator. Meanwhile, in the mining, transportation and in-
frastructure industries, basic and chemical industries etc. the dominant indicators to
be disclosed are environmental indicators. This research provides a theoretical basis for
sustainability and environmental reporting, particularly in the context of developing
© Wika Harisa Putri, Handoko Arwi countries. It is expected that this study should also inform business practitioners as
Hasthoro, Ghea Maudhia Putri, 2019 well as policymakers vis-à-vis sustainability reporting in practice.

Keywords sustainability, environmental reporting, voluntary

Wika Harisa Putri, Lecturer, disclosure, cluster analysis
Faculty of Economics, Accounting
Department, Janabadra University, JEL Classification Q56, Q01
Indonesia.
Handoko Arwi Hasthoro, Lecturer,
Faculty of Economics, Accounting INTRODUCTION
Department, Janabadra University,
Indonesia. Environmental damage has become a serious problem in recent years.
Ghea Maudhia Putri, Student, Many companies exploit natural resources and human resources to
Faculty of Economics, Accounting
Department, Janabadra University, increase their profits. Damage arising from the production of auto-
Indonesia. matic goods or services will increase so that taxes and fees for cleanli-
ness, health, and environmental budget will also continue to increase.
There are demands from the public for companies to provide social
responsibility. A concept introduced by Elkington (1988), i.e. people,
planet, and profit, is called the triple bottom line concept that meas-
ures the success of a company. The concept is a term known as sustain-
ability, where the company can survive as long as possible and is called
the long-life company.

This is an Open Access article,

Many companies in the world are required to provide accountabili-
distributed under the terms of the ty reports. Compilation of sustainability reports is important because
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license, which permits
there are disclosure principles and standards that reflect the overall
unrestricted re-use, distribution, level of company’s activity. Reports do not only focus on financial as-
and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly pects as in financial statements. Stakeholders are also particularly in-
cited. terested in understanding how the firm’s approach and performance

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 453
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

are sustainable in various aspects, especially economic, environmental, and social aspects, including
the potential to create corporate value through sustainable management.

From this, the company needs to make a sustainability report that functions as a form of corporate ac-
countability to stakeholders in the form of a report. Sustainability report is a report issued by a compa-
ny or organization regarding the economic, environmental, and social impacts in daily activities (GRI
G4, 2013). Sustainability reporting itself is still voluntary, which means there are no rules that require
the companies to issue sustainability reports. The fastest growth rate for sustainability reporting is in
the Asian region, where it has seen double the level of GRI reporting in the past five years. In this case,
many benefits are given from the existence of a sustainability report, while the benefits provided are cost
savings, expenditure due to increased energy and water consumption, good reputation for the company,
employee satisfaction in working in the company, and building a reliable supply chain system (John,
2017).

In Indonesia, sustainability reporting is still voluntary in contrast to such reporting as annual reports
and financial reports. According to the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI), at the end of 2016, 120 com-
panies in Indonesia published sustainability reports according to the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI).
In fact, in 2015, there were only 63 companies. Not all companies that report sustainability reports are
in the same industry. In Indonesia, there are hundreds of companies listing on the IDX, but not all pub-
lish sustainability reports because they are still voluntary.

For this reason, we are interested in researching and proving the notion that in each of the industrial
classifications, the quality of disclosure of sustainability reports is different according to the GRI G4
indicator. Central to this research, are there differences in the quality of disclosure in each of the GRI
G4 indicators in the sustainability reports of public companies in each industry? Moreover, what in-
dicators become dominant and are expressed in each industry? This research is intended to shed light
on the theme of sustainability disclosure. This research is also expected to provide the information for
companies in carrying out sustainable and responsible performance as well as establishing regulations
in company’s operations.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 1 discusses the background, problems, purposes, and
objectives of the research. Section 2 contains the theory and literature review as the basis for this re-
search, including previous studies and hypotheses formulation. Section 3 elaborates the research frame-
work, population and sample, including research models, operationalization of variables, and testing
methods. Section 4 analyzes the research results and implications for the research model presented.
Final section concludes the results as well as presents the limitations and suggestions.

1. THEORETICAL parties that have a direct or indirect influential

relationship with the firm. Firms should pay at-
BACKGROUND AND tention to their stakeholders because they are the
LITERATURE REVIEW parties who both influence on and are being influ-
enced by the policies and action taken by the firm.
Stakeholder theory shows that the firm is not on- If the firm does not take care of its stakeholders, it
ly responsible for the welfare of the company but is likely to reap protests and eliminate the stake-
also must have social responsibility, taking into holders’ legitimacy (Adams, 2002).
account the interests of all parties affected by the
company’s strategic actions or policies. The suc- Legitimacy theory states that an organization can
cess of a company depends on its ability to bal- only survive if the community in which it is lo-
ance the various interests of stakeholders (Lako, cated feels that the firm performs based on a sys-
2011). Stakeholders are all internal and external tem of value that is commensurate with the value

454 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

system that is owned by the community. Thus, or- institutions, and management and employees. SR
ganizations continually strive to act in accordance benefits are based on the GRI framework, namely:
with the boundaries and norms in society, so that (1) as an organizational performance testing tech-
their activities are accepted according to the per- nique with regard to norms, laws, standard perfor-
ceptions of external parties (Deegan, 2002). The mance, and voluntary initiatives; (2) demonstrat-
rationale for this notion is that the firm will con- ing managerial commitment to sustainability, and
tinue to exist if the community acknowledges that (3) comparing firm performance at all times. GRI-
the firms operates within a similar value system. based sustainability reports are currently used by
Legitimacy theory encourages and unarguably many companies.
promotes the firms to make sure that their perfor-
mance and activities are acceptable to the society. Sustainability report is voluntary and complimen-
tary but completely separated from the firm’s fi-
Firms utilize their reports to describe the image of nancial statements in its submission (Iman, 2019).
environmental responsibility so that they are ac- The World Business Council for Sustainable
cepted and supported by society. With the accept- Development (WBCSD) explains the benefits of
ance of the community, the value of the firm is ex- SR, among others: providing the information to
pected to raise, so that it can increase profits. This stakeholders and improving the company’s pros-
can simulate and attract the investors in making pects, and helping to realize the transparency;
the investment decisions. Regarding the legitima- help establish an image as a tool that contributes
cy theory, it can be said that this study considers to increasing market share, brand value, as well as
the image of the company from the point of view long-term consumer loyalty; a reflection of how
of society. Social and environmental activities car- the company manages the risks; a stimulus of
ried out by the company to the community are a leadership thinking and competitive performance;
form of corporate responsibility (corporate social developing and facilitating the implementation of
responsibility) to build a good corporate image a management system that is better in managing
and can also encourage or increase profits for the the environmental, economic, and social impacts.
company.
The principle of reporting plays an important role
Meanwhile, according to Elkington (1997), sus- in achieving the transparency and must therefore
tainability report means the report that contains be applied by all organizations when preparing the
both financial and non-financial information re- sustainability reports. One of the initial images
garding its social and environmental activities used by companies in developing SR is to adopt an
that can help them to grow sustainably. According accounting method called the triple bottom line.
to GRI (2013), sustainability report is a practice in Companies that want sustainability must pay at-
measuring and disclosing the company’s activities, tention to “3P.” The company must be able to fulfill
a commitment to external and internal stakehold- the welfare of the people contribute to maintain-
ers regarding the firm performance in realizing ing the environmental preservation (planet), and
the new development agenda. pursue the profit (Iman, 2019).

At present, the implementation of sustainable re- The sustainability report disclosure is guid-
porting in Indonesia is regulated by the Law No. ed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) re-
23/1997 concerning environmental management port. GRI was published in 2006, but improve-
and regulations issued by the Indonesia Stock ments were suggested by the board of directors
Exchange regarding the procedures and require- and the latest version was published in 2013
ments for listing and financial reporting standards (GRI G4). The guidelines for this disclosure are
(PSAK). The companies need sustainable report- divided into two parts: (1) General Standard
ing guidelines that are accepted nationally. For this Disclosures (containing Strategies and Analysis,
purpose, a national agency, the NCSR (National Organizational Profiles, Identified Material
Center for Sustainability Reporting) is needed. Aspects and Boundaries, Stakeholder Engagement,
The main users of the SR include the community, Report Profiles, Governance, Ethics and Integrity)
investors, social responsibility, banks, government and (2) Standard Disclosures Special (con-

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 455
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

tains Disclosures of Management Approaches, companies that consistently publish sustainabili-

Indicators, Categories: Economy, Category: ty reports, and, second, this study uses all meas-
Environment, Category: Social). ures of financial performance that include as-
set management, profitability, leverage, liquidity,
According to the Law No. 5/1984, industry is and market. The samples used were 54 observa-
an economic rush that processes raw materials, tions from companies that consistently published
semi-finished materials or finished goods, goods sustainability reports. Similarly, Marwati (2015)
with a plus value or finished goods with a higher tested and analyzed the impact of liquidity, re-
value for use, including busy design and industrial turn on assets, company size as well as earnings
engineering. Classification is made based on raw per share (EPS) on such disclosure. The sample
materials, labor, products, raw materials, busi- used is a non-financial company registered on the
ness orientation, production processes, goods pro- Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX), which issues
duced, capital, management subjects, and organi- the sustainability reports in accordance with the
zational methods. Meanwhile, industrial classifi- GRI standard in the 2009–2013 period, and found
cation based on Minister of Industry Decree No. 12 companies. The data analysis technique is the
19/M/I/1986 issued by the Ministry of Industry classical assumption test.
and Trade is as follows basic chemical industry
(IKD), basic metal and electronic machinery in- Moreover, True (2015) examined the disclo-
dustry (IMELDE), various industries (AI), small sure of sustainability report (SR) on the perfor-
industries (IK), and tourism industry. mance and value of the company guided by the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Population
From the statement above, to show that industry data were taken from the companies that pub-
has carried out management activities from the lish sustainability reports and are publicly listed
viewpoint of economic, environmental, and social on the Indonesian Stock Exchange from 2006 to
impacts, it is necessary to disclose in the sustaina- 2013. The results of this study indicate that dis-
bility report to build the firm’s image and percep- closure of sustainability reports does not have
tion in each of the industry classifications. In GRI- a significant relationship with company perfor-
based economic, environmental, and social disclo- mance and company value. Then, disclosure of
sures, companies can present information on all economic performance, environmental perfor-
indicators of what impacts are expressed through mance, and social performance of sustainability
the index in the closing section of the report or reports also does not have a significant relation-
present impact information directly without an ship with company performance and company
index in the report commonly referred to as GRI value.
reporting citing.
Similarly, Utama (2016) tested the effect of sus-
Research on sustainability reporting (SR) is still tainability report (SR) disclosure as a moderating
rarely done, but in recent years empirical research variable on the intellectual capital (IC) on firm
related to the sustainability reporting (SR) has performance based on 21 Indonesian publicly list-
grown rapidly from various types of sectors and ed companies and registered at the national center
variables. For example, Roca (2012) analyzes the for Indonesian SR chapter. This study uses the
disclosure of indicators in the company’s sustaina- published model of the value-added coefficient in-
bility report. This research is a case study of a com- tellectual (VAIC) to determine the company’s IC.
pany in Canada. The indicators were determined The result shows that VAIC has a positive effect on
through content analysis in the year 2008 reports. ROA and ROE. This means high ROA and ROE of
The study showed that 585 different indicators the companies are associated with more VAIC. In
were used in the report. As many as 31 out of 94 addition, VAIC has no effect on GM. The results of
reports disclose the special GRI-based standards. the moderated analysis also show that disclosure
has a positive effect on ROA and ROE, but has no
For instance, Tarigan (2014) reexamined the rela- effect on GM. Sustainability reporting disclosure
tionship between sustainability report disclosure became a pure moderator on ROA while being a
and financial performance. This study uses the pseudo moderator.

456 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Jusmarni (2016) examined the relationship be- structure, various industries, and basic industries
tween the sustainability report indicator and the and chemistry, so that this difference enables the
company’s market value and asset management data processing systems in the research to detect
ratio. Independent in this research is the sustaina- and generate information about the differences in
bility report disclosure, which is divided into eco- objects between the clusters produced. Therefore,
nomic, environmental, and social performance in- based on this explanation, the hypotheses can be
dicators and measured using the SRDI index. The formed as follows:
sample of this study is 15 companies that publish
sustainability reports three years in a row. As a re- H1: There are differences in the quality of dis-
sult, sustainability reporting in the economic and closure on each GRI G4 indicator in the
environmental aspects has a significant positive sustainability report of companies listed
impact on the market value ratio and asset man- on the IDX in 2016–2017 in each industry
agement ratio, while the sustainability reporting characteristic.
in the social aspect is not significantly positive in
increasing market value and asset management. H2: There is a disclosure of the dominant indi-
cators in the sustainability report on the fi-
Lastly, Puspitandari (2017) obtained the evidence nancial industry classification.
regarding the effect of sustainability report disclo-
sure and each aspect of sustainability report on H3: There is a disclosure of the dominant in-
the performance of banks in Indonesia that issued dicators in the sustainability report on the
GRI-based sustainability reports. The samples are classification of the mining industry.
13 companies each year, and for 3 years there are
39 sustainability reports. The results show that H4: There is a disclosure of the dominant in-
sustainability report disclosure has a significant dicators in the sustainability report on the
positive impact on banking performance, so it can classification of the transportation and in-
be viewed that the increasing sustainability report frastructure industries.
disclosure will improve the banking performance,
besides, disclosure of economic, environmental, H5: There is a disclosure of the dominant indi-
and social performance aspects has a significant cators in the sustainability report on vari-
positive effect on banking performance, so it can ous industry classification.
be concluded that increasing disclosure of eco-
nomic, environmental, and social performance as- H6: There is a disclosure of the dominant indica-
pects will also improve the banking performance. tors in the sustainability report on the clas-
sification of basic and chemical industries.
The sustainability report for which disclosure is
guided by the Global Initiative or GRI with the
most recent reporting basis, GRI G4, which reg- 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
ulates the disclosure of indicators that are cov-
ered in 3 categories, namely economic categories, This research is focused on the disclosure of all
environmental categories, and social categories. indicators in the GRI G4, namely in the econom-
Through cluster analysis, companies will be clas- ic, environmental, and social categories, to com-
sified into relatively homogeneous groups, called pare the industries that have been grouped based
clusters. In this case, relatively homogeneous com- on their classification. The indicators used in this
panies show that they are a group that reports GRI study are 91. This research refers to all aspects,
G4-based economic, environmental, and social namely economic, environmental, and social im-
information. pacts, in the GRI standard 4. Each indicator rep-
resents the aspects of the disclosure of indicators
Companies publicly listed on the Indonesian used as data processing materials for research.
Stock Exchange (IDX) are the subjects of this
study originating from various industrial sectors, The research method used in this study is descrip-
such as finance, mining, transportation and infra- tive quantitative analysis, namely by finding the

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 457
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

information about the existing circumstances and Third, the selection of clustering procedures us-
defining them as clearly as possible to achieve the ing non-hierarchy, often called K-means cluster-
research objectives. This research begins by pro- ing. The method used is the optimizing partition-
viding the values for each indicator in GRI G4 ing method, where objects are then reassigned to
based on the company’s sustainability report. This the cluster to optimize a comprehensive criterion.
value indicates a challenge or benefit for each in- Non-hierarchical procedures or K-means cluster-
dicator. Furthermore, industrial classification car- ing were chosen to find out the preferences of re-
ried out into sectors in this type of industry was searchers about the desired cluster, so that in the
continued by the classification of companies into non-hierarchical procedure, the number of clus-
relatively homogeneous groups (clusters). ters and the selection of arbitrary clusters must be
stated/predetermined. In addition, non-hierarchi-
This study uses 6 (six) variables, which are the as- cal procedures are more beneficial if the object or
pects of the GRI G4 disclosure indicators, specifi- case or observation has a large number of samples.
cally, in sustainability, namely economic, environ-
mental, and social reports (including the sub-cat- Fourth, determining the number of clusters based
egories of employment practices and work con- on the selection of cluster procedures, namely
venience, human rights, community/society, and non-hierarchy and considering the objectives of
responsibility for product). Next we divide the the research. We identified the indicators of eco-
sample into 5 (five) industry classifications: min- nomic, environmental, and social impacts, which
ing (including coal, oil and gas, metals and other become the priorities of the industry classification.
minerals, and rocks), finance (banks, financial in- We analyzed the clusters in each industry or as a
stitutions, securities companies, and insurance), whole that are obtained based on data processing
and transportation and infrastructure (energy, toll in SPSS automatically.
roads, ports, airports and the like, telecommunica-
tions, transportation, and non-building construc- Finally, interpreting and profiling the clusters in-
tion), as well as various industries (automotive and cludes the study of centroids, namely the average
components, textiles and garments, footwear, ca- value of the objects contained in the cluster on
bles, electronics), and basic and chemical industries each indicator. Centroid values allow the research-
(cement, ceramics, porcelain and glass, metals and ers to decipher each cluster by giving a name or
the like, chemicals, plastic and packaging, animal label. The cluster profiling stage is made based on
feed, wood and its processing, and pulp and paper). information obtained from the results of data test-
ing for each cluster formed. Then it was developed
Cluster analysis begins with the formulation of so that information on economic, environmental,
the problem, or the selection of indicators that will and social disclosure was dominant in each of the
be used for cluster formation. The set of indica- industrial sectors.
tors that will be selected must describe the objects.
There are 6 (six) variables identified as company The research sample was taken by purposive sam-
KPIs in disclosure of environmental impacts, with pling method from the data population of compa-
statements on a scale where 0 = there is absolutely nies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX).
no disclosure in the GRI G4 indicator, 1 = disclo- The purposive sampling method itself is a sampling
sure in the GRI G4 indicator included in each var- method taking into account the selection criteria:
iable, the company is perceived as having a chal- being publicly listed and having released their sus-
lenge and 2 = if the company feels it finds benefits tainability reports in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
in conducting or disclosing the GRI G4 indicator. As many as 53 companies that publish sustaina-
bility reports and are listed on the Indonesia Stock
Second, to measure the distance or similarity Exchange were found, but of the 53 companies, only
between pairs of objects that are most common- 30 companies have published the sustainability re-
ly used is Euclidean distance or its square value. ports in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
The Euclidean distance is the root of the sum of
squares of differences or deviations in the values The data in this study were taken from secondary
for each indicator. data or indirect data taken through the sustain-

458 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

ability report of firms listed on the Indonesian years, namely in 2016 and 2017, were selected. We
Stock Exchange between 2016 and 2017. The firm’s got the results of 30 companies. Next we classify
sustainability report is obtained through the com- in 7 types of industries, and cross out 2 companies
pany’s official websites and the related websites, from the agricultural classification and consumer
and website of the Indonesia Stock Exchange. goods industry. Finally, we obtained a sample of
Researchers also conduct the library studies by 28 companies with 5 industrial fields.
reading books, scientific works, theses, the inter-
Table 1. Sample companies
net and studying the literature contained in the li-
braries or in other sources that aim to gather the No. Companies Industry/sector
information that is relevant to the topic or prob- 1 Astra Various industries
lem that is the object of research. 2 United Tractor Various industries
3 Pupuk Indonesia Basic and chemical industry
4 Indocement Basic and chemical industry
We conducted cluster analysis, which is a tech-
5 Holcim Basic and chemical industry
nique for classifying the objects into homogene- Perusahaan Gas
ous or relatively homogeneous groups. This group 6 Basic and chemical industry
Negara
is called a cluster. The collected data are then pro- 7 Bank BJB Finance
cessed by using the non-hierarchy or K-means 8 Bank Jateng Finance
clustering procedure and then explaining the re- 9 BRI Syariah Finance
10 CIMB Niaga Finance
sults obtained objectively and systematically. The
11 Bank Permata Finance
output produced in the form of a final cluster 12 Maybank Finance
center shows that the cluster pairs are truly sep- 13 BCA Finance
arated. Using an ANOVA/F-test, objects were sys- 14 Mandiri Syariah Finance
tematically entered in the clusters to maximize 15 BNI Finance
the differences in clustering of each indicator. The 16 BNI Syariah Finance
greater the value of F and (sig < 0.05), the greater 17 Bukit Asam Mining
18 Indo Tambangraya Mining
the difference in indicators on the cluster formed.
19 Pertamina Mining
20 Raya Megah Mining
Furthermore, we conducted the advanced data 21 PT AKR Mining
processing such as analyzing each cluster’s out- 22 PT Antam Mining
put to determine the number of memberships per 23 Garuda Indonesia Transportation and infrastructure
cluster, membership cluster output to provide the 24
Pembangkitan
Transportation and infrastructure
information about objects or cases that have been Jawa-Bali
Transportation and infrastructure
classified into each cluster and distance or simi- 25 Total Bangun Persada
26 Transportation and infrastructure
PT Jasa Marga
larity between pairs of objects, final output cluster 27 Transportation and infrastructure
PT Wijaya Karya
centers to determine whether or not there are dif- PT Wijaya Karya
Transportation and infrastructure
ferences in the dominant indicators in each clus- 28 Beton
ter, and output iteration history to get the right
number of iterations and the minimum distance The ANOVA test results to test the differences
between cluster centers from the iteration results. in disclosure on each indicator are shown in the
following table. In general, in all industries, the
quality of disclosure of the GRI indicator in the
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS sustainability report has differences, indicated
by a significance value of less than 0.005 on the
The population and research sample in this study indicator.
were taken from publicly listed companies in
Indonesia. This analysis uses purposive sampling In economic indicators, there are 4 out of 9 indica-
by looking at sustainability reports of the compa- tors, which are different in their disclosure, name-
nies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX). ly EC5, EC6, EC8, and EC9. In environmental in-
Data were selected by 53 companies that published dicators, there are 26 out of 34 indicators, which
the sustainability reports, then the companies that are different in their disclosure, namely EN1, EN2,
issued sustainability reports for two consecutive EN4, EN7, EN9, EN10, EN11, EN12, EN13, EN15,

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 459
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Table 2. ANOVA/F-test results

Cluster Error
GRI Indicators F Sig.
Mean square Df Mean square Df
EC1 0.062 4 0.286 51 0.215 0.929
EC2 1.300 4 0.556 51 2.337 0.068
EC3 0.798 4 0.530 51 1.506 0.214
EC4 1.800 4 0.713 51 2.524 0.052
EC5 6.883 4 0.412 51 16.698 0.000
EC6 1.354 4 0.251 51 5.393 0.001
EC7 1.649 4 0.732 51 2.252 0.076
EC8 2.350 4 0.509 51 4.618 0.003
EC9 7.579 4 0.366 51 20.707 0.000
EN1 3.225 4 0.587 51 5.491 0.001
EN2 7.240 4 0.451 51 16.038 0.000
EN3 0.362 4 0.582 51 0.622 0.649
EN4 1.302 4 0.279 51 4.667 0.003
EN5 1.442 4 0.744 51 1.939 0.118
EN6 1.959 4 0.770 51 2.543 0.051
EN7 6.631 4 0.504 51 13.165 0.000
EN8 1.065 4 0.705 51 1.510 0.213
EN9 1.709 4 0.566 51 3.018 0.026
EN10 2.813 4 0.749 51 3.757 0.009
EN11 3.327 4 0.522 51 6.373 0.000
EN12 3.377 4 0.550 51 6.142 0.000
EN13 2.678 4 0.888 51 3.015 0.026
EN14 1.833 4 0.749 51 2.446 0.058
EN15 2.793 4 0.838 51 3.332 0.017
EN16 2.982 4 0.727 51 4.104 0.006
EN17 0.611 4 0.257 51 2.375 0.064
EN18 2.517 4 0.604 51 4.169 0.005
EN19 2.057 4 0.838 51 2.453 0.058
EN20 3.604 4 0.608 51 5.928 0.001
EN21 0.181 4 0.427 51 0.423 0.791
EN22 6.542 4 0.432 51 15.136 0.000
EN23 7.745 4 0.415 51 18.681 0.000
EN24 0.438 4 0.512 51 0.855 0.497
EN25 8.242 4 0.338 51 24.377 0.000
EN26 3.195 4 0.443 51 7.217 0.000
EN27 4.602 4 0.454 51 10.141 0.000
EN28 1.350 4 0.493 51 2.736 0.039
EN29 5.875 4 0.570 51 10.311 0.000
EN30 3.015 4 0.505 51 5.966 0.001
EN31 3.901 4 0.561 51 6.953 0.000
EN32 2.373 4 0.637 51 3.726 0.010
EN33 0.729 4 0.094 51 7.741 0.000
EN34 6.238 4 0.519 51 12.015 0.000
LA1 1.401 4 0.694 51 2.020 0.106
LA2 4.363 4 0.676 51 6.453 0.000
LA3 5.184 4 0.517 51 10.019 0.000
LA4 1.462 4 0.579 51 2.526 0.052
LA5 3.806 4 0.692 51 5.502 0.001
LA6 0.937 4 0.688 51 1.360 0.261
LA7 0.981 4 0.668 51 1.467 0.226
LA8 2.298 4 0.804 51 2.857 0.033
LA9 0.973 4 0.977 51 0.996 0.418
LA10 2.829 4 0.638 51 4.437 0.004
LA11 3.142 4 0.738 51 4.257 0.005
LA12 2.684 4 0.679 51 3.953 0.007
LA13 1.408 4 0.842 51 1.673 0.171
LA14 3.092 4 0.681 51 4.538 0.003
LA15 0.729 4 0.094 51 7.741 0.000

460 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Table 2 (cont.). ANOVA/F-test results

Cluster Error
GRI Indicators F Sig.
Mean square Df Mean square Df
LA16 0.947 4 0.955 51 0.992 0.421
HR1 2.160 4 0.614 51 3.521 0.013
HR2 3.382 4 0.281 51 12.052 0.000
HR3 6.738 4 0.568 51 11.858 0.000
HR4 4.062 4 0.767 51 5.296 0.001
HR5 5.078 4 0.425 51 11.940 0.000
HR6 4.084 4 0.373 51 10.949 0.000
HR7 3.000 4 0.462 51 6.494 0.000
HR8 4.229 4 0.408 51 10.368 0.000
HR9 0.000 4 0.000 51 0.000 0.000
HR10 5.915 4 0.460 51 12.854 0.000
HR11 1.848 4 0.146 51 12.620 0.000
HR12 2.546 4 0.338 51 7.530 0.000
SO1 3.484 4 0.655 51 5.316 0.001
SO2 0.750 4 0.383 51 1.955 0.116
SO3 4.254 4 0.573 51 7.429 0.000
SO4 3.040 4 0.815 51 3.731 0.010
SO5 2.434 4 0.598 51 4.073 0.006
SO6 3.892 4 0.305 51 12.761 0.000
SO7 1.760 4 0.645 51 2.729 0.039
SO8 3.393 4 0.870 51 3.902 0.008
SO9 1.518 4 0.312 51 4.865 0.002
SO10 1.639 4 0.094 51 17.417 0.000
SO11 4.665 4 0.227 51 20.587 0.000
PR1 4.215 4 0.411 51 10.248 0.000
PR2 4.303 4 0.620 51 6.935 0.000
PR3 1.711 4 0.689 51 2.482 0.055
PR4 3.503 4 0.649 51 5.396 0.001
PR5 0.615 4 0.912 51 0.674 0.613
PR6 2.388 4 0.471 51 5.075 0.002
PR7 3.740 4 0.603 51 6.201 0.000
PR8 1.529 4 0.860 51 1.777 0.148
PR9 3.768 4 0.752 51 5.011 0.002

EN16, EN18, EN19, EN20, EN22, EN23, EN25, which are different in their disclosure, namely in
EN26, EN27, EN28, EN29, EN30, EN31, EN32, PR1, PR2, PR4, PR6, PR7, and PR9. Thus, it can be
EN33, and EN34. said that the research hypothesis H1, which states
that there are differences in the quality of disclo-
In the social indicators of the sub-category of la- sure in indicators of sustainability reports in 5 in-
bor practices and the convenience of work, there dustry fields, is accepted.
are 4 out of 16 indicators, which are different in
their disclosure, namely LA11, LA12, LA14, and Next, we conducted a clustering test without
LA15. In the sub-category of human rights, there following a hierarchical process called K-means
were 11 out of 12 indicators, which were revealed clustering. Each object that has been inputted
differently, namely HR1, HR2, HR3, HR4, HR5, will be assigned or combined to the classifica-
HR6, HR7, HR8, HR10, HR11, and HR12, while in tion of the closest cluster center automatically
the sub-category of society, there are 10 out of 11 by the system. The central classification will be
different indicators, namely SO1, SO3, SO4, SO5, updated until stopping criteria are reached. The
SO6, SO7, SO8, SO9, SO10, and SO11. next stage is to do clustering in each industry
and find membership clusters with the smallest
Meanwhile, in the sub-category of responsibili- distance values as findings as in the following
ty for the product, there are 6 out of 9 indicators, table.

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 461
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Table 3. Cluster membership In the financial sector, the most dominant clus-
Case ter indicator in cluster 2 is case number 7, name-
Industry Cluster Distance ly CIMB Niaga in 2016 with a distance of 4.883.
number
1 1 6.174 This shows that the quality of disclosure of sus-
2 1 7.219 tainability indicators at CIMB Niaga is reported
3 1 6.158
more evenly on each indicator, but with the same
4 1 5.993
5 2 7.163
quality of disclosure. While in the mining sector,
6 1 6.657 the most dominant cluster indicator in cluster 1
7 2 4.883 is case number 2, Bukit Asam in 2017 with a dis-
8 2 6.751 tance of 4.865. This indicates that the sustainabili-
9 2 7.557
ty indicators are more evenly distributed, but with
10 2 6.540
Finance
11 2 5.213
the same quality of disclosure.
12 2 5.110
13 2 5.346 In the infrastructure and transportation sectors,
14 2 5.346 the most dominant cluster indicator in cluster 1
15 2 6.606 is case 10, namely PT AKR. In 2017, the data dis-
16 2 7.779
tance is 4.356, indicating that sustainability indi-
17 2 5.439
18 2 5.863
cators are more evenly distributed, but with the
19 2 5.649 same quality of disclosure. As for the various in-
20 2 5.499 dustries, it can be seen that membership clusters
1 1 5.033 that are the most dominant in cluster 2 are cases
2 1 4.865 3 and 4, namely United Tractors in 2016 and 2017
3 2 7.767
4 2 7.724
with a distance of 4.123 for both. This shows the
5 2 6.967 sustainability indicators more evenly, but with the
6 2 7.520 same quality of disclosure. Finally, in the basic and
Mining
7 2 6.393 chemical industry sectors, it can be seen that the
8 2 6.556 cluster indicators dominant in cluster 1 are cases 1
9 2 7.880
and 2, namely Pupuk Indonesia in 2016 and 2017
10 2 7.781
11 2 7.845
with distance of 4.330 for both. This implies that it
12 1 7.937 is a more equitable indicator of sustainability, but
1 2 6.314 with the same quality of disclosure.
2 2 6.598
3 2 7.225 As seen in the final cluster table, the largest num-
4 2 7.038
ber in the financial industry is seen on EC3, EC7,
5 2 7.178
Transportation 6 2 7.014 EC8, LA12, and SO4 indicators. As for the mining
and infrastructure 7 1 5.257 industry, the dominant indicators disclosed are
8 1 5.129 EC3, EC4, EC7, EC8, EC9, EN2, EN5, EN7, EN13,
9 1 4.469 EN15, EN16, EN20, EN22, EN23, EN26, EN29,
10 1 4.356
EN32, LA2, LA3, LA5, LA8, LA10, LA13, LA14,
11 1 5.161
12 1 4.652
HR3, HR4, HR7, HR10, SO1, SO6, SO9, PR1, and
1 1 4.822 PR2. But the EC3 indicator has a uniform value
2 1 4.822 in clusters 1 and 2 compared to other indicators,
Various industries
3 2 4.123 which have the highest value only in one cluster.
4 2 4.123
1 1 4.330
As for the infrastructure and transportation sec-
2 1 4.330
3 2 8.168 tors, the largest dominant numbers are EC1, EC4,
Basic and 4 2 7.706 EC5, EC7, EC8, EN2, EN6, EN7, EN23, EN29,
chemical
industries
5 2 5.390 EN34, LA3, LA10, LA13, HR3, HR4, HR10, and
6 2 5.720 SO1 indicators. Meanwhile, in the various indus-
7 2 5.482
tries, the dominant indicators expressed are in
8 2 5.452
EC3, EN22, EN23, EN25, EN29, LA8, LA10, SO1,

462 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Table 4. Final cluster

Transportation and Basic and chemical

Finance Mining Various industries
Indicator infrastructure industries
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
EC1 1.60 1.80 2.00 1.56 2.00 1.67 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.17
EC2 0.00 0.53 0.67 1.22 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.33
EC3 2.00 1.33 2.00 2.00 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33
EC4 1.40 1.07 2.00 1.33 2.00 1.67 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.33
EC5 1.40 0.27 1.33 0.44 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
EC6 0.40 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EC7 2.00 0.93 2.00 1.56 2.00 1.33 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.33
EC8 2.00 1.20 2.00 1.78 2.00 1.33 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
EC9 1.60 0.40 2.00 0.67 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.50 2.00 0.00
EN1 1.60 0.07 0.67 0.89 0.00 0.67 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.17
EN2 0.40 0.00 2.00 1.11 0.00 2.00 1.50 0.00 1.00 1.33
EN3 1.40 1.27 1.67 1.56 0.50 1.67 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50
EN4 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.17
EN5 0.20 0.87 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.67 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.33
EN6 1.80 1.07 1.33 1.33 1.67 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.67
EN7 1.00 0.27 2.00 0.56 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.67
EN8 1.00 0.93 1.33 1.44 1.00 1.83 0.00 1.50 2.00 1.00
EN9 1.40 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33
EN10 0.00 0.13 0.00 1.89 0.00 1.33 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.83
EN11 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.67
EN12 0.20 0.00 1.67 0.78 0.00 0.67 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
EN13 0.40 0.80 2.00 1.33 0.00 1.33 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.33
EN14 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.56 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.33
EN15 1.20 0.40 2.00 0.89 0.67 0.67 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.67
EN16 0.60 0.27 2.00 1.11 0.00 0.67 2.00 0.00 1.50 1.17
EN17 0.00 0.13 1.33 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EN18 0.40 0.20 1.67 0.89 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.50 0.50 1.67
EN19 1.60 0.40 0.33 1.33 0.67 1.17 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50
EN20 1.20 0.27 2.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.17
EN21 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.44 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67
EN22 0.80 0.27 2.00 1.33 0.00 1.17 2.00 2.00 1.50 0.33
EN23 1.20 0.40 2.00 1.44 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33
EN24 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
EN25 0.80 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67
EN26 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.89 0.00 0.67 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EN27 0.80 0.07 1.00 0.89 0.33 1.33 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.33
EN28 0.00 0.27 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.17
EN29 1.60 0.00 2.00 1.56 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.83
EN30 1.20 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.00 1.00 1.50 0.00 1.00 0.67
EN31 1.20 0.13 1.33 0.56 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00
EN32 0.20 0.13 2.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.33
EN33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
EN34 1.20 0.00 1.67 1.33 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
LA1 1.00 0.73 1.67 1.44 0.67 1.17 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
LA2 1.80 0.33 2.00 1.22 0.67 1.83 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.33
LA3 1.60 0.00 2.00 0.56 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
LA4 0.80 0.27 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
LA5 0.40 0.40 2.00 0.67 0.00 1.67 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
LA6 0.80 0.73 0.33 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.33
LA7 0.80 0.00 0.67 0.44 1.33 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.83
LA8 1.20 0.93 2.00 1.11 1.33 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
LA9 1.60 1.20 0.67 1.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.67

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 463
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Table 4 (cont.). Final cluster

Transportation and Basic and chemical

Finance Mining Various industries
Indicator infrastructure industries
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
LA10 1.80 1.87 2.00 1.11 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33
LA11 1.20 0.27 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.33 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.67
LA12 2.00 0.40 0.67 0.44 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
LA13 1.60 1.20 2.00 1.56 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.33
LA14 0.20 0.53 2.00 0.44 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00
LA15 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LA16 1.20 0.80 2.00 0.89 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
HR1 1.20 0.40 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.67 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
HR2 0.20 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
HR3 1.60 0.53 2.00 0.67 0.67 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.67
HR4 1.20 0.80 2.00 1.33 0.67 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.67
HR5 0.80 0.00 1.33 0.44 0.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.67
HR6 1.20 0.00 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.33
HR7 0.40 0.27 2.00 0.22 0.00 1.33 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
HR8 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.44 0.00 1.33 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
HR9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HR10 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.22 0.67 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00
HR11 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HR12 0.40 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
SO1 2.00 0.80 2.00 1.56 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
SO2 0.40 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67
SO3 1.60 0.40 1.33 0.67 0.00 1.33 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.67
SO4 2.00 0.93 1.33 0.67 0.33 1.33 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
SO5 1.40 0.67 1.33 1.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
SO6 0.80 0.00 2.00 0.11 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.33
SO7 0.00 0.53 1.33 0.44 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
SO8 1.20 0.53 1.33 0.78 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.50 0.33
SO9 0.60 0.00 2.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
SO10 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
SO11 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
PR1 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.22 0.00 1.17 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.33
PR2 0.80 0.27 2.00 0.67 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.33
PR3 1.60 0.27 1.33 0.22 0.00 0.67 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.67
PR4 1.60 0.40 1.33 0.44 0.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.17
PR5 1.60 1.27 1.33 0.89 1.67 1.83 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.67
PR6 1.20 0.00 1.67 0.56 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
PR7 1.20 0.27 1.33 0.44 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
PR8 1.60 0.93 1.33 0.00 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.17
PR9 1.60 0.40 1.33 0.44 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33

SO8, PR8, and PR9. In the basic and chemical in- To sum up, it can be concluded that in the finan-
dustry sectors, it appears that the dominant indi- cial industry, the dominant indicators are eco-
cators are EC3, EC4, EC5, EC7, EC9, EN5, EN6, nomic variables, namely:
EN7, EN8, EN10, EN11, EN12, EN13, EN15, EN19,
EN20, EN23, EN25, EN28 , EN29, EN31, EN32, • EC3: coverage of organizational obligations
EN34, LA1, LA2, LA8, LA10, LA13, HR1, HR3, for defined benefits;
HR4, HR5, HR6, HR8, HR10, HR12, SO3, SO4,
SO5, SO6, SO7, PR2, PR4, and PR9. However, at • EC7: development and impact of infrastruc-
the LA8 indicator, the values obtained are the ture investment and services provided;
same in both clusters 1 and 2.
• EC8: indirect economic impacts.

464 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Whereas in the mining sector, environmental var- • EN29: report of fines and non-monetary sanc-
iables dominate more, especially on indicators: tions due to non-compliance with environ-
mental laws and regulations;
• EN2: material used for recycled material input;
• EN34: number of complaints by environmen-
• EN5: energy intensity; tal impacts.

• EN7: energy reduction in products and Meanwhile, in various industrial sectors, the dom-
services: inant variable is also the environment, which is on
indicators:
• EN13: protected habitat;
• EN22: significant air emissions;
• EN15: direct greenhouse gas emissions;
• EN23: total weight of waste based on type and
• EN16: intensity of greenhouse gas (GHG) method of construction;
emissions;
• EN25: the total weight of waste transported,
• EN20: emission of Ozone-Depleting imported, exported;
Substances (ODS);
• EN29: report of fines and non-monetary sanc-
• EN22: significant air emissions; tions due to non-compliance with environ-
mental laws and regulations.
• EN23: total weight of waste based on type and
method of construction; Finally, in the basic industrial and chemical sec-
tors, environmental variables are also dominant,
• EN26: habits associated significantly affected namely on indicators:
by wastewater;
• EN5: energy intensity;
• EN29: report of fines and non-monetary sanc-
tions due to non-compliance with environ- • EN6: comparison of senior management em-
mental laws and regulations; ployed from the community;

• EN32: percentage of screening of new suppli- • EN7: energy reduction in products and
ers using the environmental criteria. services;

As expected, in the transportation and infrastruc- • EN8: total water withdrawal based on source;
ture sectors, the dominant variable is the environ-
ment, i.e.: • EN10: total volume of water recycled;

• EN2: percentage of recycled material input • EN11: operational locations owned, adjacent
material; to protected areas;

• EN6: comparison of senior management em- • EN12: significant impact of activities, prod-
ployed from the community; ucts and services on biodiversity;

• EN7: energy reduction in products and • EN13: protected habitat;

services;
• EN15: direct greenhouse gas emissions;
• EN23: total weight of waste based on type and
method of construction; • EN19: emission reduction (GHG);

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 465
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

• EN20: Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) • EN29: report of fines and non-monetary sanc-
emissions; tions due to non-compliance with environ-
mental laws and regulations;
• EN23: total weight of waste based on type and
method of construction; • EN31: total expenditure on environmental
protection;
• EN25: total weight of waste transported, im-
ported, exported; • EN32: percentage of screening of new suppli-
ers using environmental criteria;
• EN28: product percentage those sold and their
packaging reclaimed according to category; • EN34: number of complaints by environmen-
tal impacts.

CONCLUSION
This study aims to find out and prove empirically that there are differences in the quality of disclosures
of each indicator in sustainability reports of companies listed on the IDX whether it is dominant in each
industry characteristic. The data used are derived from sustainability reports, with 28 companies stud-
ied during the 2016 and 2017 reporting periods.

The data were obtained and processed to carry out the tests on the problem using the cluster analysis
methods, namely non-hierarchical procedures or K-means clustering. Based on the conducted study, it
can be concluded that there are differences in the quality of disclosure on each GRI G4 indicator in the
sustainability reports of companies listed on the IDX in 2016–2017 in each industry characteristic; the
difference in indicators is 66 out of 91 indicators.

The dominant indicator expressed in the financial industry is an economic indicator. In the mining,
transportation and infrastructure industries, various industries, and basic and chemical industries, the
dominant indicators to be disclosed are environmental indicators. This is understandable, considering
that the financial industry is being very focused on economic interests (e.g., Iman, 2018), while other
industries are more closely related to environmental factors.

Of course, there are some limitations in this study. First and foremost, there are still very few companies
in Indonesia that publish their sustainability reports. This is feared to interfere with a more comprehen-
sive quantitative analysis. In addition, the companies` samples obtained are limited to five industrial
sectors. Therefore, in further research it`s recommended to expand the reporting period and, if possible,
make comparisons with other countries. Nevertheless, it is expected that the findings of this study can
be a stepping stone to open horizons related to sustainability in the context of developing countries.

REFERENCES
1. Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal of corporate approaches to document/207249119/Analisis-
organizational factors influencing sustainability in the construction Penerapan-Sustainability-Report-
corporate social and ethical industry. Procedia Engineering, Berdasarkan-Global-Reporting-
reporting: Beyond current 180, 202-210. https://doi. Initiative
theorizing. Accounting, Auditing org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.179
& Accountability Journal, 4. Aziz, A. (2014, December).
3. Anke, F. M. (2009). Analisis Analisis Pengaruh Good
15(2), 223-250. https://doi.
Penerapan Sustainability Repor Corporate Governance (GCG)
org/10.1108/09513570210418905
Berdasarkan Global Reporting Terhadap Kualitas Pengungkapan.
2. Afzala, F., Lima, B., & Prasada, Initiative (GRI). Retrieved Jurnal Audit dan Akuntansi
D. (2017). An investigation from https://ru.scribd.com/

466 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Reporting Initiative. Retrieved https://www.researchgate.

Tanjungpura, 3, 65-84. Retrieved from https://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/ net/publication/329815298_
from http://jurnal.untan.ac.id/in- martani/files/2016/02/Bahasa- DEKONSTRUKSI_CSR_
dex.php/jaakfe/article/view/9010 Indonesian-G4-Part-One.pdf DAN_REFORMASI_PARADIG-
MA_BISNIS_AKUNTANSI
5. Braam, G., & Peeters, A. R. 12. Iman, N. (2018, August).
(2018). Corporate Sustainability Memahami dinamika tekfin di 21. Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate
Performance and Assurance Indonesia (Understanding the responbility activities and
on Sustainability Reports: dynamics of fintech in Indonesia) economic performance: a
Diffusion of Accounting Practices (Working Paper). http://dx.doi. theory of why and how they are
in the Realm of Sustainable org/10.2139/ssrn.3226568 connected. Bussiness Strategy and
Development. Corporate Social the Environment, 17(8), 536-547.
13. Iman, N. (2019). Revisiting https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.582
Responsibility and Environmental
sustainability with a business
Management, 25(2), 164-181.
management lens. The Journal of 22. Li, H., Zhang, X., Ng, S. T., &
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1447
Record, 12(1), 34-39. Retrieved Skitmore, M. (2017). Quantifying
6. Damanik, L. Y. (2017, August). from https://www.liebert- Stakeholder Influence in
Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan pub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ Decision/Evaluations relating
dan Karakteristik Perusahaan sus.2018.0028?journalCode=sus to Sustainable Construction in
terhadap Kuantitas dan Kualitas China – A Delphi Approach.
14. John, L. C. (2017, March). Journal of Cleaner Production, 173,
Pengungkapan Sustainability
Sustainability Reporting: Going 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Report di Indonesia Periode 2013–
Beyond Compliance. Retrieved jclepro.2017.04.151
2015. PROFITA, 10, 231-232.
from www.businesstimes.com.sg/
Retrieved from http://publikasi. 23. Marwati, C. P., & Yulianti, Y.
companies-markets/sustainability-
mercubuana.ac.id/index.php/ (2015). Analisis Pengungkapan
reporting-going-beyond-compli-
profita/article/view/2900 Sustanibility Report pada
ance
7. Deegan, C. (2002). The Perusahaan Non-Keuangan Tahun
15. Johnelkington. (n.d.). Triple 2009–2013. Dinamika Akuntansi,
Legitimizing Effect of Social
Bottom Line. Retrieved from 167-181. Retrieved from https://
and Environmental Disclosures
http://www.johnelkington.com/ar- journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.
– A Theoretical Foundation.
chive/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf php/jda/article/view/4129
Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 16. Jusmarni, J. (2016). Pengaruh 24. Neliana, T. (2018, April).
15(3), 282-311. http://dx.doi. Sustainability Reporting Terhadap Pengungkapan sukarela laporan
org/10.1108/09513570210435852 Kinerja Keuangan dari sisi tahunan dan faktor-faktor yang
Market Value Ratios dan Asset mempengaruhi. Jurnal Akuntansi
8. Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Price, A.
Management Ratio. Sorot, 11(1), dan Keuangan, 7, 80.
D. F. (2009). A social ontology
29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.31258/
for appraising sustainability 25. Nugroho, F. A. (2009). Analisis
sorot.11.1.3867
of construction projects and Atas Narrative Text Pengungkapan
developments. International 17. Kia. (n.d.). Manfaat Sustainability Corporate Social Responbility
Journal of Project Management, 27, Report bagi Perusahaan. Retrieved dalam Sustainability Report PT.
313-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. from http://annualreport.id/kiat- Aneka Tambang, Tbk. Akuntansi
ijproman.2008.04.003 strategi/manfaat-sustainability- Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas
report-bagi-perusahaan- Diponegoro Semarang.
9. Fatchan, I. N. (2016). Pengaruh
good corporate govermance pada 18. Kurniawan, P. S. (2018). Analisis 26. Nurkhalis, N. N., Arief, H., &
hubungan antara sustainability Penyusunan dan Pelaksanaan Sunarminto, T. (2018, September).
report dan nilai perusahaan. Program Audit Laporan Analisis Stakeholders dalam
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Keberlanjutan Perusahaan. ASET, Pengembangan Ekowisata
Indonesia, 1, 25. 10(1). Retrieved from https:// di Hutan Adat Ammatoa
ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/aset/ Kajang Sulawesi Selatan. Jurnal
10. Fernandez-Sanchez, G. F., &
article/view/10596 Pariwisata, 5, 109. Retrieved from
Rodrigues-Lopez, F. (2010).
A methodology to identify https://ejournal.bsi.ac.id/ejurnal/
19. Kustiani, N. A. (2017).
sustainability indicators in index.php/jp/article/view/3811
Penenerapan elemen-elemen
construction project management integreated reporting pada 27. Ok, Saham. (2019). 9 Sektor
– Application to infrastructure perusahaan yang terdaftar di bursa BEI beserta daftar subsektornya.
projects in Spain. Ecological efek Indonesia. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://www.
Indicators, 10(6), 1193-1201. http://jurnal.pknstan.ac.id/index. sahamok.com/emiten/sektor-bei/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. php/JIA/article/view/38 (accessed on January 19, 2019).
ecolind.2010.04.009
20. Lako, A. (2011). Dekonstruksi 28. Puspitandari, J., & Septiani, A.
11. GRI. (2013). Pedoman Pelaporan CSR and Reformasi Paradigma (2017). Pengaruh Sustainability
Keberlanjutan. Amsterdam, The Bisnis and Akuntansi. Erlangga, Report Disclousure Terhadap
Netherlands, Europe: Global Jakarta. Retrieved from Kinerja Perbankan. Journal of

http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37 467
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 17, Issue 4, 2019

Accounting, 1-12. Retrieved Retrieved from http://ejournal. Sustainability Report. Journal of

from https://www.neliti.com/ unp.ac.id/students/index.php/akt/ Accounting, 1-12.
publications/254079/pengaruh- article/view/2657
36. Septian, M. Y. (2013, March 13).
sustainability-report-disclosure-
32. Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). Sustainability Reporting. Retrieved
terhadap-kinerja-perbankan
An analysis of indicators disclosed from http://kambingterbang26.
29. Rahmah, Y., Rahmawati, V., & in corporate sustainability reports. blogspot.com/2013/03/sustainabil-
Natariasari, R. (2018). Pengaruh Journal of Cleaner Production, ity-reporting.html (accessed on
pengungkapan sustainability 20(1), 103-118. https://doi. January 29, 2019).
resport terhadap kinerja keuangan org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002
37. Sugiyono, P. D. (2017). Metode
pada perusahaan go public di 33. Safitri, N. F. (2013). Analisa Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif,
Indonesia dan Thailand. Journal pelaporan pengungkapan dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
online Mahasiswa, 1(1). Retrieved corporate social responsibility
from https://jom.unri.ac.id/ 38. Supadi, Y. M., & Sudana, I.
(CSR) berdasarkan pedoman
index.php/JOMFEKON/article/ P. (2018). Pengaruh kinerja
global reporting intiatives (GRI).
view/21469 lingkungan dan corporate social
Retrieved from https://jurnalma-
responsibility disclosure pada
30. Rahman, A. R. (2017, October). hasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/
kinerja keuangan perusahaan
Influence of financial performance jurnal-akuntansi/article/view/6672
sektor pertambangan. E-Jurnal
and characteristics corporate on 34. Saputra, A. R. (2018, January- Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas
disclosure sustainability report in June). Pengaruh corporate social Udayana, 7(4), 1170. Retrieved
the listing corporate on Indonesia responsibility dan profitabilitas from https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.
Stock. JOM Fekon, 4, 4883. terhadap nilai perusahaan sektor php/EEB/article/view/36780
31. Riza, W. Y. (2017). Pengaruh industri dasar dan kimia yang
39. Tarigan, J., & Semuel, H. (2014).
Ukuran Perusahaan, Struktur terdaftar di bursa efek Indonesia.
Pengungkapan Sustainability
JOM FISIP, 5, 3-4. http://dx.doi.
Modal, dan Pertumbuhan Report dan Kinerja Keuangan.
org/10.24912/ja.v19i2.97
Perusahaan Terhadap Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 88-
Pengungkapan Sustainability 35. Sejati, B. P., & Prastiwi, A. 101. http://dx.doi.org/10.9744/
Reporting. Akuntansi, 5(2). (2015). Pengaruh Pengungkapan jak.16.2.88-101

468 http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(4).2019.37
 © 2019. This work is published under
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.