sustainability
Review
A Systematic Literature Review: Determinants of Sustainability
Reporting in Developing Countries
Sofwan Farisyi * , Mochammad Al Musadieq, Hamidah Nayati Utami and Cacik Rut Damayanti
Citation: Farisyi, S.; Musadieq, M.A.;
Utami, H.N.; Damayanti, C.R. A
Systematic Literature Review:
Determinants of Sustainability
Reporting in Developing Countries.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su141610222
Academic Editor: Lúcia
Lima Rodrigues
Received: 3 July 2022
Accepted: 5 August 2022
Published: 17 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610222
Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
* Correspondence: sofwanfarisyi@student.ub.ac.id
Abstract: This study aimed to find out how the development of sustainability reporting is seen
from the theoretical and practical perspectives and how the solutions are solved. This study used a
systematic literature review approach. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method, 24 selected articles were obtained that matched the criteria.
The results show that research related to sustainability reporting currently focuses on nine aspects
(variables): firm size, profitability, financial leverage, corporate governance structure, ownership
structure, firm age, industrial sector, corporate posture, and board qualification and experience.
However, from these studies, it was found that there were inconsistencies in the results. Some
results showed that a determinant is significant in influencing the company’s sustainability, whereas
other studies indicated that the relationship between the two variables was not significant. Research
related to sustainability reporting has been carried out jointly in developed and developing countries.
However, research focusing on sustainability reporting in developing countries has not been widely
carried out; therefore, this study is expected to be a reference for further research on this topic,
especially in the decision-making process related to setting priorities in SDG planning and funding
allocation. This study focused on companies in developing countries.
Keywords: determinant variable; financial management; sustainability reporting; systematic litera-
ture review; PRISMA
1. Introduction
The 17 goals in “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” were finally inau-
gurated at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in December 2015 in
New York (United States). A few months later, in April 2016, an international agreement
to prevent human-caused global warming and climate changes was successfully signed.
This agreement is known as the “Paris Climate Agreement”. These two agreements are
inseparable, functioning as a unified, comprehensive global cooperation framework to
achieve sustainable development goals. Three important aspects exist in the basic concept
of sustainable development to achieve all the goals: economic, social, and environmental.
The important point is introducing the sustainable development concept guiding compa-
nies to carry out their business activities according to the triple bottom line or 3Ps (profit,
people, and planet). In optimizing profits, companies are required to maintain balance on
Earth (planet), as well as care about humans (people) [1].
Through their activities and networks, all organizations make positive and negative
contributions to sustainable development goals. Therefore, organizations or companies
have a key role in achieving the goals. One way to apply the 3Ps (profit, people, and
planet) and implement the sustainable development concept is to conduct sustainable
reporting [2]. Sustainable reporting is an organization’s practice of reporting publicly on its
economic, environmental, and/or social impacts, thus indicating its contribution—positive
or negative—toward the goals of sustainable development [3]. Sustainable reporting is
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 2 of 18

practically the measurement, disclosure, and accountability of organizational performance

in achieving sustainable development goals to internal and external stakeholders [4].
Some advantages of making sustainable reporting according to several previous stud-
ies are that companies voluntarily provide information about the economic, environmental,
and social impacts of corporate activities [5]. This will reduce the information asymmetry
and increase the transparency of the corporate sustainability activities [6]. Furthermore,
the increased transparency of the information provided will make it easier for investors to
evaluate and direct their investments to companies with positive impacts [5]. Furthermore,
it can make companies more competitive and gain advantages in the market or industry [7].
Through sustainability reporting, an organization identifies its significant impacts
on the economy, environment, and/or society and discloses them according to globally
accepted standards. Sustainability reporting has been developed since 1992 with an interna-
tional standard reference from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) based in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a leading organization in sus-
tainability. The GRI promotes the use of sustainability reporting to make companies more
sustainable and better contribute to sustainable development [8]. Today, the GRI is regarded
as “the de facto global standard” for sustainability reporting [9] and is the most widely
adopted voluntary reporting worldwide [10]. In 2018, the GRI and the United Nations
Global Compact (UNGC) initiated the sustainable development goals (SDGs) for a more
sustainable world. This initiative allows companies to incorporate the SDGs into their
business and reporting processes. The reporting integrates GRI standards with the United
Nations Global Compact Communication on Progress [3]. The contribution to achieving the
SDGs is very important to realize the sustainable development goals in different areas [11].
Several previous studies have found that sustainability reporting in developing coun-
tries is still low. According to Haider [12], several characteristics of developing countries,
such as political, social, and economic aspects, affect sustainability reporting, which is
clearly a problem because most of the world’s population lives in developing countries.
Meanwhile, according to research conducted by Sridhara et al. [13], regional production
systems play an important role in strengthening India’s national sustainable development
priorities. Therefore, in order to realize the dimension sustainable development in a more
meaningful way, sustainability needs to be prioritized in an agrarian economy. Further-
more, the research conducted by Yu et al. [14] found that the policy of the authorities in
promoting waste management and recovery can achieve sustainability, while revealing
that Industry 4.0 played a positive role in the application of circular economy practices and
supply chain capabilities. In addition, the practice of circular economy provides evidence
of a positive relationship with operational and economic performance. On the other hand,
supply chain capability has a positive relationship with operational performance and has
an insignificant relationship with economic performance, while operational performance
improves economic health.
Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on the determinants of sustainability
reporting in developing countries. Several previous systematic literature review studies on
the determinants of sustainability reporting have focused on developing and developed
countries [15,16]. In addition, this study combines sustainability reporting, including the
3P principles (people, planet, profit or economic, environment, and social) with reports that
only cover social and environmental issues. In this regard, it is necessary to conduct a sys-
tematic literature study on the determinants of sustainability reporting (covering the three
principles) specifically for developing countries so that it can be used by decision makers,
academics, and practitioners to improve sustainability reporting in developing countries.
The gap in the literature is the difference in the results of research on the determinants
that affect sustainability reporting in developing countries, which have not been widely
studied. Accordingly, this study is expected to be a reference for further research on this
topic, especially in the decision-making process related to setting priorities in SDG planning
and funding allocation. Therefore, this study focuses on companies in Indonesia. In this
study, Section 1 briefly discusses the background, Section 2 provides information about
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 3 of 18

the theory in this field, Section 3 provides information on the information source, study
selection, data collection process, and data items, Section 4 provide information on the
results of the research, Section 5 summarizes the conclusions obtained from the research.
RQ: What determinant variables of sustainability reporting in developing countries
can be identified through empirical research?

2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainability Reporting Disclosure
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) defines sustainability reporting as a reporting
system enabling all companies and organizations to measure, understand, and communi-
cate responsibly economic, environmental, and social information to stakeholders, both
internal and external, related to the organizational performance of achieving the targets of
sustainable development [4] Sustainability reporting is identified according to the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework consisting of three categories, namely, the economic,
environmental, and social indicators, all of which are measured on the basis of content
analysis to get the disclosure score [17].
Sustainability reporting is an organization’s practice of reporting publicly on its eco-
nomic, environmental, and/or social impacts, thus indicating its contribution, positive or
negative, toward SDGs [3]. Sustainable reporting is practically the measurement, disclosure,
and accountability of organizational performance in achieving sustainable development
goals to internal and external stakeholders [4].
Some advantages of sustainable reporting according to several previous studies are
that companies voluntarily provide information about the economic, environmental, and
social impacts of corporate activities [5]. This reduces the information asymmetry and
increases the transparency of the corporate sustainability activities [6]. Moreover, the
increased transparency of the information provided will make it easier for investors to
evaluate and direct their investments to companies with positive impacts [5]. Further-
more, it can make companies more competitive and gain advantages in the market or
industry [7]. Through sustainability reporting, an organization can identify its significant
impacts on the economy, environment, and/or society and disclose them according to
globally accepted standards.

2.2. Systematic Literature Review

A systematic literature review (SLR) refers to a specific research or research methodol-
ogy and development undertaken to collect and evaluate studies related to certain topics.
Systematic literature reviews are conducted for various purposes, including identifying,
reviewing, evaluating, and interpreting all existing studies in the area of interest with
relevant research questions. A systematic literature review is also often required to define
a research agenda, as part of a dissertation or thesis, and as a complementary part of a
research grant application. A systematic literature review is widely used by researchers and
academics in reviewing the scientific literature because it can avoid bias and a subjective
understanding of the research [18]. SLR has proven to be a method that can provide an
overview of research trends and their effectiveness, as well as coverage of field research in
previous studies [19,20].

3. Research Methods
A Systematic Literature Review was carried out in May 2021 using Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. According to
Liberati et al. [21], this method consists of several stages as follows:
1. Defining eligibility criteria,
2. Defining information sources,
3. Study selection,
4. Data collection process,
5. Data item selection,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 4 of 18

6. Eligibility criteria.
The following inclusion criteria (IC) were used as the systematic literature review
guidelines:
• IC1: all original and peer-reviewed literature written in English,
• IC2: research aimed obtaining the determinant variables of sustainability reporting in
developing countries,
• IC3: research using quantitative or mixed (qualitative and quantitative) method.
For IC1, only research written in English was selected because researchers commonly
use English. Meanwhile, IC2 refers to the definition of sustainable development according
to the World Commission on Environment and Development, i.e., “development that
meets the current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” [22]. To achieve this goal, companies must also consider the economic,
social, and environmental impacts on the community in general and stakeholders in
particular. Elkington [1] introduced the triple bottom line and then also added the concept
of corporate governance to environment and social, governance, which are all related to
the sustainability concept [16]. Meanwhile, the category of developing countries in this
research was based on the “World Economic Situation and Prospect”.
Exclusion criteria for sustainability reporting in this research refer to all reporting
types including only one or two elements, such as CSR. Likewise, reports combining
sustainability reporting with financial reports (integrated reporting) were also excluded. As
for IC3, this research focused on journal articles using a quantitative or mixed (qualitative
and quantitative) method. In other words, journal articles using a qualitative method were
excluded in this research.

3.1. Information Source

The search for information was carried out on an online database with large reposito-
ries of academic studies, namely, Elsevier (SCOPUS), with more than 23,500 peer-reviewed
journals. Not fully accessible articles were also excluded in this research.

3.2. Study Selection

Study selection was conducted in three stages as follows:
1. Using search keywords following the research objectives, namely, the determinants
of sustainability reporting or other keywords of similar reports (“factor*” OR “chal-
lenge*” OR “motivation*” OR “driver*” OR “drive* factor” OR “critical factor*” OR
“critical success factor*” OR “success factor*” OR “key factor*” OR “CSF” OR “deter-
minant*”) AND (“sustainability report*” OR “sustainable report*” OR “global report*”
OR “GRI” OR “TBL report*” OR “triple* report*”).
2. Exploring and selecting the article titles, abstracts, and keywords on the basis of the
eligibility criteria.
3. Exploring and selecting all articles not eliminated in the previous selection by fully
reading all articles while adhering to the eligibility criteria.

3.3. Data Collection Process

The data were collected manually by content analysis-based data extraction, including
the article type, journal name, year of publication, topic, title, research methodology,
respondents/research data, country of research location, variables related to determinants
of sustainability reporting, indicators of sustainability reporting, and research results in the
form of the effects of determinant variables on sustainability reporting.

3.4. Data Items

Data items extracted from each article were summarized as follows: year of publication,
researchers, country and sample, research objectives, research variables, determinants of
sustainability reporting, and research results of the effect of determinant variables on
 respondents/research data, country of research location, variables related to determinants
of sustainability reporting, indicators of sustainability reporting, and research results in
the form of the effects of determinant variables on sustainability reporting.

3.4. Data Items

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 5 of 18
Data items extracted from each article were summarized as follows: year of publica-
tion, researchers, country and sample, research objectives, research variables, determi-
nants of sustainability reporting, and research results of the effect of determinant variables
sustainability reporting.
on sustainability The
reporting. stages
The stagesofofthe
thesystematic
systematicliterature
literaturereview
review are
are presented
presented
comprehensively in Figure
comprehensively in Figure 1.1.

Literature search
Database: Elsevier (SCOPUS)
Key word:
("factor" OR "challenge" OR "motivation" OR "driver" OR "driv factor" OR "critical
factor" OR "critical success factor" OR "success factor" OR "key factor" OR "CSF" OR
"determinant") AND ("sustainability report" OR "sustainable report" OR "global report"
OR "GRI" OR "TBL report" OR "triple report")
Limits: English-language articles only (IC 1)

Search results combined (N = 1254)

Articles screened on basis of title, abstract and keywords

Included (N=102) Excluded (N=1152)

Not met IC2 and IC3

Articles screened on basis of their full text

Excluded (N=78)
Included (N=24)
Not met IC2 and IC3

Selected studies inclued in qualitative synthesis (N=24)

Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA
PRISMA flow
flow diagram.
diagram.

4.
4. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
4.1.
4.1. Research Results and
Research Results and Qualitative
Qualitative Synthesis
Synthesis
The
The search
searchresults
resultsinin
thethe
SCOPUS databases
SCOPUS through
databases the keywords
through the keywords(“factor*” OR “chal-
(“factor*” OR
lenge*” OR “motivation*”
“challenge*” OR “driver*”
OR “motivation*” OR “drive*
OR “driver*” factor” OR
OR “drive* “critical
factor” factor*” OR
OR “critical “critical
factor*” OR
success factor*” OR “success factor*” OR “key factor*” OR “CSF” OR “determinant*”) AND
“critical success factor*” OR “success factor*” OR “key factor*” OR “CSF” OR “determi-
(“sustainability report*” OR “sustainable report*” OR “global report*” OR “GRI” OR “TBL
nant*”) AND (“sustainability report*” OR “sustainable report*” OR “global report*” OR
report*” OR “triple* report*”) resulted in 1254 articles published in the period 1949–2021
“GRI” OR “TBL report*” OR “triple* report*”) resulted in 1254 articles published in the
written in English. The articles were then explored and selected on the basis of IC2 and
period 1949–2021 written in English. The articles were then explored and selected on the
IC3 by considering the titles, abstracts, and keywords, resulting in 102 articles. At the next
basis of IC2 and IC3 by considering the titles, abstracts, and keywords, resulting in 102
stage, the remaining 102 articles were screened again on the basis of IC2 and IC3 by reading
articles. At the next stage, the remaining 102 articles were screened again on the basis of
them fully. One article could not be accessed, which was categorized among those we
IC2 and IC3 by reading them fully. One article could not be accessed, which was
eliminated or did not research. Finally, following this process, 24 articles were left to be
further analyzed.
Several journals on sustainability reporting disclosure were published every year,
mostly in 2020. These journals used qualitative and quantitative approaches. The process
indicated that studies related to sustainability reporting disclosure were still relevant in the
last few years, as depicted in Figure 2 below.
 categorized among those we eliminated or did not research. Finally, following this pro-
cess, 24 articles were left to be further analyzed.
Several journals on sustainability reporting disclosure were published every year,
mostly in 2020. These journals used qualitative and quantitative approaches. The process
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 6 of 18
indicated that studies related to sustainability reporting disclosure were still relevant in
the last few years, as depicted in Figure 2 below.

12
10
10

Publication 6 5

4 3
2
2 1 1 1 1

0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year

Figure2.2.Distribution
Figure Distributionof
ofselected
selectedstudies
studiesover
over10
10years.
years.

Furthermore, aa qualitative
Furthermore, qualitative synthesis
synthesis was
was performed
performed on
on the
the 24
24 selected
selected articles,
articles, as
as
shownin
shown inTable
Table1.1.

Table1.1.List
Table Listof
ofArticles
Articlesand
andQualitative
QualitativeSynthesis.
Synthesis.

No Years Author Title CountryCountry

& Sample
& Purpose
No Years Author Title Purpose
Sample Investigating the direct relationship
The moderating effectThe of environmental Investigating the direct
moderating effect218 companies on the between corporate attributes and SR
Haladu and 218 companies on relationship between corporate
1 2021 agencies of environmental
on firms’ sustainability Nigerian StockStock disclosures, and SR
thedisclosures,
moderating
Nashwan Haladu and the Nigerian attributes and
1 2021 agencies on firms’
Nashwan reporting in Nigeria Exchange, Exchange,
2015–2016 effect and the moderating
of environmental policy
sustainability
2015–2016 effect ofadministrators
environmental policy
reporting in Nigeria
administrators
Effect of firm Investigating the effect of firm
Effect of firm characteristics on firm value Pharmaceutical
characteristics on firm characteristics on the
firmeffect
valueofthrough
through triple bottomvalueline disclosure: companies on the Investigating firm
through triple Pharmaceutical
2 2020 Siahaan et al. TBLcharacteristics
disclosure, using stakeholder
on firm value
pharmaceutical bottom line disclosure: Indonesia
companies on the
2 2020 Siahaan et al. companies listed on Stock through TBL disclosure, using
pharmaceutical Indonesia Stock theory, signal theory, and legitimacy
Indonesia Stock Exchange Exchange stakeholder theory, signal
companies listed on Exchange
theory, andtheory
legitimacy theory
Indonesia Stock
Determinants of sustainability reporting
Exchange Disclosing the determinants that
100 public companies on
3 2020 Oleiwi et al. under a Global Reporting Initiative: of
Determinants affect the level of reporting
the Iraq Stock Exchange Disclosing the determinants
empirical evidencesustainability
from Iraq reporting 100 public sustainability referring to the GRI
that
under a Global companies on the
3 2020 Oleiwi et al.
Determining factors for disclosure of 36 issuers affect the level of reporting
Reporting Initiative: Iraqon the
Stock Investigating the effect of
sustainability referring to the
empirical
sustain ability reporting with inclusiveevidence Exchange
Indonesia Stock stakeholder inclusivity on SR
4 2020 Kholis et al. GRI
from Iraq
stakeholder models in Indonesia Public Exchange for the period disclosure, using the stakeholder
Determining factors for
Company Issuer disclosure of 2017–2018 theory
36 issuers on the Investigating the effect of
sustain ability reporting
Indonesia Stock stakeholder inclusivity on SR
4 2020 Kholis et al. with inclusive
Exchange for the disclosure, using the
stakeholder models in
period 2017–2018 stakeholder theory
Indonesia Public
Company Issuer
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 7 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Country &
No Years Author Title Purpose
Sample
Investigate the factors
influencing the adoption of new
Sustainability reporting
366 companies in SR practices and external
and firms’
developing assurance; examining the
5 2020 Giron et al. economic performance:
countries in Asia relationship between reporting
evidence from Asia and
and Africa actions and the company’s
Africa
economic
performance
Corporate governance
324 samples from
and its implications for
Chile, Colombia, Investigating the determinants of
sustainability reporting
6 2020 Correa-Garcia et al. Mexico, and Peru SR quality in Latin American
quality in Latin
for the period BGs
American business
2011–2015
groups
19 energy Describing the extent of
companies listed reporting
Sustainability reporting
on Dhaka Stock related to sustainability at 19
7 2020 Raquiba & Ishak practices in the energy
Exchange, energy companies in Bangladesh
sector of Bangladesh
Bangladesh from and its
2011 to 2017 determinants
Determinants of Examining the relationship
82 companies
environmental, social, between
listed on the
and corporate financial performance and the
8 2020 Sharma et al. Bombay Stock
governance (ESG) extent of ESG disclosure of
Exchange for the
disclosure: a study of Indian
period 2012–2013
Indian companies. companies
Sustainability reporting
challenges in
developing countries: 194 companies in Investigating the determinants of
toward Uganda the managerial perception base
9 2020 Tauringana
management Manufacturing of the adoption of SR by firms in
perceptions research Association Uganda
evidence-based
practices
LQ45 companies
Managing sustainable
listed on the IDX Identifying of the antecedents of
business practices of
10 2020 Yanto et al. for the period SR disclosure among LG 45
Indonesian LQ45
2014–2016, 135 companies
companies
data sources
Bank financial Investigating whether the
soundness and the 7 conventional disclosure of sustainability
Embuningtiyas disclosure and the banks in Indonesia reporting in banking companies
11 2020
et al. disclosure of banking for the 2014–2018 as measured by content analysis
sustainability reporting Period is influenced by the soundness of
in Indonesia the bank
Board expertise and Investigating the influence of
sustainability 10 Nigerian Banks environmentally sensitive,
12 2019 Umukoro et al.
reporting in listed 2014–2016 certified, or educated board
banks in Nigeria members on SR disclosures
Sustainability reporting
Knowing the empirical evidence
in Indonesian listed 31 commercial
of the influence of ownership
Amidjaya and banks: do corporate banks listed on the
13 2019 structure and corporate
Widagdo governance, ownership IDX from 2012 to
governance on registered banks
structure and digital 2016
in SR Indonesia
banking matter?
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 8 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Country &
No Years Author Title Purpose
Sample
Explaining how institutional,
Drivers of sustainability 100 financial
cultural, and company factors
reporting institutions for
14 2019 Chang et al. affect SR quality and the
quality: financial 2016 using content
moderating effect of the
institution perspective analysis
equatorial principle
Determinants of 53 publicly listed
Investigating the extent and
GRI-based companies on the
Orazalin and determinants of disclosure of the
15 2019 sustainability reporting: Kazakhstan Stock
Mahmood reported sustainability
evidence from an Exchange
performance
emerging economy 2013–2015
Factors influencing
84 publicly Investigating the main corporate
sustainability
16 2019 Dissanayake et al. registered in Sri characteristics influencing SR by
reporting by Sri Lankan
Lanka 2012–2015 public companies in Sri Lanka
companies
A cross-country
investigation of 88 registered
Researching corporate
corporate governance companies in
governance and total
17 2018 Bae et al. and corporate Bangladesh, India,
sustainability disclosure in
sustainability and Pakistan,
developing South Asia
disclosure: a signaling 2009–2016
theory perspective
Board governance and 462 companies
Investigating the relationship
sustainability listed on the
between governance and
disclosure: a Singapore
18 2018 Hu and Loh sustainability disclosure in
cross-sectional study of Exchange
Singapore-listed
Singapore listed Mainboard as of 30
companies
companies June 2016
81 companies in
Managerial perception
the oil and gas,
of corporate Investigating managerial
banking, industrial
19 2018 Nwobu et al. sustainability reporting perceptions of SR determinants
goods, and
determinants in in Nigeria
consumer goods
Nigeria
sectors in Nigeria
The influence of 17 companies Analyzing the level and trend of
institutional registered in corporate responsibility
20 2017 Welbeck environment on Ghana over a 10 disclosure in the annual reports
corporate responsibility year period of companies listed on the Ghana
disclosure in Ghana (2003–2012) Stock Exchange against the GRI
Determinants of Investigating the factors that
sustainability reporting 100 issuers of affect GRI-based SRs, adoption
and its impact on firm Borsa assurance statements, and
21 2016 Kuzey and Uyar
value: evidence from Istanbul for the application-level SRs; examining
the emerging market of period 2011–2013 whether SRs are
Turkey value-relevant
Examining SR in public listed
Sustainability reporting 60 Sri Lanka public companies in Sri Lanka, as well
22 2016 Dissanayake et al. by publicly listed companies for as its extent, nature, and possible
companies in Sri Lanka 2011–2012 drivers, particularly the use of
KPIs
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 9 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Country &
No Years Author Title Purpose
Sample
113 companies
The Influence of from 12 countries
governance structure (Australia, New Examining the influence of
and strategic corporate Zealand, China, governance structure on the
23 2014 Amran et al. social Malaysia, quality of SR in the Asia Pacific
responsibility toward Philippines, region using legitimacy theory
sustainability Singapore, Taiwan, and resource-based view theory
reporting quality Thailand, and
Japan)
Interpreting the interview
Evidence in
findings (i.e., mechanisms are
development of 201 companies
Amran and isomorphic, coercive, normative,
24 2011 sustainability reporting: listed on Bursa
Haniffa and memtic) through
a case of Malaysia
institutional theory for possible
developing country
determinant identification

4.2. Systematization of Determinants

From the 24 selected articles, the determinants of sustainability reporting were further
analyzed with the following additional criteria:
1. Sustainability reporting was used as the dependent variable;
2. As the dependent variable, Sustainability reporting was measured or calculated in
various forms, such as disclosure, quality, extent, or score;
3. Determinants included as research results were those studied at least in three articles
and used as independent variables. In other words, determinants included or studied
in 1–2 articles only were excluded as research results;
4. Research focused on companies or holding companies;
5. Research with determinants related to the country was excluded;
6. Research with determinants related to industrial groups was excluded.
On the basis of the criteria above, the determinants, indicators, results, conclusions,
and references of sustainability reporting are presented in Table 2 (containing 37 indicators).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 10 of 18

Table 2. Determinants of sustainability reporting.

Determinant
No Indicator Result Conclusion Previous Research
Variable
Many employees Positive/negative Giron et al. (2020) [5], Kuzey and Uyar (2016) [11], Haladu
Total assets Positive/negative and Nashwan (2021) [23], Tauringana (2020) [24], Sharma
1 Firm Size Market capitalization Negative Inconsistent results et al. (2020) [25], Orazalin and Mahmood (2019) [26],
Sales amount Positive/negative Dissanayake et al. (2016) [27], Chang et al. [28],
Number of regions Not significant Dissanayake et al. (2019) [29], Amran and Haniffa
(2011) [30]
Return on assets (ROA) Positive/not significant
Giron et al. (2020) [5], Kuzey and Uyar (2016) [11], Haladu
EBITDA Not significant
and Nashwan (2021) [23],
Profit margin Positive Non-negative effect,
2 Profitability Sharma et al. (2020) [25], Orazalin and Mahmood
Return on equity (ROE) Positive/not significant positive trend
(2019) [26], Dissanayake et al. (2016) [27], Embuningtias
Return on capital employed
Positive et al. (2020) [31], Siahaan et al. (2020) [32]
(ROCE)
Revenue Not significant
Ratio of total liabilities to Giron et al. (2020) [5], Kholis et al. (2020) [8], Kuzey and
Positive/negative
3 Financial Leverage total assets Inconsistent results Uyar (2016) [11], Haladu and Nashwan (2021) [23],
Negative/not Orazalin and Mahmood (2019) [26], Siahaan et al.
Debt-to-equity ratio
significant (2020) [32]
Positive/not
Gender diversity
significant
Average age BOD Not significant Giron et al. (2020) [5], Haladu and Nashwanl (2021) [23],
Corporate Positive/ Inconsistent results on Correa-Gargia et al. (2020) [33], Raquiba and lshak
4
Governance Structure Board size negative/not board size (2020) [34], Yanto et al. (2020) [35], Bae et al. (2018) [36], Hu
significant and Loh (2018) [37], Amran et al. (2013) [38]
Proportion of independent
Positive/not significant
directors on the board
Board meetings held in a
Positive
year
Number of board
subordinate Positive
committees
CEO duality Not significant
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222
Table 2. Cont.
Determinant
No Indicator
Variable
Institutional ownership
Foreign ownership
Ownership concentration
5 Ownership Structure
Majority shareholder
Government ownership
Management ownership
Family ownership
Dispersed ownership
structure
6 Firm Age Company age
7 Industrial Sector Industrial sector
Mention of the company’s
social and environmental
8 Corporate Posture
responsibilities in a mission
or vision statement
Board experience and
qualifications
Council expertise
9 Board
Executive director skills
Skills of nonexecutive
director
Director’s education level
11 of 18
Result Conclusion Previous Research
Positive
Positive/not Kholis et al. (2020) [8], Kuzey and Uyar (2016) [11],
significant Tauringana (2020) [24], Sharma et al. (2020) [25], Chang
Positive/negative et al. (2019) [28], Dissanayake et al. (2019) [29], Amran and
Inconsistent results
Positive Haniffa (2011) [30], Siahaan et al. (2020) [32], Correa-Garcia
Positive/ et al. (2020) [33], Raquiba and Ishak (2020) [34], Bae et al.
negative/not (2018) [36], Amidjaya and Widagdo (2019) [39],
significant
Positive/negative
Positive
Not significant
Haladu and Nashwan (2021) [23], Tauringana (2020) [24],
Positive/not Orazalin and Mahmood (2019) [26], Dissanayake et al.
Positive tendencies
significant (2016) [27], Siahaan et al. (2020) [32], Correa-Garcia et al.
(2020) [33]
Giron et al. (2020) [5], Kuzey and Ural (2016) [11], Sharma
Positive/not
Positive tendencies et al. (2020) [25], Dissanayake et al. (2019) [29], Amran and
significant
Haniffa (2011) [30], Oleiwi et al. (2020) [40]
Positive/not Positive trend, Chang et al. (2019) [28], Amran and Haniffa (2011) [30],
significant research is still scarce Raquiba and Ishak (2020) [34], Amran et al. (2013) [38]
Not significant
Positive Positive trend, Umukoro et al. (2019) [17], Tauringana (2020) [24], Amran
Not significant research is still scarce and Haniffa (2011) [30]
Not significant
Positive
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 12 of 18

4.3. Variable Determinants

4.3.1. Firm Size
The company size determinant was used in 10 studies [5,11,24–30]. Tauringana [24]
and Dissanayake et al. [27] found a positive relationship between company size and
sustainability reporting using the number of employees as an indicator, while Giron et al. [5]
found the opposite result (negative relationship). On the other hand, using the total asset
calculation indicator, Giron et al. [5], Sharma et al. [25], Orazalin and Mahmood [26], and
Kuzey and Uyar [11] found a positive relationship between company size and sustainability
reporting, while Haladu and Nashwan [23] found the opposite result (negative relationship).
Moreover, using the market capitalization indicator, Giron et al. [5] found a negative
relationship between company size and sustainability reporting. A positive relationship
between company size and sustainability reporting was also found by Sharma et al. [25]
and Amran and Haniffa [30] using total sales as an indicator. Meanwhile, Chang et al. [28]
found an insignificant effect of company size on sustainability reporting using the number
of regions as an indicator.

4.3.2. Profitability
The profitability determinant was used in eight studies [5,11,23,25–27,31]. Sharma
et al. [25], and Embuningtias et al. [31] found a positive relationship between return on
assets (ROA) and sustainability reporting, while Giron et al. [5] found no significant re-
lationship between the two. Giron et al. [5] also showed no significant effect of EBITDA
on sustainability reporting but found a positive correlation between profit margin and
sustainability reporting. Furthermore, Haladu and Nashwan [23] and Orazalin and Mah-
mood [26] found a positive relationship between return on equity (ROE) and sustainability
reporting, while Giron et al. [5] and Dissanayake et al. [27] found no significant relationship
between the two. Sharma et al. [25] found a positive correlation between return on capital
employed (ROCE) and sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, Dissanayake et al. [27] found
no significant effect on sustainability reporting using the revenue indicator.

4.3.3. Financial Leverage

The financial leverage determinant was used in six studies [5,8,11,23,26,32]. Using
the ratio of total liabilities to total assets as an indicator, Giron et al. [5], Orazalin and
Mahmood [26], and Kuzey and Uyar [11] found a negative relationship between financial
leverage and sustainability reporting, while Siahaan et al. [32], using the same indicator,
found a positive relationship between the two. On the other hand, Haladu and Nash-
wan [23], using the debt-to-equity ratio as an indicator, found a negative relationship
between financial leverage and sustainability reporting, while Kholis et al. [8] did not find
a significant relationship between the two.

4.3.4. Corporate Governance Structure

The corporate governance structure determinant was used in nine studies [5,23,30,33–37].
Using the gender diversity indicator, Giron et al. [5] found a positive relationship between
corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting, while Amran et al. [38] found no
significant relationship. Similarly, using the average age of BOD as an indicator, Giron et al. [5]
showed no significant effect of corporate governance structure on sustainability reporting.
Furthermore, using the board size indicator, Correa-Garcia et al. [33], Raquiba and Ishak [34],
Bae et al. [36], and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between Corporate governance
structure and sustainability reporting, Haladu and Nashwan [23] found a negative relationship
between the two, and Amran et al. did not find a significant relationship.
Using the proportion of independent directors on board as an indicator, Raquiba and
Ishak [34], Bae et al. [36], and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between corpo-
rate governance structure and sustainability reporting, while Correa-Garcia et al. [33] and
Amran et al. [38] did not find a significant relationship between the two. As for the number
of board meetings held in a year as an indicator, Raquiba and Ishak [34], Yanto et al. [35],
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 13 of 18

and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between corporate governance structure
and sustainability reporting. Likewise, Raquiba and Ishak [34] and Amran et al. [38] found
a positive relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability report-
ing through the number of subordinate committees of board as an indicator. Meanwhile,
Hu and Loh [37], using the CEO duality indicator, did not find a significant relationship
between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting.

4.3.5. Ownership Structure

The ownership structure determinant was used in 13 studies [8,11,24,25,28–30,32,33,36,39].
Using the institutional ownership indicator, Raquiba and Ishak [35], Siahaan et al. [32], Chang
et al. [28], and Bae et al. [36] found a positive relationship between ownership structure and
sustainability reporting. Using the foreign ownership indicator, Kholis et al. [8], Tauringana [24],
Correa-Garcia et al. [33], Raquiba and Ishak [34], Amidjaya and Widagdo [39], Chang et al. [28],
and Bae et al. [36] showed a positive relationship between ownership structure and sustainability
reporting. In contrast, using the same indicator, Sharma et al. [25], Dissanayake et al. [29], and
Amran and Haniffa [30] did not find a significant relationship between the two.
Kholis et al. [8], using the majority of shareholder as an indicator, found a positive
relationship between ownership structure and sustainability reporting, while Correa-Garcia
et al. [33] found a negative relationship between the two. The three studies using the
government ownership indicator had different results. Raquiba and Ishak [34] obtained a
positive relationship between ownership structure and sustainability reporting. In contrast,
Chang et al. [28] found a negative relationship, while Amran and Haniffa [30] did not find
a significant relationship between the two. Using the management ownership indicator,
Raquiba and Ishak [34] found a positive relationship between management ownership
and sustainability reporting. Bae et al. [36] found a negative relationship between the
two. Amidjaya and Widagdo [39], using the family ownership indicator, found a positive
relationship between family ownership and sustainability reporting. On the other hand,
Kuzey and Uyar [11], using the dispersed ownership structure indicator, did not find a
significant relationship between the two.

4.3.6. Firm Age

The firm age determinant was used in six studies [23,24,26,27,32,33]. Haladu and
Nashwan [23] found that the level of sustainability reporting was very low, whereas Siahaan
et al. (2020) and Correa-Garcia et al. [33] found a positive relationship between company
age and sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, Tauringana [24] found that GRI efforts had a
limited impact on increasing SR in developing countries, Orazalin and Mahmood [26] found
that determinants such as independent reporting, reporting language, firm profitability, firm
size, and type of auditor substantially affected the level, nature, and quality of Kazakstan’s
corporate sustainability reporting practices, and research conducted by Tauringana [24] and
Dissanayake et al. [27] found a size effect on the basis of market capitalization and number
of employees being very significant, supporting H1A, finding no positive relationship
between the two.

4.3.7. Industrial Sector

Industrial sector indicators were used in seven studies [5,11,25,27,29,30,40]. Oleiwi
et al. [40], Giron et al. [5], and Sharma et al. [25] found that financial and market performance
had a positive and significant relationship with the level of ESG disclosure, while FII’s stock
and leverage had a negative and significant relationship with the level of ESG disclosure.
Kuzey et al. [11] found that firm size is a significant determinant of sustainability reporting;
therefore, larger companies are more likely to publish sustainability reports than smaller
companies. Further research conducted by Amran and Haniffa [30] found that only large
government-linked companies in the plantation industry have a significant amount of
sustainability reporting, showing a positive relationship between the industrial sector and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 14 of 18

sustainability reporting. In contrast, Dissanayake et al. [27,29] did not find a significant
relationship between the two.

4.3.8. Corporate Posture

Determinants of corporate posture were used in four studies [28,30,34]. Chang
et al. [28], Amran et al. [38], and Amran and Haniffa [30] found a significant relation-
ship (at the 5% level) between the two corporate governance variables (i.e., the chairman
who is a nonexecutive director and the dominance of family members on the board) and
the level of voluntary disclosure. These studies indicated a positive relationship between
corporate posture and sustainability. Meanwhile, Raquiba and Ishak [34] found that the
energy sector in any country has an important role in economic development, while it
is also important to maintain responsibility for employees, the environment, and society
in general. Breadth reporting on sustainability by working companies in Bangladesh’s
energy sector is bleak. Nevertheless, it is significantly affected by the number of subor-
dinate committees of the board, number of board meetings held during the year, board
independence, board size, and ownership structure company. This study did not find a
significant relationship between the two.

4.3.9. Board Qualification and Experience

The board qualification and experience determinant was used in three studies [17,24,30].
Using the board expertise indicator, Tauringana [24] found that board qualification and expe-
rience are positively correlated with sustainability reporting. Similarly, using the director’s
education level indicator, Umukoro et al. [17] discovered that board qualification and experience
are positively correlated to sustainable reporting. Using the board experience and qualification
indicator, Amran and Haniffa [30] did not find a significant effect of board qualification and
experience on sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, using the director’s expertise and nonexec-
utive director’s expertise, Umukoro et al. [17] did not find a significant relationship between
the two.

4.4. Discussion
According to the 24 selected articles describing the determinants of the sustainability
reporting variable as presented in Tables 1 and 2, there were a total of nine determinants,
namely, company size, profitability, financial leverage, corporate governance structure,
ownership structure, company age, industrial sector, corporate posture, and board qualifi-
cation and experience. The nine determinants are shown below.
The first determinant, firm size, refers to an important factor influencing sustainability
reporting because a larger company with a bigger impact will make it more visible in the
eyes of stakeholders. In other words, the company will be more supervised by stakeholders,
have more potential to be regulated, and get more attention from the media [27]. A study
conducted by Sumiani et al. [41] on the sustainability reporting of large companies in
Malaysia concluded that company size is one of the factors influencing sustainability
reporting due to the increasing stakeholder demand for information on large companies
and the increasing external pressure faced companies. This is consistent with the previous
studies finding an increase in environmental disclosure in large companies [27].
The second determinant, profitability, refers to a company’s ability to earn a profit
within a certain period. Similarly, Husnan [42] defines profitability as a company’s ability
to generate a profit at a certain level of sales, assets, and share capital. Haladu and
Nashwan [23] and Orazalin and Mahmood [26] found a positive relationship between
corporate profitability and sustainability reporting.
The third determinant, financial leverage, refers to the use of external sources of funds
(debts) by a company to acquire additional assets; as a consequence, the company must
bear a fixed cost in the form of interest and installment debt [43]. Leverage also reflects
the company’s ability to meet its obligation to bear the corporate fixed costs and debts.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 15 of 18

In this case, a company’s financial leverage can affect sustainability reporting, ultimately
influencing the corporate performance [23].
The fourth determinant, corporate governance structure, refers to a set of regulations
for the relationship between shareholders, corporate management, creditors, government,
employees, and other internal and external stakeholders related to their rights and obli-
gations, or, in other words, a system regulating and controlling a company. Corporate
governance structure can play an important role in sustainability reporting behavior [27,29].
The indicators mostly used in this determinant include the proportion of independent
directors on board [44], the number of subordinate committees of board, the number of
board meetings held in a year, the CEO duality, and the ratio of the number of directors
representing the interests of active divided shareholders to directors on board [16,45].
The fifth determinant, ownership structure, is generally calculated using proxies,
including the percentages of government ownership, foreign ownership, institutional
ownership, and concentrated or dispersed ownership [34]. Ownership structure is the
proportion of managerial ownership, institutional ownership, and public ownership, rep-
resenting a mechanism to reduce conflicts between management and shareholders [46].
The structure of share ownership can influence a company’s operation, which affects the
company’s performance in achieving its goal of maximizing corporate values.
The sixth determinant, company age, refers to a company’s maturity level. A company
improves the information disclosed over time. An increasing company age is in line
with the company’s growing disclosure. A longer existence in business will motivate a
company’s corporate disclosure (stakeholder theory), as well as more extensive disclosure of
financial information. Companies with a longer existence or age also have more experience
disclosing annual reports. Accordingly, it can be concluded that companies with a long life
can be considered mature and more extensive in making disclosures.
The seventh determinant, industrial sectors, refers to the type of industry run by a
company. According to Ahmad [47], the industry has a positive and significant effect
on sustainability reporting. Trencansky et al. [48] found the opposite result with the
same variables, whereby the type of industry did not significantly affect the disclosure of
sustainability activities and was negatively correlated with sustainability reporting. The
legitimacy theory supports this statement that disclosures made by companies depend on
environmental factors, including social, economic, and political [49].
The eighth determinant, corporate posture, applies to companies that continuously
monitor their relationship with key stakeholders and manage the interdependence rela-
tionship at the optimum level. Chan and Kent [50] measured corporate strategic posture
through the existence of a social and/or environmental reporting committee in the com-
pany and through the existence of corporate responsibility for social and/or environmental
factors contained in the corporate vision and mission [34].
The ninth determinant, board qualification and experience, refers to the corporate
director’s ability level. However, this determinant is not observable in most cases; thus, it is
typically measured as a function of educational qualifications. Further research concluded
that a high level of managerial ability and performance is often consistent with a high
educational level of directors [51].
On the basis of the discussion above, the nine determinants obtained from the 24 se-
lected articles (previous studies) had inconsistent results, representing the novelty of this
research. The results indicated both consistent and inconsistent results on the determinants
of sustainable reporting according to previous studies. The results indicated inconsistencies
in the company size, financial leverage, and ownership structure determinants, whereas
the research results of corporate posture and board qualification and experience tended to
show positive results. However, research focusing on these determinants remains rare; thus,
these inconsistencies become challenges to be further studied in Indonesia’s companies.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 16 of 18

5. Conclusions
On the basis of the designed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 studies were selected
and identified. The analysis of the main study revealed that research related to sustain-
ability reporting focuses on nine topics and trends: company size, profitability, financial
leverage, corporate governance structure, ownership structure, company age, industry
sector, company posture, and board qualifications and experience. The results of this
study highlight innovations that refer to previous relevant studies, which adds insight
into sustainability reporting. However, the results of the selected articles showed incon-
sistencies. Some results showed a significant relationship between the determinants and
company sustainability, while others showed the opposite result (insignificant relationship
between the two variables). This inconsistency is expected to be investigated further by
further researchers.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.F. and M.A.M.; methodology, C.R.D.; software, H.N.U.;
validation, C.R.D.; formal analysis, S.F.; investigation, S.F.; resources, S.F.; data curation, C.R.D.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.F.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M.; visualization, S.F.;
supervision, S.F.; project administration, H.N.U.; funding acquisition, C.R.D. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to all those who helped in the design process that led to
the creation of this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Elkington, J. The triple bottom line. Environ. Manag. Read. Cases 1997, 2, 49–66.
2. Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2012,
43, 834–864. [CrossRef]
3. Setting the Agenda for the Future. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).
4. Alaraji, F.A.A.S.; Aljuhishi, B.I.M. The Scope of Applicability of the Standard of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for
Sustainability in the Iraqi’s Environment. Qual.-Access Success 2020, 21, 102–110.
5. Girón, A.; Kazemikhasragh, A.; Cicchiello, A.F.; Panetti, E. Sustainability Reporting and Firms’ Economic Performance: Evidence
from Asia and Africa. J. Knowl. Econ. 2020, 12, 1741–1759. [CrossRef]
6. Nobanee, H.; Ellili, N. Corporate sustainability disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from UAE banks: Islamic versus
conventional. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1336–1341. [CrossRef]
7. Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Ethics
2013, 118, 13–29. [CrossRef]
8. Kholis, A. Determining Factors for Disclosure of Sustainability Reporting with Inclusive Stakeholder Models in Indonesia Public
Company Issuer. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 657–667. [CrossRef]
9. KPMG Annual Review. Available online: http://fs.monadnockresearch.com/pubfiles/KPMG_2011_Annual_Review.pdf (ac-
cessed on 2 July 2022).
10. Brown, H.S.; de Jong, M.; Lessidrenska, T. The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship.
Environ. Politics 2009, 18, 182–200. [CrossRef]
11. Kuzey, C.; Uyar, A. Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emerging market of
Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 27–39. [CrossRef]
12. Haider, M.B. An overview of corporate social and environmental reporting (CSER) in developing countries. Issues Soc. Environ.
Account. 2010, 4, 3–17. [CrossRef]
13. Sridhara, S.; Gopakkali, P.; Manoj, K.N.; Patil, K.K.R.; Paramesh, V.; Jha, P.K.; Prasad, P.V. Identification of sustainable development
priorities for agriculture through sustainable livelihood security indicators for Karnataka, India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1831.
[CrossRef]
14. Yu, Z.; Khan, S.A.R.; Ponce, P.; Muhammad Zia-ul-haq, H.; Ponce, K. Exploring essential factors to improve waste-to-resource
recovery: A roadmap towards sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 350, 131305. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 17 of 18

15. Hahn, R.; Kühnen, M. Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an
expanding field of research. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 5–21. [CrossRef]
16. Dienes, D.; Sassen, R.; Fischer, J. What Are the Drivers of Sustainability Reporting? A Systematic Review. Sustain. Account. Manag.
Policy J. 2016, 7, 154–189. [CrossRef]
17. Umukoro, O.E.; Uwuigbe, O.R.; Uwuigbe, U.; Adegboye, A.; Ajetunmobi, O.; Nwaze, C. Board expertise and sustainability
reporting in listed banks in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, International
Conference on Energy and Sustainable Environment Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria, 18–20 June 2019; Volume 331.
18. Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering; Keele University:
Newcastle, UK, 2007.
19. Borrett, S.R.; Sheble, L.; Moody, J.; Anway, E.C. Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016. Ecol. Model. 2018,
382, 63–82. [CrossRef]
20. Wahono, R.S. Systematic Literature Review: Pengantar, Tahapan Dan Studi Kasus. 2020. Available online: https:
//romisatriawahono.net/2016/05/15/systematic-literature-review-pengantar-tahapan-dan-studi-kasus/ (accessed on 2
July 2022).
21. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin.
Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [CrossRef]
22. WCED. World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1987, 17, 1–91.
23. Haladu, A.; Bin-Nashwan, S.A. The moderating effect of environmental agencies on firms’ sustainability reporting in Nigeria. Soc.
Responsib. J. 2021, 18, 388–402, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
24. Tauringana, V. Sustainability reporting Challenges in Developing Countries: Towards Management Perceptions Research
Evidence-Based Practices. J. Acc. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 11, 194–215. [CrossRef]
25. Sharma, P.; Priyanka, P.; Dangwal, R.C. Determinants of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) Disclosure: A
Study of Indian Companies. Int. J. Discl. Gov. 2020, 17, 208–217. [CrossRef]
26. Orazalin, N.; Mahmood, M. Determinants of GRI-Based Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. J.
Account. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 10, 140–164. [CrossRef]
27. Dissanayake, D.; Tilt, C.; Xydias-Lobo, M. Sustainability Reporting by Publicly Listed Companies in Sri Lanka. J. Clean. Prod.
2016, 129, 169–182. [CrossRef]
28. Chang, W.F.; Amran, A.; Iranmanesh, M.; Foroughi, B. Drivers of sustainability reporting quality: Financial institution perspective.
Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2019, 35, 632–650. [CrossRef]
29. Dissanayake, D.; Tilt, C.; Qian, W. Factors Influencing Sustainability Reporting by Sri Lankan Companies. Pac. Account. Rev. 2019,
31, 84–109. [CrossRef]
30. Amran, A.; Haniffa, R. Evidence in Development of Sustainability reporting: A Case of a Developing Country. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2011, 20, 141–156. [CrossRef]
31. Embuningtiyas, S.S.; Puspasari, O.R.; Gede Satia Utama, A.A.; Ardianti, R.I. Bank Financial Soundness and the Disclosure of
Banking Sustainability Reporting in Indonesia. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 10, 237–247.
32. Siahaan, Y.; Susanti, E.; Sudirman, A. Effect of firm characteristics on firm value through triple bottom line disclosure: Pharma-
ceutical companies listed on Indonesia stock exchange. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2020, 9, 2228–2234.
33. Correa-Garcia, J.A.; Garcia-Benau, M.A.; Garcia-Meca, E. Corporate Governance and Its Implications for Sustainability Reporting
Disclosure in Latin American Business Groups. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121142. [CrossRef]
34. Raquiba, H.; Ishak, Z. Sustainability Reporting Practices in the Energy Sector of Bangladesh. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10,
508–516. [CrossRef]
35. Yanto, H.; Zulaikhah, E.; Baroroh, N.; Susanti, S. Managing Sustainable Business Practices of Indonesian LQ45 Companies. Int. J.
Innov. Creat. Change 2020, 12.
36. Bae, S.M.; Masud, M.A.K.; Kim, J.D. A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure:
A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2611. [CrossRef]
37. Hu, M.; Loh, L. Board governance and sustainability disclosure: A cross-sectional study of Singapore-listed companies. Sustain-
ability 2018, 10, 2578. [CrossRef]
38. Amran, A.; Lee, S.P.; Devi, S.S. The Influence of Governance Structure and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility toward
Sustainability Reporting Disclosure. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 23, 217–235. [CrossRef]
39. Amidjaya, P.G.; Widagdo, A.K. Sustainability reporting in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, ownership structure
and digital banking matter? J. Appl. Account. Res. 2019, 21. [CrossRef]
40. Oleiwi, Z.H.; Mohsin, N.M.; Ibtihaj, I. Yaqoob Determinants of Sustainability Reporting under a Global Reporting Initiative
Empirical Evidence from Iraq. Business, Economics. Int. J. Innovasion Creat. Chang. 2020, 10.
41. Sumiani, Y.; Haslinda, Y.; Lehman, G. Environmental reporting in a developing country: A case study on status and implementa-
tion in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 895–901. [CrossRef]
42. Husnan, S. Pengertian dan Konsep Konsep Dasar Keuangan. 2021. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/42281964
/Modul_1_Pengertian_dan_Konsep_konsep_Dasar_Keuangan (accessed on 2 July 2022).
43. Suhadak, A.H.; Darmawan, A. Pemikiran Kebijakan Manajemen Keuangan; Universitas Brawijaya: Malang, Indonesia, 2003.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10222 18 of 18

44. Khan, M.; Hassan, A. Environmental reporting in Pakistan’s oil and gas industry. Int. Res. J. Bus. Stud. 2019, 12, 15–29. [CrossRef]
45. Fernandes, S.; Rinaldo, A.A.R.A.A. The mediating effect of service quality and organizational commitment on the effect of
management process alignment on higher education performance in Makassar, Indonesia. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2018, 31,
410–425. [CrossRef]
46. Fernandes, A.A.R. Moderating effects orientation and innovation strategy on the effect of uncertainty on the performance of
business environment. Int. J. Law Manag. 2017, 59, 1211–1219. [CrossRef]
47. Ahmad WN, K.W.; de Brito, M.P.; Tavasszy, L.A. Sustainable supply chain management in the oil and gas industry: A review of
corporate sustainability reporting practices. Benchmarking 2016, 23, 1423–1444. [CrossRef]
48. Trencansky, D.; Tsaparlidis, D. The Effects of Company s Age, Size and Type of Industry on the Level of CSR: The Development of
A New Scale for Measurement of the Level of CSR. Master’s Thesis, Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå, Sweden,
2014.
49. Fernandes, A.A.R.; Budiantara, I.N.I.; Otok, B.W.; Suharton. Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space for penalized regression multi-
predictors: Case in longitudinal data. Int. J. Math. Anal. 2018, 8, 1951–1961. [CrossRef]
50. Chan, S.H.; Kent, P. Application of stakeholder theory to the quantity and quality of Australian voluntary corporate environmental
disclosures. 2003. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=447901 (accessed on 2 July 2022).
51. Kagzi, M.; Guha, M. Does board demographic diversity influence firm performance? Evidence from Indian-knowledge intensive
firms. Benchmarking 2018, 25. [CrossRef]