IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p7763-d847847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder or Legitimacy Theory? The Rationale behind a Company’s Materiality Analysis: Evidence from Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Inten Meutia

    (Accounting Program, Faculty of Economic, University Sriwijaya, Palembang 30126, Indonesia)

  • Shelly F. Kartasari

    (Accounting Program, Faculty of Economic, University Sriwijaya, Palembang 30126, Indonesia)

  • Zulnaidi Yaacob

    (School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia)

Abstract

Recently, more and more research has examined sustainability reports, including how to process materiality analysis in sustainability reports. However, the motivation for why and how companies prepare materiality analysis has not received much attention from researchers. This study fills a gap in the sustainability literature related to materiality analysis by identifying the theoretical motivations of companies in conducting materiality analysis. The literature review on materiality analysis also showed that the existing measurements have not used the GRI 102-46 and 102-47, which are guidelines for companies in conducting materiality analysis based on the GRI. Therefore, this study developed a measurement of materiality analysis based on GRI 102-46 and 102-47. This study aimed to assess materiality analysis in sustainability reports based on the perspectives of legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory. The research sample was 150 sustainability reports of company listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2018 to 2020. The researcher developed an index using the GRI approach to measure the quality of materiality analysis. This study proves that the legitimacy theory perspective is mainly the basis for the company in conducting materiality analysis. This study also found no significant improvement in the quality of materiality topic analysis from 2018 to 2020. Of the four financial characteristics, only DER has a significant relationship with materiality analysis, which indicates that the disclosure of materiality analysis tends to be related to the company’s debt condition. The study fills a gap in the literature by contributing to research on sustainability reporting quality, specifically on materiality analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Inten Meutia & Shelly F. Kartasari & Zulnaidi Yaacob, 2022. "Stakeholder or Legitimacy Theory? The Rationale behind a Company’s Materiality Analysis: Evidence from Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7763-:d:847847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7763/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7763/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    2. Ataur Rahman Belal & David L. Owen, 2007. "The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(3), pages 472-494, June.
    3. Amanpreet Kaur & Sumit Lodhia, 2018. "Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(1), pages 338-368, January.
    4. Denis Cormier & Michel Magnan & Barbara Van Velthoven, 2005. "Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 3-39.
    5. Jannik Gerwanski & Othar Kordsachia & Patrick Velte, 2019. "Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: Empirical evidence from an international setting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 750-770, July.
    6. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    7. Wuzhao Xue & Hua Li & Rizwan Ali & Ramiz Ur Rehman, 2020. "Knowledge Mapping of Corporate Financial Performance Research: A Visual Analysis Using Cite Space and Ucinet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Jeffrey Unerman & Franco Zappettini, 2014. "Incorporating Materiality Considerations into Analyses of Absence from Sustainability Reporting," Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 172-186, December.
    9. Geert Braam & Roy Peeters, 2018. "Corporate Sustainability Performance and Assurance on Sustainability Reports: Diffusion of Accounting Practices in the Realm of Sustainable Development," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 164-181, March.
    10. Robert G. Eccles & Ioannis Ioannou & George Serafeim, 2014. "The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2835-2857, November.
    11. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    12. de Villiers, Charl & van Staden, Chris J., 2006. "Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 763-781, November.
    13. Peter M. Clarkson & Michael B. Overell & Larelle Chapple, 2011. "Environmental Reporting and its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 47(1), pages 27-60, March.
    14. Marco Fasan & Chiara Mio, 2017. "Fostering Stakeholder Engagement: The Role of Materiality Disclosure in Integrated Reporting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 288-305, March.
    15. Renzo Junior & Peter Best & Julie Cotter, 2014. "Sustainability Reporting and Assurance: A Historical Analysis on a World-Wide Phenomenon," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 1-11, March.
    16. Belal, Ataur Rahman & Cooper, Stuart, 2011. "The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 654-667.
    17. Deegan, Craig & Blomquist, Christopher, 2006. "Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 343-372.
    18. Carmelo Reverte, 2009. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 351-366, August.
    19. Susie Ruqun Wu & Changliang Shao & Jiquan Chen, 2018. "Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Elies Seguí-Mas & Fernando Polo-Garrido & Helena María Bollas-Araya, 2018. "Sustainability Assurance in Socially-Sensitive Sectors: A Worldwide Analysis of the Financial Services Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    21. Muhammad Azizul Islam & Craig Deegan, 2008. "Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(6), pages 850-874, August.
    22. Edgley, Carla & Jones, Michael J. & Atkins, Jill, 2015. "The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-18.
    23. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2016. "Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    24. Ionica Oncioiu & Anca-Gabriela Petrescu & Florentina-Raluca Bîlcan & Marius Petrescu & Delia-Mioara Popescu & Elena Anghel, 2020. "Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luluk Muhimatul Ifada & Romlah Jaffar, 2023. "Does Environmental Cost Expenditure Matter? Evidence from Selected Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alicia Girón & Amirreza Kazemikhasragh & Antonella Francesca Cicchiello & Eva Panetti, 2021. "Sustainability Reporting and Firms’ Economic Performance: Evidence from Asia and Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(4), pages 1741-1759, December.
    2. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    3. Waris Ali & Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Zubair Ahmad & Zeeshan Mahmood & Javed Iqbal, 2018. "The Relationship between Social Visibility and CSR Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-32, March.
    4. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas, 2018. "The Role of Normative CSR‐Promoting Institutions in Stimulating CSR Disclosures in Developing Countries," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 373-390, July.
    5. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2019. "Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-28, August.
    6. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    7. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas & Zeeshan Mahmood, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 273-294, July.
    8. Thanh Hung Nguyen & Quang Trong Vu & Duc Minh Nguyen & Hoang Long Le, 2021. "Factors Influencing Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Its Impact on Financial Performance: The Case of Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Mădălina Dumitru & Justyna Dyduch & Raluca-Gina Gușe & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Corporate Reporting Practices in Poland and Romania – An Ex-ante Study to the New Non-financial Reporting European Directive," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 279-304, September.
    10. Deegan, Craig & Islam, Muhammad Azizul, 2014. "An exploration of NGO and media efforts to influence workplace practices and associated accountability within global supply chains," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 397-415.
    11. Moazzem Hossain & Angela Hecimovic & Aklema Choudhury Lema, 2015. "Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Reporting Practices from an Emerging Mobile Telecommunications Market," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 25(4), pages 389-404, December.
    12. Bouten, Lies & Everaert, Patricia, 2015. "Social and environmental reporting in Belgium: ‘Pour vivre heureux, vivons cachés’," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 24-43.
    13. Zeeshan Mahmood & Rehana Kouser & Md. Abdul Kaium Masud, 2019. "An emerging economy perspective on corporate sustainability reporting – main actors’ views on the current state of affairs in Pakistan," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-31, December.
    14. Sudipta Bose & Amitav Saha & Indra Abeysekera, 2020. "The Value Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure: Evidence from Regulatory Decisions," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(4), pages 455-494, December.
    15. Collins Ntim & Teerooven Soobaroyen, 2013. "Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed Corporations: The Influence of Ownership and Board Characteristics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 121-138, August.
    16. Mahadeo, Jyoti Devi & Oogarah-Hanuman, Vanisha & Soobaroyen, Teerooven, 2011. "Changes in social and environmental reporting practices in an emerging economy (2004–2007): Exploring the relevance of stakeholder and legitimacy theories," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 158-175.
    17. Warren Maroun, 2020. "A Conceptual Model for Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Assurance Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 187-209, January.
    18. Tobias Gerwing & Peter Kajüter & Maximilian Wirth, 2022. "The role of sustainable corporate governance in mandatory sustainability reporting quality," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 517-555, April.
    19. Waris Ali & Jeffrey Wilson & Muhammad Husnain, 2022. "Determinants/Motivations of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in Developing Economies: A Survey of the Extant Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    20. Tibebe Sirak Asfaw & Vida Botes & Lula G. Mengesha, 2017. "The role of NGOs in corporate environmental responsibility practice: evidence from Ethiopia," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7763-:d:847847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.