REVIEW JURNAL

“ Jurnal Nasional dan Jurnal Internasional ”

Diajukan Untuk Memenuhi Ujian Akhir Semester Mata Kuliah Teori Akuntansi

Dosen Pengampu :

Dr. Nurhayati., SE.,M.SA.,QIA.,CFrA.,AK

Disusun oleh :

Hafifatul Masruroh (170221100108)

PROGRAM STUDI AKUNTANSI

FAKULTAS EKONOMI DAN BISNIS
UNIVERSITAS TRUNOJOYO MADURA
BANGKALAN
2020
 Jurnal : Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, Vol.2 (1), 2017 (Terakreditasi S2
Science and Technology Index (SINTA))

Pengaruh Pengungkapan Informasi Proyeksi dan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan

Terhadap Koefisien Respon Laba (2017)
Oleh: Indarti Diah Palupi, Diah Ayu Wulandari dan Dyah Ayu Safitri

A. Motivation Of Research

1. Nilai Earning Response Coefficient (ERC) sangat bervariasi pada berbagai perusahaan
yang dipengaruhi oleh banyak faktor, antara lain pertumbuhan laba akuntansi dan resiko
beta, ukuran perusahaan, metodologi akuntansi, kualitas auditor dan default risk.
2. Faktor-faktor lain yang berpengaruh terhadap ERC adalah tata kelola perusahaan, tingkat
pengungkapan sukarela, serta corporate social responsibility (CSR) atau tanggung jawab
sosial perusahaan (Abolfazl dkk. 2013; Sayekti dan Wondabio 2007; Holbrook 2013).
3. Pengungkapan sukarela sebagai salah satu faktor yang mempengaruhi koefisien respon
laba merupakan pengungkapan informasi melebihi pengungkapan informasi yang
diwajibkan karena dipandang relevan dengan kebutuhan pemakai (Meek dkk. 1995).
4. Untuk mengetahui pengaruh pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan CSR terhadap
koefisien respon laba karena pengungkapan sukarela berupa informasi proyeksi terhadap
ERC belum banyak.
5. Hasil penelitian mengenai pengaruh pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial terhadap
koefisien respon laba masih bervariasi.
 6. Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya sangat beragam, karena
perbedaan lokasi, waktu, industri serta kondisi perusahaan.
7. Formula untuk menghitung ERC cukup beragam di antara penelitian-penelitian
sebelumnya yaitu menggunakan future expected dividends, regresi antara cummulative
abnormal return (CAR) dan unexpected earning (UE) menggunakan periode window yang
berbeda.
B. Objection Of Research

Pada penelitian ini akan menguji dan mengamati pengaruh pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi dan tanggung jawab sosial terhadap koefisien respon laba menggunakan sampel
perusahaan yang terdaftar pada LQ 45 dengan formula ERC menggunakan regresi antara CAR
dan UE berdasarkan window 5 hari sebelum dan sesudah pengumuman laba.
Hal tersebut disebabkan karena semua perusahaan publik diwajibkan untuk memenuhi
pengungkapan minimum, yang terdapat perbedaan substansial dalam jumlah tambahan
informasi yang diungkap ke pasar modal. Salah satu cara meningkatkan kredibilitas perusahaan
adalah melalui tingkat pengungkapan sukarela secara lebih luas dan membantu investor dalam
memahami strategi bisnis manajemen (Healy dan Palepu 1993).

C. Grand Theory
Dalam memperkuat penelitian yang dilakukan, penulis menggunakan 3 landasan teori
yaitu Agency Theory, Signalling Theory dan Legitimacy Theory.
D. Hypothesis

ERC merupakan bentuk reaksi terhadap pengumuman laba perusahaan. Menurut

Suwarjono (2005) ERC merupakan kepekaan return saham terhadap setiap rupiah laba yang
disebut dengan unexpected earning. Unexpected earning sendiri merupakan selisih antara laba
harapan dan laba aktual dan menunjukkan informasi yang belum tertangkap oleh pasar
sehingga pasar akan bereaksi pada saat pengumuman laba. Selisih tersebut menunjukkan
adanya asimetry information. Untuk mengatasi asimetry information, maka diperluaslah
pengungkapan, sehingga jika perusahaan mengumumkan informasi proyeksi dan CSR akan
menurunkan ERC.
Menurut Widiastuti (2002) informativeness of earnings akan semakin besar ketika
terdapat ketidakpastian mengenai prospek perusahaan di masa datang (dalam Sayekti dan
Wondabio 2007). Jika ketidakpastian semakin tinggi maka ERC semakin tinggi. Untuk itu, jika
perusahaan melakukan pengungkapan informasi dalam laporan tahunannya dapat mengurangi
 ketidakpastian tersebut. Mengurangi ketidapastian akan menurunkan ERC. Berdasarkan
paparan di atas, hipotesis penelitian ini adalah :
H1 : Pengungkapan informasi proyeksi berpengaruh negatif terhadap koefisien
respon laba.
H2 : Pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial berpengaruh negatif terhadap koefisien
respon laba.
E. The Methodology Of Research

1. Populasi dan Sampel Penelitian

Populasi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah perusahaan-perusahaan yang
terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Sampel penelitian diambil dari populasi di atas dengan
teknik pengambilan sampel berdasarkan metode purposive sampling dengan kriteria-
kriteria sebagai berikut :
a. Perusahaan yang tergabung dalam LQ 45 dan melakukan pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi serta tanggungjawab sosial tahun 2014.
b. Perusahaan memiliki data lengkap yang dibutuhkan dalam penelitian ini.
c. Perusahaan yang memiliki data ekstrim dikeluarkan dari sampel agar kesimpulan tidak
menyesatkan.
2. Data dan Sumber Data
Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder yang dikumpulkan dengan cara cross section
yaitu pengumpulan data dari berbagai perusahaan untuk periode laporan tahunan 2014.
Perusahaan-perusahaan yang dijadikan sampel dalam penelitian ini berasal dari berbagai
industri yang tergabung pada LQ 45 periode Agustus 2014 - Januari 2015. Data-data
sampel dikumpulkan dari laporan tahunan dan laporan berkelanjutan (sustainability
report) masing-masing perusahaan yang diunduh dari website perusahaan-perusahaan
tersebut serta dari performance summary yang diperoleh dari website Bursa Efek
Indonesia (IDX).
3. Variabel
a. Variabel Dependen
Variabel dependen dalam penelitian ini adalah ERC. ERC merupakan koefisien respon
dari laba akuntansi yang diperoleh dengan meregresikan cummulative abnormal return
(CAR) dengan unexpected return (UE).
(1)
Keterangan :
CARit : cumulative abnormal return perusahaan i pada tahun t
α0 : konstanta
α1 : koefisien ERC
UEit : unexpected earnings perusahaan i pada tahun t
Berikut adalah rumus untuk menghitung abnormal return:

Pit − Pit−1
Rit = (2)
Pit−1

IHSGit−IHSGit−1
Rmt = (3)
IHSGt−1

Arit = Rit – Rmt (4)

Keterangan :
ARit : Abnormal return untuk perusahaan i pada hari ke-t.
Rit : Return harian perusahaan i pada hari ke-t.
Rmt : Return indeks pasar pada hari ke-t.
Pit : Harga saham perusahaan i pada waktu t.
Pit-1 : Harga saham perusahaan i pada waktu t-1.
IHSGit : Indeks Harga Saham Gabungan pada waktu t.
IHSGt-1 : Indeks Harga Saham Gabungan pada waktu t-1.

b. Variabel Independen
1. (Pengungkapan Informasi Proyeksi)
Pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dioperasionalisasikan menggunakan indeks yang
diukur berdasarkan jumlah pengungkapan informasi proyeksi yang dipenuhi oleh masing-
masing perusahaan dibagi dengan jumlah keseluruhan informasi proyeksi yang mungkin
dipenuhi. Penelitian ini menggabungkan item-item proyeksi tersebut dengan item proyeksi
yang terdapat pada peraturan Bapepam nomor KEP-134/BL/2006 tentang kewajiban
penyampaian laporan tahunan bagi emiten atau perusahaan publik serta item proyeksi.
Jumlah keseluruhan item proyeksi sebanyak sebelas item dan diberi nilai 1 jika
diungkapkan dan 0 jika tidak diungkapkan.
∑𝑋𝑖𝑡
PIit = (5)
𝑛
Keterangan:
PIit : Projected Disclosure Index perusahaan i pada tahun t
Xit : jumlah pengungkapan informasi proyeksi yang dipenuhi perusahaan i pada
tahun t
n : jumlah item pengungkapan informasi proyeksi yang mungkin dipenuhi
(11 item)
Nilai indeks 0 ≤ PIit ≤ 1
2. Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial
Variabel CSR diukur menggunakan indikator Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) versi 4
(G4). Indikator-indikatornya mencakup Economic Performance (9 item), Environmental
Performance (34 item), Labor Practices (16 item), Human Rights Perfomance (12 item),
Society Perfomance (11 item), dan Product Responsibility Perfomance (9 item) sehingga
total ada 91 item. Item CSR yang diungkapkan diberi nilai 1 dan yang tidak diungkapkan
diberi nilai 0. Keseluruhan poin dijumlahkan dan dibagi dengan keseluruhan jumlah item.
∑𝑋𝑖𝑡
CSRIit = (6)
𝑛
Keterangan:
CSRIit : CSR Index perusahaan i pada tahun t
Xit : jumlah pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial yang dipenuhi perusahaan i pada
tahun t
n : jumlah item pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial yang mungkin dipenuhi (91 item)
Nilai indeks 0 ≤ CSRIt ≤ 1 (8)
c. Variabel Pengendali
1. Struktur Modal (CS)
Struktur modal merupakan rasio antara total hutang dan total aset. Struktur modal
berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC (Dhaliwal 2004 dalam Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik
2010).
CS = TU / TA (7)
TU : total hutang perusahaan
TA : total aset
2. Pertumbuhan Perusahaan
Pertumbuhan perusahaan menggunakan proksi Price to Book Value (PBV). PBV
berpengaruh positif terhadap ERC (Scott 2000).
PBV = P / BV (8)
 P : harga pasar saham
BV : nilai buku perusahaan

4. Metode Analisis Data

Analisis terhadap data penelitian dilakukan melalui tahap-tahap berikut :
a. Analisis statistik deskriptif, digunakan untuk mengetahui gambaran data yang menjadi
sampel penelitian dan meliputi rata-rata deviasi standar, nilai maksimum, nilai
minimum serta perbandingan nilai rata-rata dan distribusi frekuensi dari masing-
masing kelompok sampel.
Tabel 1 : Statistik Deskriptif
Statisti Min Max Mean Std.
k Deviati
Deskrip on
tif Var
CAR -.0519 .1216 .0107 .0403
UE .0009 .0498 .0151 .0131
PI .1818 .9091 .4682 .2033
CSRI .0330 .5385 .1934 .1127
CS .1419 .9156 .5466 .2230
PBV .8122 45.031 4.8459 7.1548
Pada tabel dapat dilihat bahwa variabel independen utama yaitu PI dan CSR
mempunyai nilai rata-rata berturut-turut 0,4682 dan 0,1934. Rata-rata PI lebih tinggi
dari CSR, artinya secara rasio, perusahaan sampel lebih banyak mengungkapkan
informasi proyeksi daripada item CSR. Hal ini menunjukkan pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi cukup bervariasi di antara perusahaan-perusahaan LQ 45, dengan rata-rata
mendekati 50% dari total item pengungkapan.
b. Uji Asumsi Klasik
1. Uji normalitas data menggunakan pengujian Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S).
Tabel 2 : Hasil Uji Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
Variabel Test Statistic Monte Carlo
Sig. (2-tailed)
CAR .137 .412
UE .202 .070
UE*PI .204 .065
UE*CSRI .231 .023
UE*CS .247 .013
UE*PBV .168 .189
Pada tabel terlihat bahwa semua variabel memiliki nilai signifikansi >0,01 atau
menunjukkan bahwa semua variabel berdistribusi normal.
2. Uji multikolonieritas, bertujuan menguji apakah model regresi memiliki korelasi
diantara variabel independen.
Tabel 3 : Koefisien Korelasi (Model 1 - Tanpa Variabel Pengendali)
Koefisien UE*PI UE*CSRI UE
Korelasi Model 1
- Tanpa Variabel
Pengendali
Variabel
UE*PI 1.000 -.429 -.940
UE*CSRI -.429 1.000 .151
UE -.940 .151 1.000

Hasil yang sama juga diperoleh pada model 2 yaitu model dengan variabel
pengendali. Pada tabel 4, nilai koefisien korelasi antar variabel < 0,95, hal ini
berarti tidak terjadi multikolinearitas pada model regresi.
Tabel 4 : Koefisien Korelasi (Model 2 - Dengan Variabel Pengendali)
VAR UE* UE* UE* UE UE*
PBV CS CSRI PI
UE*P 1.000 .338 -.011 -.222 -.155
BV
UE*C .338 1.000 .183 .276 -.695
S
UE*C -.011 .183 1.000 .210 -.434
SRI
UE -.222 .276 .210 1.000 -.825
UE*P -.155 -.695 -.434 -.825 1.000
I

3. Uji autokorelasi, bertujuan menguji data time series apakah dalam model regresi
linier terdapat korelasi antara kesalahan pengganggu pada periode t dengan
kesalahan pengganggu pada periode t-1 (sebelumnya).

4. Uji heterokedastisitas, bertujuan untuk menguji apakah terjadi ketidaksamaan

varians residu dari satu observasi ke observasi yang lain dalam model regresi.
c. Analisis Regresi Linier, Uji hipotesis menggunakan :
1. Uji koefisien determinasi (R2), bertujuan menguji seberapa jauh kemampuan
model dalam menerangkan variasi variabel dependen.
Tabel 7 : Hasil Koefisien Determinasi
Model Adjusted R
Square
1 0,124
2 0,083
Nilai adjusted R2 pada model regresi tanpa variabel pengendali lebih tinggi
daripada nilai adjusted R2 dengan variabel pengendali. Hal ini menunjukkan
bahwa kemampuan variabel independen tanpa variabel pengendali lebih kuat
dalam menerangkan variasi variabel dependen
2. Uji signifikansi simultan (uji F), untuk menguji apakah semua variabel
independen mempunyai pengaruh simultan terhadap variabel dependen.
Tabel 8 Hasil Uji Statistik F
Model Keterangan F Sig
1 Tanpa Varibel 2,842 0,051
Pengendali
2 Dengan Variabel 1,705 0,160
Pengendali
Hasil pengujian dengan variabel pengendali, menunjukkan nilai F hitung sebesar
1,705. Nilai F hitung ini lebih kecil dari nilai F tabel yang besarnya 2,45.
Berdasarkan hasil tersebut dapat dikatakan bahwa pada model kedua, variabel
independen secara simultan tidak berpengaruh sigifikan terhadap variabel
dependennya.
3. Uji signifikansi parameter parsial (uji t), digunakan untuk menguji apakah
variabel independen berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap variabel dependen.
Tabel 9 : Hasil Uji t

Pada model tanpa variabel pengendali, variabel PI*UE memiliki nilai t 2,057
dengan arah negatif dan tingkat signifikansi 0,047. Nilai t hitung > t tabel (1,684)
dan tingkat signifikansi 0,047 di bawah tingkat signifikansi standar 0,05, maka
hasil ini menunjukkan interaksi antara PI dan UE berpengaruh signifikan terhadap
 CAR atau dengan kata lain PI berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Nilai
koefisien yang negatif sesuai dengan hipotesisnya bahwa informasi proyeksi
berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC. Variabel interaksi CSRI dan UE memiliki
nilai t -0,472 < t tabel dengan tingkat signifikansi 0,639 > 0,05, artinya CSRI tidak
berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Nilai koefisien yang negatif sesuai dengan
hipotesisnya.
Pengujian signifikansi parameter individu dengan variabel pengendali
menunjukkan nilai t hitung variabel interaksi PI dan UE serta interaksi CSRI dan
UE yaitu -1,025 dan -0,554 berada di bawah nilai t tabel dengan tingkat
signifikansinya > 0,05.
F. Results

1. Hipotesis pertama berhasil dibuktikan dalam penelitian yaitu informasi proyeksi

berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Hasil pengujian terhadap hipotesis kedua dalam
penelitian menunjukkan nilai t yang tidak signifikan.
2. Arah koefisien regresi dari informasi proyeksi maupun CSR terhadap ERC adalah negatif.
Hal ini sesuai dengan hipotesis penelitian bahwa informasi proyeksi berpengaruh negatif
terhadap ERC serta CSR berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC. Artinya, pengungkapan
informasi proyeksi dan CSR dilakukan oleh perusahaan untuk mengurangi asimetry
information. Hal tersebut sekaligus menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi dan CSR dilakukan untuk mengurangi ketidakpastian mengenai prospek
perusahaan di masa mendatang.
3. Pengurangan ketidakpastian tersebut akan mengurangi ERC, sehingga pengungkapan
informasi proyeksi maupun CSR yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan akan menurunkan ERC.
4. Dua variabel pengendali yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah struktur modal dan
pertumbuhan perusahaan. Hasil pengujian menunjukkan bahwa kedua variabel pengendali
tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Artinya, komposisi total hutang terhadap total
aset maupun tingkat pertumbuhan perusahaan tidak menjadi faktor yang diperhatikan oleh
investor dalam mengurangi asimetry information yang menurunkan kesenjangan antara
laba yang diharapkan dan laba aktual.
5. Arah koefisien regresi untuk struktur modal negatif, tidak sesuai dengan hipotesisnya.
Sedangkan arah koefisien untuk pertumbuhan perusahaan adalah negatif, sesuai dengan
hipotesisnya.
G. Conclusion

1. Menganalisis pengaruh pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan pengungkapan tanggung

jawab sosial terhadap koefisien respon laba, menggunakan data-data yang diambil dari
sampel perusahaan yang tergabung dalam LQ 45 periode Agustus 2014 - Januari 2015.
2. Pengujian dilakukan menggunakan regresi OLS (Ordinary Least Square) pada dua model
yaitu model pertama tanpa variabel pengendali dan model kedua dengan variabel
pengendali.
3. Model pertama, hasil pengujian secara simultan menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan
informasi proyeksi dan CSR berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Hasil pengujian
parsial, informasi proyeksi berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC dengan arah pengaruh
negatif, sesuai dengan hipotesisnya. Variabel CSR berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC
sesuai dengan hipotesisnya tetapi pengaruhnya tidak signifikan.
4. Pada model dengan variabel pengendali, pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan CSR
dengan struktur modal dan pertumbuhan perusahaan sebagai variabel pengendali, secara
bersama-sama tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC.
H. Limitation

Keterbatasan yang ada dalam penelitian ini terletak pada dalam jumlah sampel yang
digunakan secara terbatas. Dan harus mempertimbangkan nilai R2 yang masih rendah pada
penelitian ini , yang sebaiknya memasukkan faktor-faktor lain yang berpengaruh signifikan
terhadap variabel ERC, misalnya ukuran perusahaan, manajemen laba serta kepemilikan
manajerial.

I. Future Research
Untuk peneilitian selanjutnya, diharapkan memperbanyak jumlah sampel tidak terbatas
pada perusahaan-perusahaan yang tergabung di LQ 45 tetapi mencakup seluruh perusahaan
yang terdaftar di BEI. Selain itu, sampel bisa diperbanyak dengan mengambil data secara time
series.
 Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017

PENGARUH PENGUNGKAPAN INFORMASI PROYEKSI

DAN TANGGUNG JAWAB SOSIAL PERUSAHAAN
TERHADAP KOEFISIEN RESPON LABA
Indarti Diah Palupi 1
* Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
* idp121@ums.ac.id 1
Diah Ayu Wulandari2
* Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
* diahaayuw@gmail.com 2
Dyah Ayu Safitri3
* Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
* safitriayuk@gmail.com 3

Abstract
Since many corporate’s disclosures are claimed to be more value relevant and more informative, this
research examines if the earnings response coefficient changes by projections and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) disclosures. Data were obtained from companies incorporated in the LQ 45, August 2014 - January 2015
period. This research used two models, model 1 (without control variables) and model 2 (with control variables)
that test using Ordinary Least Squares Regression. On model 1, the F test results indicate that projections and CSR
disclosures simultaneously have significant effect on the ERC. While the t test results showed that partially,
projections have negative significant effect on ERC. This results reflect that diclosure of projections aim to lower
asimmetry information because of corporate’s prospect uncertainty. CSR disclosures have no significant effect on
ERC but the coefficient was negative, according to the research hypothesis. On model 2, both the F test and t test
results showed that the projection information, CSR, capital structure, and company growth simultaneously and
partially have no significant effect on the ERC.

Keywords : projections, corporate social responsibility, earning respon coefficient

Pendahuluanmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Salatka 1993), kualitas auditor (Teoh dan Wong

Manajemen perusahaan memiliki tanggung jawab
terhadap pemegang saham yang diwujudkan dengan
mengoptimalkan kinerja perusahaan. Salah satu indikator
kinerja yang dinilai oleh pemegang saham adalah laba.
Laba yang dilaporkan oleh perusahaan dianggap bermakna
bagi pemangku kepentingan jika memiliki kualitas. Kualitas
laba yang baik dapat diukur menggunakan koefisien respon
laba (earning response coefficient atau ERC), yang
merupakan bentuk pengukuran kandungan informasi laba.
Koefisien respon laba merupakan kepekaan return saham
terhadap setiap rupiah laba yang disebut dengan unexpected
earning (Suwardjono 2005). Unexpected earning merupakan
selisih antara laba harapan dan laba aktual serta
menunjukkan informasi yang belum tertangkap oleh pasar
sehingga pasar akan bereaksi pada saat pengumuman laba.
Hal ini mengindikasikan bahwa koefisien respon laba
merupakan reaksi terhadap pengumuman laba perusahaan.
Sejumlah penelitian menunjukkan nilai ERC sangat
bervariasi pada berbagai perusahaan yang dipengaruhi oleh
banyak faktor, antara lain pertumbuhan laba akuntansi dan
resiko beta (Collins dan Kothari 1989), ukuran perusahaan
(Chaney dan Jeter 1991), metodologi akuntansi (Collins dan
1993), dan default risk (An 2015). Faktor-faktor
lain yang berpengaruh terhadap ERC adalah tata
kelola perusahaan, tingkat pengungkapan sukarela,
serta corporate social responsibility (CSR) atau
tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan (Abolfazl dkk.
2013; Sayekti dan Wondabio 2007; Holbrook
2013).
Pengungkapan sukarela sebagai salah satu
faktor yang mempengaruhi koefisien respon laba
merupakan pengungkapan informasi melebihi
pengungkapan informasi yang diwajibkan karena
dipandang relevan dengan kebutuhan pemakai
(Meek dkk. 1995). Meskipun semua perusahaan
publik diwajibkan untuk memenuhi
pengungkapan minimum, terdapat perbedaan
substansial dalam jumlah tambahan informasi
yang diungkap ke pasar modal. Salah satu cara
meningkatkan kredibilitas perusahaan adalah
melalui tingkat pengungkapan sukarela secara
lebih luas dan membantu investor dalam
memahami strategi bisnis manajemen (Healy dan
Palepu 1993). Francis dkk. (2008)

Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017 91


mengelompokkan pengungkapan sukarela ke dalam empat
kelompok yaitu ringkasan hasil kinerja perusahaan,
pengukuran keuangan lainnya, pengukuran non keuangan
serta informasi proyeksi. Informasi proyeksi terdiri dari
proyeksi market share, proyeksi cash flow , capital
expenditures, proyeksi laba, proyeksi penjualan, proyeksi
industri serta proyeksi lainnya. Palupi (2000) menyebutkan
bahwa hasil penelitian beberapa peneliti seperti Patell
(1976), Penman (1980), Ajinkya dan Gift (1984), Waymire
(1985) mengungkapkan bahwa informasi proyeksi memiliki
kandungan informasi yang tercermin terhadap perubahan
harga saham.
CSR merupakan mekanisme untuk mengintegrasikan
isu sosial ke dalam operasional perusahaan serta
mengakomodasikannya dengan para pemegang saham
(Darwin 2006). Program CSR merupakan bagian dari
strategi bisnis perusahaan. Menurut Ghozali dan Chariri
(2007) dalam Melati (2013), praktik pengungkapan CSR
memiliki peranan penting bagi perusahaan karena
perusahaan hidup di lingkungan masyarakat dan
kemungkinan aktivitasnya memiliki dampak sosial dan
lingkungan. CSR dapat dipandang sebagai wujud
akuntabilitas perusahaan kepada publik untuk ditimbulkan
oleh perusahaan. Melalui implementasi program CSR,
perusahaan mengharapkan akan memperoleh legitimasi
sosial dan memaksimalkan kekuatan keuangannya dalam
jangka panjang (Kiroyan 2006). Hal ini mengindikasikan
bahwa perusahaan yang menerapkan CSR
mengharapkanrespon positif dari pelaku pasar (Sayekti dan
Wondabio 2007).
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaruh
pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan CSR terhadap
koefisien respon laba serta dimotivasi oleh empat hal.
Pertama, hasil penelitian mengenai pengaruh luas
pengungkapan sukarela berupa informasi proyeksi terhadap
ERC belum banyak. Penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya lebih
banyak menguji pengaruh luas pengungkapan sukarela
terhadap ERC (Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik 2010; Abolfazl
dkk. 2013). Kedua, hasil penelitian mengenai pengaruh
pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial terhadap koefisien
respon laba masih bervariasi. Penelitian Adi (2005) dan
Lestari (2014) menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan
tanggungjawab sosial tidak memiliki pengaruh terhadap
koefisien respon laba. Penelitian Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik
(2010) menunjukkan hubungan yang signifikan antara CSR
dan ERC. Penelitian Holbrook (2013) menunjukkan hasil
bahwa terdapat pengaruh positif dan signifikan
pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial terhadap koefisien
respon laba. Hasil berbeda terdapat pada penelitian Sayekti
dan Wondabio (2007), Abolfazl dkk (2013), Wibowo
(2013), Melati (2013), dan Suryani dan Herianti (2015) yang
menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial
berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan terhadap koefisien respon
laba. Ketiga, sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian-
penelitian sebelumnya sangat beragam, karena perbedaan
lokasi, waktu, industri serta kondisi perusahaan. Keempat,
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
formula untuk menghitung ERC cukup beragam
di antara penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya yaitu
menggunakan future expected dividends (Easton
dan Zmijewski 1989; Collins dan Kothari 1989),
regresi antara cummulative abnormal return
(CAR) dan unexpected earning (UE)
menggunakan periode window yang berbeda
(Chaney dan Jeter 1991; Sayekti dan Wondabio
2007; Bartov dan Li 2015). Berdasarkan
keempat motivasi tersebut, penelitian ini
bertujuan untuk menguji pengaruh pengungkapan
informasi proyeksi dan tanggung jawab sosial
terhadap koefisien respon laba menggunakan
sampel perusahaan yang terdaftar pada LQ 45
dengan formula ERC menggunakan regresi antara
CAR dan UE berdasarkan window 5 hari sebelum
dan sesudah pengumuman laba.
Kajian Pustaka dan Pengembangan
Hipotesismmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Agency Theory
Pemisahan fungsi kepemilikan dan fungsi
pengelolaan perusahaan seringkali menimbulkan
konflik antara pemilik dan pengelola. Investor
bertindak sebagai pemilik (prinsipal) karena
investor merupakan pemegang saham yang
menjadi pemilik perusahaan sedangkan pihak
manajemen bertindak sebagai pengelola
perusahaan (agen). Agen diasumsikan memiliki
lebih banyak akses terhadap informasi. Prinsipal
tidak dapat mengamati perilaku agen. Agen
kemungkinan akan menggunakan posisinya
dalam penguasaan informasi dengan tujuan
memaksimalkan kepentingannya sendiri tetapi
merugikan prinsipal yang diistilahkan dengan
moral hazard (Beaver 1998 dalam Palupi 2000).
Respon untuk mengurangi kondisi tersebut
dengan memberikan pengungkapan informasi.
Pengungkapan informasi oleh perusahaan
merupakan hal yang penting karena didorong oleh
kebutuhan komunikasi di antara manajemen dan
investor luar serta partisipan pasar secara umum.
Pengungkapan informasi perusahaan muncul
karena masalah informasi asimetri dan konflik
keagenan antara manajemen dan investor luar
(Healy dan Palepu 2001).
Signalling Theory
Manajemen akan memberikan sinyal kepada
pasar untuk mengatasi kondisi asimetri informasi.
Asimetri informasi muncul karena manajemen
memiliki akses yang lebih luas terhadap informasi
dibandingkan dengan pemilik atau pemegang
saham. Kerugian akibat asimetri informasi adalah
pasar mempersepsikan berbeda terhadap
92

perusahaan yang memiliki kinerja bagus dan kinerja
sebaliknya. Perusahaan dengan kinerja bagus dinilai rendah
oleh pasar sedangkan perusahaan dengan kinerja kurang baik
dinilai tinggi oleh pasar. Persepsi tersebut tercermin pada
harga saham. Manajemen akan mengantisipasi kondisi
tersebut dengan memberikan sinyal berupa pengungkapan
informasi untuk mengoreksi persepsi pasar. Perusahaan
akan memperoleh manfaat atau keuntungan dengan
memberikan lebih banyak informasi kepada publik. Menurut
Graham dkk. (2005) perusahaan memiliki posisi
opportunism dalam melakukan pengungkapan. Posisi
tersebut memberikan kecenderungan bagi perusahaan untuk
mendapatkan keuntungan dari pengungkapan informasi
keuangan.
Legitimacy Theory
Perusahaan merupakan bagian dari masyarakat yang
seharusnya memperhatikan norma, nilai serta kepercayaan
yang berlaku di masyarakat. Perusahaan yang
menyesuaikan tindakannya terhadap hal-hal yang berlaku di
masyarakat tersebut dianggap memiliki legitimasi. Jika
terjadi ketidakselarasan antara sistem nilai perusahaan dan
sistem nilai masyarakat, maka perusahaan akan kehilangan
legitimasinya dan akan mengancam kelangsungan hidup
perusahaan (Lindblom 1994 dalam Haniffa dkk. 2005).
Pengungkapan informasi CSR dalam laporan tahunan
merupakan salah satu cara perusahaan untuk membangun,
mempertahankan, dan melegitimasi kontribusi perusahaan
dari sisi ekonomi dan politis (Guthrie dan Parker 1990).
Informasi Proyeksi
Pengungkapan informasi dapat mempengaruhi
keputusan investor (Gonedes 1976 dalam Palupi 2000),
salah satunya adalah pengungkapan informasi proyeksi.
Informasi proyeksi menurut Francis dkk. (2008) mencakup
proyeksi market share, proyeksi cash flow, proyeksi capital
expenditure, proyeksi laba, proyeksi penjualan, proyeksi
industri serta luaran proyeksi lainnya, sedangkan menurut
Batosan (2000), informasi proyeksi terdiri dari proyeksi
market share, proyeksi cash flow, proyeksi capital
expenditures dan/atau R&D expenditure, proyeksi laba, dan
proyeksi penjualan.
Menurut Kross dkk. (1994), pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi berupa ramalan laba merupakan cara yang murah
atau tidak menimbulkan biaya tinggi bagi perusahaan untuk
memberikan informasi bagi investor. Pengungkapan
tersebut merupakan sarana bagi manajemen untuk
menginformasikan prospek hasil kinerja perusahaan di masa
mendatang
Koefisien Respon Laba
Koefisien respon laba atau earnings response
coefficient (ERC) merupakan suatu ukuran hubungan antara
return saham dan laba di sekitar waktu pengumuman laba.
Dalam hal ini ERC mengukur seberapa besar kandungan
informasi laba dan informasi ini diukur dengan menguji
pengaruhnya terhadap return saham di sekitar tanggal
pengumuman. ERC juga merupakan ukuran hubungan
antara unexpected earning dan unexpected return (Kip,
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
2009). ERC mengukur besaran abnormal return
suatu saham sebagai respon terhadap komponen
laba abnormal (unexpected earnings) yang
dilaporkan oleh perusahaan yang mengeluarkan
saham.
ERC berguna dalam analisis fundamental
oleh investor dalam model penilaian untuk
menentukan reaksi pasar atas informasi laba
perusahaan. Reaksi pasar akan berbeda
disesuaikan dengan kualitas informasi laba
akuntansi tersebut.
Penelitian Terdahulu
Suryani dan Herianti (2015) menguji
tentang pengaruh CSR terhadap ERC dan
manajemen laba. Penelitian dilakukan terhadap
perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di BEI
tahun 2013 dan 2014. Hasil penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa CSR berpengaruh negatif
dan signifikan terhadap ERC dan CSR
berpengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap
manajemen laba.
Penelitian Holbrook (2013) menguji
pengaruh CSR terhadap ERC. Hasil penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan dengan tingkat
tanggung jawab sosial yang rendah menunjukkan
noise dalam pengungkapan laba sehingga
memiliki nilai ERC yang rendah. Perusahaan
dengan tingkat tanggung jawab sosial yang lebih
tinggi memiliki tingkat ketepatan laba sehingga
nilai ERC lebih tinggi. Hasil penelitian tersebut
konsisten dengan pernyataan bahwa perusahaan
dengan tingkat tanggung jawab sosial yang
rendah menghadapi future earning dengan tingkat
ketidakpastian yang lebih besar sehingga
konsekuensinya current earning didiskon oleh
pasar.
Abolfazl dkk. (2013) menguji hubungan
antara pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial (CSR)
dan koefisien respon laba (ERC) menggunakan
luas pengungkapan sukarela sebagai variabel
moderasi. Sampel penelitian adalah perusahaan
yang terdaftar di pasar modal Iran tahun 2012.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat hubungan
yang signifikan antara CSR dengan ERC dan luas
pengungkapan informasi memoderasi hubungan
tersebut.
Wibowo (2013) menguji pengaruh
mekanisme Good Corporate Governance (GCG)
sebagai variabel independen terhadap ERC
sebagai variabel dependen dengan pengungkapan
CSR sebagai intervening variable. Sampel yang
digunakan dalam penelitian tersebut adalah
perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Indonesia (BEI) selama tahun 2008-2011.
Hasil penelitian untuk pengujian parsial
menunjukan bahwa GCG tidak berpengaruh
93

signifikan terhadap CSR sedangkan pengungkapan CSR
berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan terhadap ERC.
Hasil penelitian Kartadjumena (2010) tentang pengaruh
voluntary disclosure of financial information dan CSR
disclosure terhadap earning respon coefficient menunjukkan
bahwa secara parsial voluntary disclosure tidak memiliki
hubungan positif yang signifikan dengan ERC sedangkan
CSR berhubungan negatif signifikan terhadap ERC. Hasil
pengujian secara simultan menunjukkan bahwa voluntary
disclosure dan CSR tidak berpengaruh terhadap ERC.
Sayekti dan Wondabio (2007) menguji pengaruh
pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial terhadap kandungan
informasi laba yang diukur menggunakan koefisien respon
laba. Sampel pengujian adalah perusahaan-perusahaan yang
terdaftar di pasar modal Indonesia tahun 2005. Variabel
independen adalah CSR dan variabel dependennya ERC
serta menggunakan variabel pengendali beta sebagai ukuran
resiko dan price to book value sebagai ukuran pertumbuhan.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan CSR
berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC seperti yang
dihipotesiskan.
Pengembangan Hipotesis
Jika suatu pengumuman mengandung informasi maka
pasar akan bereaksi pada saat pengumuman tersebut diterima
pasar. Reaksi tersebut ditunjukkan dengan perubahan harga
sekuritas yang bersangkutan. ERC merupakan bentuk
reaksi terhadap pengumuman laba perusahaan. Menurut
Suwarjono (2005) ERC merupakan kepekaan return saham
terhadap setiap rupiah laba yang disebut dengan unexpected
earning. Unexpected earning sendiri merupakan selisih
antara laba harapan dan laba aktual dan menunjukkan
informasi yang belum tertangkap oleh pasar sehingga pasar
akan bereaksi pada saat pengumuman laba. Selisih tersebut
menunjukkan adanya asimetry information. Untuk
mengatasi asimetry information, maka diperluaslah
pengungkapan, sehingga jika perusahaan mengumumkan
informasi proyeksi dan CSR akan menurunkan ERC.
Menurut Widiastuti (2002) informativeness of earnings
akan semakin besar ketika terdapat ketidakpastian mengenai
prospek perusahaan di masa datang (dalam Sayekti dan
Wondabio 2007). Jika ketidakpastian semakin tinggi maka
ERC semakin tinggi. Untuk itu, jika perusahaan melakukan
pengungkapan informasi dalam laporan tahunannya dapat
mengurangi ketidakpastian tersebut. Mengurangi
ketidapastian akan menurunkan ERC. Pendapat tersebut
sejalan dengan pernyataan Lang and Lundholm (1993)
bahwa perusahaan dengan nilai ERC rendah
mengungkapkan lebih banyak informasi daripada perusahaan
dengan nilai ERC tinggi.
Berdasarkan paparan di atas, hipotesis penelitian ini
adalah :
H1 : Pengungkapan informasi proyeksi berpengaruh negatif
terhadap koefisien respon laba.
H2 : Pengungkapan tanggung jawab sosial berpengaruh
negatif terhadap koefisien respon laba.
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
Metode Penelitian mmmmmmmmmmm
Populasi dan Sampel Penelitian
Populasi yang digunakan dalam penelitian
ini adalah perusahaan-perusahaan yang terdaftar
di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Sampel penelitian
diambil dari populasi di atas dengan teknik
pengambilan sampel berdasarkan metode
purposive sampling dengan kriteria-kriteria
sebagai berikut :
1. Perusahaan yang tergabung dalam LQ 45
dan melakukan pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi serta tanggungjawab sosial tahun
2014.
2. Perusahaan memiliki data lengkap yang
dibutuhkan dalam penelitian ini.
3. Perusahaan yang memiliki data ekstrim
dikeluarkan dari sampel agar kesimpulan
tidak menyesatkan.
Data dan Sumber Data
Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder
yang dikumpulkan dengan cara cross section
yaitu pengumpulan data dari berbagai perusahaan
untuk periode laporan tahunan 2014. Perusahaan-
perusahaan yang dijadikan sampel dalam
penelitian ini berasal dari berbagai industri yang
tergabung pada LQ 45 periode Agustus 2014 -
Januari 2015. Data-data sampel dikumpulkan
dari laporan tahunan dan laporan berkelanjutan
(sustainability report) masing-masing perusahaan
yang diunduh dari website perusahaan-
perusahaan tersebut serta dari performance
summary yang diperoleh dari website Bursa Efek
Indonesia (IDX).
Operasionalisasi Variabel
1. Variabel Dependen
Variabel dependen dalam penelitian ini
adalah ERC. ERC merupakan koefisien respon
dari laba akuntansi yang diperoleh dengan
meregresikan cummulative abnormal return
(CAR) dengan unexpected return (UE).
Perhitungan ERC merujuk antara lain pada
penelitian Chandrarin (2003), Sayekti dan
Wondabio (2007), Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik
(2010), dan Abolfazl (2013) .
CARit = α0 + α1 UE it +  (1)
CARit : cumulative abnormal return
perusahaan i pada tahun t
α0 : konstanta
α1 : koefisien ERC
UEit : unexpected earnings
perusahaan i pada tahun t
Berikut adalah rumus untuk menghitung
abnormal return:
Rit = Pit – Pit-1 (2)
Pit-1
94
 Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017

Rmt = IHSGit - IHSGit-1 (3) Xit : jumlah pengungkapan informasi

IHSGt-1 proyeksi yang dipenuhi perusahaan i
ARit = Rit – Rmt (4) pada tahun t
Keterangan :
n : jumlah item pengungkapan informasi
ARit : Abnormal return untuk perusahaan i pada hari ke-
proyeksi yang mungkin dipenuhi (11 item)
t.
Nilai indeks 0 ≤ PIit ≤ 1
Rit : Return harian perusahaan i pada hari ke-t.
Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial
Rmt : Return indeks pasar pada hari ke-t. Variabel CSR diukur menggunakan
Pit : Harga saham perusahaan i pada waktu t. indikator Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) versi
Pit-1 : Harga saham perusahaan i pada waktu t-1. 4 (G4). Indikator-indikatornya mencakup
IHSGit : Indeks Harga Saham Gabungan pada waktu Economic Performance (9 item), Environmental
t. Performance (34 item), Labor Practices (16
item), Human Rights Perfomance (12 item),
IHSGt-1 : Indeks Harga Saham Gabungan pada waktu
Society Perfomance (11 item), dan Product
t-1. Responsibility Perfomance (9 item) sehingga total
ada 91 item. Item CSR yang diungkapkan diberi
Penelitian ini menggunakan window 5 hari sebelum nilai 1 dan yang tidak diungkapkan diberi nilai 0.
pengumuman laba dan 5 hari setelah pengumuman laba, Keseluruhan poin dijumlahkan dan dibagi dengan
sehingga perhitungan CAR untuk masing-masing perusahaan keseluruhan jumlah item.
merupakan akumulasi abnormal return dari masing-masing ∑Xit
perusahaan tersebut selama 5 + 5 = 10 hari. CSRIit = ------- (6)
Variabel UE dihitung sebagai perubahan laba per N
saham perusahaan sebelum pos luar biasa tahun sekarang Keterangan:
dikurangi dengan laba per saham perusahaan sebelum pos CSRIit : CSR Index perusahaan i pada
luar biasa tahun sebelumnya, dan diskalakan dengan harga
tahun t
per lembar saham pada akhir periode sebelumnya (Kothari &
Zimmerman 1995). Kemudian ERC dihitung dengan Xit : jumlah pengungkapan tanggung
meregresikan CAR dan UE tersebut. jawab sosial yang dipenuhi
2. Variabel Independen perusahaan i pada tahun t
Pengungkapan Informasi Proyeksi n : jumlah item pengungkapan tanggung
Pengungkapan informasi proyeksi jawab sosial yang mungkin dipenuhi
dioperasionalisasikan menggunakan indeks yang diukur
(91 item)
berdasarkan jumlah pengungkapan informasi proyeksi yang
dipenuhi oleh masing-masing perusahaan dibagi dengan Nilai indeks 0 ≤ CSRIt ≤ 1
jumlah keseluruhan informasi proyeksi yang mungkin
dipenuhi. Beberapa penelitian antara lain Batosan (2000) 3. Variabel Pengendali
dan Francis dkk. (2008) menggunakan beberapa item Struktur Modal (CS)
proyeksi yaitu proyeksi market share, proyeksi cash flow, Struktur modal merupakan rasio antara total
proyeksi capital expenditure, proyeksi laba, proyeksi hutang dan total aset. Struktur modal berpengaruh
penjualan, proyeksi industri serta luaran proyeksi lainnya. negatif terhadap ERC (Dhaliwal 2004 dalam
Penelitian ini menggabungkan item-item proyeksi tersebut Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik 2010).
dengan item proyeksi yang terdapat pada peraturan Bapepam CS = TU / TA (7)
nomor KEP-134/BL/2006 tentang kewajiban penyampaian TU : total hutang perusahaan
laporan tahunan bagi emiten atau perusahaan publik serta TA : total aset
item proyeksi dalam penelitian Sitanggang (2002 dalam Pertumbuhan Perusahaan
Utaminingtyas dan Ahalik 2010). Jumlah keseluruhan item Pertumbuhan perusahaan menggunakan
proyeksi sebanyak sebelas item dan diberi nilai 1 jika proksi Price to Book Value (PBV). PBV
diungkapkan dan 0 jika tidak diungkapkan. berpengaruh positif terhadap ERC (Scott 2000).
∑Xit PBV = P / BV (8)
PIit = ------- (5) P : harga pasar saham
n BV : nilai buku perusahaan

Keterangan:
PIit : Projected Disclosure Index Metode Analisis Data
Analisis terhadap data penelitian dilakukan
perusahaan i pada tahun t
melalui tahap-tahap berikut :

Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017 95


1. Analisis statistik deskriptif, digunakan untuk mengetahui
gambaran data yang menjadi sampel penelitian dan
meliputi rata-rata deviasi standar, nilai maksimum, nilai
minimum serta perbandingan nilai rata-rata dan distribusi
frekuensi dari masing-masing kelompok sampel. Analisis
ini dilakukan untuk mempermudah memahami variabel-
variabel yang digunakan dalam penelitian.
2. Uji Asumsi Klasik
a. Uji normalitas data menggunakan pengujian
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) untuk melihat apakah
setiap variabel dan semua kombinasi linear dari
variabel terdistribusi secara normal . Data memiliki
distribusi normal jika p value > 0,01.
b. Uji multikolonieritas, bertujuan menguji apakah model
regresi memiliki korelasi diantara variabel independen.
Pengujian multikolonieritas dilakukakan dengan
menganalisis matriks korelasi antar variabel
independen. Jika nilai koefisien korelasi diantara
variabel independen > 0,95 maka disimpulkan terjadi
multikolinearitas.
c. Uji autokorelasi, bertujuan menguji data time series
apakah dalam model regresi linier terdapat korelasi
antara kesalahan pengganggu pada periode t dengan
kesalahan pengganggu pada periode t-1 (sebelumnya).
Jika terjadi korelasi, maka dikatakan terdapat masalah
autokorelasi. Pengujian ini menggunakan Durbin-
Watson test (D-W test). Hasil pengujian akan
dibandingkan dengan nilai DW tabel. Jika nilai DW
hitung berada diantara batas bawah dan batas atas DW
tabel maka dikatakan terjadi autokorelasi.
d. Uji heterokedastisitas, bertujuan untuk menguji apakah
terjadi ketidaksamaan varians residu dari satu observasi
ke observasi yang lain dalam model regresi. Model
regresi dianggap baik jika tidak muncul
heterokedastisitas yaitu terjadi perbedaan varians
residu pada pengamatan satu dan pengamatan lainnya.
Penelitian ini menggunakan uji Glejser untuk menguji
heterokedastisitas, yaitu dengan meregresi nilai absolut
residual terhadap variabel independen (Gujarati 2003
dalam Ghozali 2016). Jika variabel independen secara
signifikan mempengaruhi variabel dependen maka
terjadi heterokedastisitas.
3. Analisis Regresi Linier
Penelitian ini menggunakan dua model persamaan regresi
linier sebagai berikut :
Model 1 - tanpa variabel pengendali :
ERC =  + 1PI + 2CSRI +  (9)
Model 2 - dengan variabel pengendali :
ERC =  + 1PI + 2CSRI + 3CS + 4PBV + 
(10)
Jika ERC diuraikan dengan meregresikan komponen CAR
dan UE, maka persamaan regresi linier menjadi :
Model 1 CARit = α + 1UEit + 2UEit*PIit +
3UEit*CSRIit +  (11)
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
Model 2 CARit = α + 1UE it + 2UEit*PIit
+ 3UEit*CSRIit + 4UEit*CSit +
5UEit*PBVit + 
(12) Keterangan:
ERCit : koefisien respon laba perusahaan i
pada tahun t
CARit : cumulative abnormal return
perusahaan i pada tahun t
α : konstanta
PIit : indeks pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi perusahaan i pada tahun t
CSRIit : indeks pertanggungjawaban sosial
perusahaan i pada tahun t
UEit : unexpected earnings perusahaan i
pada tahun t
CSit : struktur modal perusahaan i pada
tahun t
PBVit : pertumbuhan perusahaan i pada
tahun t
β1 - β5 : koefisien parameter
UEit*PIit : interaksi antara UE dengan PI
UEit*CSRIit : interaksi antara UE dengan
CSRI
UEit*CSit : interaksi antara UE dengan CS
UEit*PBVit : interaksi antaraUE dengan
PBV
ε : error
4. Uji hipotesis menggunakan :
a. Uji koefisien determinasi (R2), bertujuan
menguji seberapa jauh kemampuan model
dalam menerangkan variasi variabel dependen.
Nilai koefisien determinasi antara 0 sampai
dengan 1. Nilai koefisien yang kecil
menunjukkan keterbatasan kemampuan
variabel independen dalam menjelaskan
variasi variabel dependen. Nilai mendekati 1
berarti nilai variabel independen memberikan
hampir semua informasi yang dibutuhkan
untuk memprediksi variasi variabel dependen
(Ghozali 2016).
b. Uji signifikansi simultan (uji F), untuk
menguji apakah semua variabel independen
mempunyai pengaruh simultan terhadap
variabel dependen. Jika Fhitung lebih besar dari
Ftabel, atau jika nilai signifikansi lebih kecil dari
0,05 maka variabel independen secara
bersama-sama mempunyai pengaruh signifikan
terhadap variabel dependen.
c. Uji signifikansi parameter parsial (uji t),
digunakan untuk menguji apakah variabel
96
 Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017

independen berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap akan membuat hasil uji statistik terdegradasi
variabel dependen. Jika thitung lebih besar dari ttabel atau (Ghozali 2016), sehingga diperlukan langkah
jika nilai signifikansi lebih kecil dari 0,05 maka variabel pentransformasian data agar bisa menormalkan
independen berpengaruh signifikan terhadap variabel distribusinya. Transformasi data kemudian
dependen. dilakukan dengan mengakarkuadratkan variabel-
variabel tersebut sehingga distribusi masing-
Hasil dan Pembahasan mmmmmmmmm masing variabel menjadi normal.
Statistik Deskriptif Tabel 2
Sampel awal penelitian ini berjumlah 45 perusahaan Hasil Uji Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
yang tergabung dalam LQ 45 pada periode Agustus 2014 - Variabel Test Monte Carlo Sig.
Januari 2015. Pada tahap screening data menggunakan Statistic (2-tailed)
standardize value, terdapat 5 perusahaan yang dieliminasi
dari sampel karena memiliki nilai > 3 sehingga dianggap CAR .137 .412
data outlier. Sampel akhir yang digunakan sebanyak 40 UE .202 .070
perusahaan dengan gambaran statistik sebagai berikut :
Tabel 1 UE*PI .204 .065
Statistik Deskriptif
UE*CSRI .231 .023
Std.
Var Min Max Mean Deviation UE*CS .247 .013
CAR -.0519 .1216 .0107 .0403
UE .0009 .0498 .0151 .0131 UE*PBV .168 .189
PI .1818 .9091 .4682 .2033
sumber : hasil SPSS diolah
CSRI .0330 .5385 .1934 .1127 Pada tabel terlihat bahwa semua variabel
CS .1419 .9156 .5466 .2230 memiliki nilai signifikansi >0,01 atau
PBV .8122 45.0312 4.8459 7.1548 menunjukkan bahwa semua variabel berdistribusi
sumber : hasil SPSS diolah normal.
Pada tabel dapat dilihat bahwa variabel independen 2. Uji Multikoliniearitas
utama yaitu PI dan CSR mempunyai nilai rata-rata berturut- Hasil pengujian model 1 seperti
turut 0,4682 dan 0,1934. Rata-rata PI lebih tinggi dari CSR, ditunjukkan pada tabel 3, tidak terdapat
artinya secara rasio, perusahaan sampel lebih banyak multikolinearitas karena nilai koefisien korelasi
mengungkapkan informasi proyeksi daripada item CSR. PI antar variabel < 0,95.
memiliki nilai minimum 0,1818 dan maksimum 0,9091. Hal Tabel 3
ini menunjukkan pengungkapan informasi proyeksi cukup
Koefisien Korelasi
bervariasi di antara perusahaan-perusahaan LQ 45, dengan
Model 1 - Tanpa Variabel Pengendali
rata-rata mendekati 50% dari total item pengungkapan.
Variabel UE*PI UE*CSRI UE
Semua sampel mengungkapkan item proyeksi yang sifatnya
general yaitu berupa dampak dari kesempatan yang tersedia UE*PI 1.000 -.429 -.940
dan prospek usaha terkait dengan industri serta ekonomi UE*CSRI -.429 1.000 .151
secara umum. Informasi proyeksi yang lebih detail dan UE -.940 .151 1.000
bersifat kuantitatif baik mengenai laba, penjualan, cash flow, sumber : hasil SPSS diolah
pangsa pasar maupun capital expenditure tidak diungkapkan Hasil yang sama juga diperoleh pada model
oleh semua perusahaan. Variabel CSRI memiliki nilai 2 yaitu model dengan variabel pengendali. Pada
minimum 0,0330 dan maksimum 0,5385 serta standar tabel 4, nilai koefisien korelasi antar variabel <
deviasi 0,1127. Dari 91 item pengungkapan CSR yang 0,95, hal ini berarti tidak terjadi multikolinearitas
diambil dari GRI Index, paling sedikit perusahaan pada model regresi.
mengungkapkan 3 item dan paling banyak 49 item atau lebih
dari 50%. Item CSR paling banyak diungkapkan pada
laporan berkelanjutan (sustainability report) yang
penyajiannya bisa digabungkan atau dipisahkan dari laporan
tahunan.
Hasil Pengujian Asumsi Klasik Tabel 4
1. Uji Normalitas Koefisien Korelasi
Pada pengujian awal, variabel PI dan PBV dan PI*UE, Model 2 - Dengan Variabel Pengendali
serta PBV*UE memiliki nilai signifikansi < 0,01 atau tidak
terdistribusi normal. Tidak normalnya distribusi variabel

Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017 97

 Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017

Hasil Koefisien Determinasi

UE* UE* UE* UE*
VAR PBV CS CSRI UE PI Model Adjusted R Square
UE*PBV 1.000 .338 -.011 -.222 -.155 1 0,124
UE*CS .338 1.000 .183 .276 -.695 2 0,083
UE*CSRI -.011 .183 1.000 .210 -.434 sumber : hasil SPSS diolah
UE -.222 .276 .210 1.000 -.825 Hasil perhitungan koefisien determinasi
UE*PI -.155 -.695 -.434 -.825 1.000 untuk model regresi dengan variabel pengendali
sumber : hasil SPSS diolah menunjukkan nilai adjusted R2 0,083. Hasil
3. Uji Autokorelasi tersebut menunjukkan variasi CAR dapat
Hasil pengujian autokorelasi menggunakan uji Durbin dijelaskan oleh variabel UE, PI*UE, CSRI*UE,
Watson (DW test), menunjukkan nilai 2,420 (tanpa variabel CS*UE, PBV*UE sebanyak 8,3%. Nilai adjusted
pengendali) dan 2,408 (dengan variabel pengendali). Hasil R2 pada model regresi tanpa variabel pengendali
pengujian dapat dilihat pada tabel 5. lebih tinggi daripada nilai adjusted R2 dengan
Tabel 5 variabel pengendali. Hal ini menunjukkan
Hasil Uji Korelasi bahwa kemampuan variabel independen tanpa
DW DW Tabel variabel pengendali lebih kuat dalam
Model n Var Hitung dl du menerangkan variasi variabel dependen.
1 40 3 2.420 1.338 1.659 2. Uji Signifikansi Simultan (Uji F)
2 40 5 2.408 1.230 1.786 Hasil pengujian model regresi model 1
sumber : hasil SPSS diolah & tabel statistik (tanpa variabel pengendali) menggunakan
Nilai DW hitung sebesar 2,420 dan 2,408 berada ANOVA atau F test, diperoleh F hitung sebesar
diluar batas bawah (dl) dan batas atas (du) nilai DW tabel 2,842 dengan tingkat signifikansi 0,051.
sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa tidak terdapat Dibandingkan dengan nilai F tabel sebesar 2,84,
autokorelasi di antara variabel-variabel penelitian. maka hasil F hitung dianggap cukup signifikan.
4. Uji Heterokedastisitas Oleh karena itu dapat dikatakan bahwa secara
Pengujian heterokedastisitas menggunakan uji Glejser bersama-sama variabel UE, PI*UE, CSRI*UE
yang meregresikan nilai absolut residul sebagai variabel berpengaruh signifikan terhadap variabel CAR
dependen dengan keseluruhan variabel independen. Hasil atau dengan kata lain variabel PI dan CSRI secara
pada tabel 6 menunjukkan pada kolom signifikansi, seluruh simultan berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC.
variabel independen memiliki nilai signifikansi di atas 0,05 Artinya, model regresi dengan variabel
atau 5% sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa seluruh variabel independen PI dan CSRI dapat digunakan untuk
independen tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap variabel memprediksi ERC.
dependennya yaitu nilai absolut residual. Kondisi tersebut Tabel 8
menunjukkan tidak terjadi heterokedastisitas pada model Hasil Uji Statistik F
regresi. Model Keterangan F Sig
Tabel 6 1 Tanpa Varibel 2,842 0,051
Hasil Uji Glejser Pengendali
Variabel Model 1 Model 2 sumb 2 Dengan Variabel 1,705 0,160
er : Pengendali
t sig t sig sumber : hasil SPSS diolah
hasil
UE -.700 .489 -.624 .537 SPSS Hasil pengujian dengan variabel pengendali,
UE*CSRI diolah menunjukkan nilai F hitung sebesar 1,705. Nilai
-.105 .917 -.576 .568
F hitung ini lebih kecil dari nilai F tabel yang
UE*PI .449 .656 .912 .368 besarnya 2,45. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut dapat
UE*CS -.880 .385 dikatakan bahwa pada model kedua, variabel
independen secara simultan tidak berpengaruh
UE*PBV -.631 .532
Hasil sigifikan terhadap variabel dependennya.
Pengujian Hipotesis
1. Koefisien Determinasi 3. Uji Signifikansi Parameter Individual (Uji t)
Hasil perhitungan koefisien determinasi untuk model Pengujian signifikansi parameter individual
regresi tanpa variabel pengendali menunjukkan nilai menggunakan uji t, hasilnya sebagai berikut :
adjusted R2 0,124 yang berarti variasi CAR dapat dijelaskan Tabel 9
oleh variabel UE, PI*UE, CSRI*UE sebanyak 12,4%. Hasil Uji t
Tabel 7

Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017 98

 Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017

Var Model 1 Model 2 hipotesis penelitian bahwa informasi proyeksi

t Sig. t Sig. berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC serta CSR
UE 2.075 .045 1.700 .098 berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC. Artinya,
CSRI pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan CSR
-.472 .639 -.554 .583 dilakukan oleh perusahaan untuk mengurangi
*UE
PI asimetry information berupa deviasi antara laba
-2.057 .047 -1.025 .313 harapan dengan laba aktual yang terjadi ketika
*UE
pengumuman laba dilakukan. Sehingga dengan
CS
-.606 .549 pengungkapan informasi proyeksi tersebut
*UE
diharapkan deviasi menjadi turun. Hal tersebut
PBV
-.318 .753 sekaligus menunjukkan bahwa pengungkapan
*UE
informasi proyeksi dan CSR dilakukan untuk
sumber : hasil SPSS diolah
mengurangi ketidakpastian mengenai prospek
Pada model tanpa variabel pengendali, variabel PI*UE
perusahaan di masa mendatang. Pengurangan
memiliki nilai t 2,057 dengan arah negatif dan tingkat
ketidakpastian tersebut akan mengurangi ERC,
signifikansi 0,047. Nilai t hitung > t tabel (1,684) dan
sehingga pengungkapan informasi proyeksi
tingkat signifikansi 0,047 di bawah tingkat signifikansi
maupun CSR yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan
standar 0,05, maka hasil ini menunjukkan interaksi antara PI
akan menurunkan ERC. Arah koefisien regresi
dan UE berpengaruh signifikan terhadap CAR atau dengan
variabel informasi proyeksi dan CSR terhadap
kata lain PI berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Nilai
variabel ERC yang negatif, sesuai dengan
koefisien yang negatif sesuai dengan hipotesisnya bahwa
penelitian Sayekti dan Wondabio (2007),
informasi proyeksi berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC.
Abolfadzl, dkk. (2013), Suryani dan Herianti
Variabel interaksi CSRI dan UE memiliki nilai t -0,472 < t
(2015). Koefisien arah informasi proyeksi dalam
tabel dengan tingkat signifikansi 0,639 > 0,05, artinya CSRI
penelitian ini tidak sesuai dengan penelitian
tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Nilai koefisien
Holbrook (2013) yang menunjukkan hasil CSR
yang negatif sesuai dengan hipotesisnya.
berpengaruh positif terhadap ERC.
Pengujian signifikansi parameter individu dengan
Variabel Pengendali
variabel pengendali menunjukkan nilai t hitung variabel
Dua variabel pengendali yang digunakan
interaksi PI dan UE serta interaksi CSRI dan UE yaitu -1,025
dalam penelitian ini adalah struktur modal dan
dan -0,554 berada di bawah nilai t tabel dengan tingkat
pertumbuhan perusahaan. Hasil pengujian
signifikansinya > 0,05. Hal ini dapat diartikan bahwa
menunjukkan bahwa kedua variabel pengendali
variabel-variabel tersebut tidak memiliki pengaruh signifikan
tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC.
terhadap variabel CAR. Tetapi arah koefisien menunjukkan
Artinya, komposisi total hutang terhadap total
bahwa variabel interaksi PI dan UE serta interaksi CSRI dan
aset maupun tingkat pertumbuhan perusahaan
UE menunjukkan pengaruh negatif terhadap variabel CAR.
tidak menjadi faktor yang diperhatikan oleh
Hal ini sesuai dengan hipotesisnya bahwa pengungkapan
investor dalam mengurangi asimetry information
informasi proyeksi dan pengungkapan CSR berpengaruh
yang menurunkan kesenjangan antara laba yang
negatif terhadap ERC. Variabel pengendali baik CS maupun
diharapkan dan laba aktual. Arah koefisien
PBV dengan nilai t hitung -0,606 dan -0,318 dan tingkat
regresi untuk struktur modal negatif, tidak sesuai
signifikansi masing-masing 0,549 dan 0,753 tidak
dengan hipotesisnya. Sedangkan arah koefisien
berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC.
untuk pertumbuhan perusahaan adalah negatif,
Pembahasan
sesuai dengan hipotesisnya. Arah koefisien
Hipotesis 1 dan Hipotesis 2
tersebut menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan yang
Hipotesis pertama berhasil dibuktikan dalam penelitian
memiliki tingkat pertumbuhan tinggi,
yaitu informasi proyeksi berpengaruh signifikan terhadap
dipersepsikan oleh pasar memiliki tingkat
ERC. Hasil ini berbeda dengan penelitian Kartadjumena
ketidakpastian tentang masa depan yang rendah
(2010) mengenai pengaruh voluntary disclosure termasuk
sehingga nilai ERC rendah. Demikian juga
informasi proyeksi terhadap ERC yang hasilnya tidak
sebaliknya perusahaan dengan nilai pertumbuhan
terdapat pengaruh signifikan.
rendah dipersepsikan oleh pasar memiliki tingkat
Hasil pengujian terhadap hipotesis kedua dalam
ketidakpastian yang tinggi sehingga memiliki
penelitian menunjukkan nilai t yang tidak signifikan. Hasil
nilai ERC tinggi.
ini sejalan dengan penelitian Lestari (2014) serta Restuti dan
Nathaniel (2012) yang menunjukkan bahwa CSR tidak
memiliki pengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Simpulan
Arah koefisien regresi dari informasi proyeksi maupun mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
CSR terhadap ERC adalah negatif. Hal ini sesuai dengan

Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017 99


Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaruh
pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan pengungkapan
tanggung jawab sosial terhadap koefisien respon laba,
menggunakan data-data yang diambil dari sampel
perusahaan yang tergabung dalam LQ 45 periode Agustus
2014 - Januari 2015. Pengujian dilakukan menggunakan
regresi OLS (Ordinary Least Square) pada dua model yaitu
model pertama tanpa variabel pengendali dan model kedua
dengan variabel pengendali. Pada model pertama, hasil
pengujian secara simultan menunjukkan bahwa
pengungkapan informasi proyeksi dan CSR berpengaruh
signifikan terhadap ERC. Hasil pengujian parsial, informasi
proyeksi berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC dengan arah
pengaruh negatif, sesuai dengan hipotesisnya. Variabel CSR
berpengaruh negatif terhadap ERC sesuai dengan
hipotesisnya tetapi pengaruhnya tidak signifikan. Pada
model dengan variabel pengendali, pengungkapan informasi
proyeksi dan CSR dengan struktur modal dan pertumbuhan
perusahaan sebagai variabel pengendali, secara bersama-
sama tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC. Secara
parsial, hasil pengujian pada model kedua ini, informasi
proyeksi dan CSR tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap
ERC walaupun nilai koefisien yang negatif sesuai dengan
hipotesisnya. Demikian halnya dengan variabel pengendali
struktur modal dan pertumbuhan perusahaan tidak
berpengaruh signifikan terhadap ERC.
Mengingat keterbatasan yang ada dalam penelitian ini
dalam jumlah sampel yang digunakan, maka disarankan bagi
penelitian selanjutnya agar memperbanyak jumlah sampel
tidak terbatas pada perusahaan-perusahaan yang tergabung
di LQ 45 tetapi mencakup seluruh perusahaan yang terdaftar
di BEI. Selain itu, sampel bisa diperbanyak dengan
mengambil data secara time series. Nilai R2 yang masih
rendah pada penelitian ini sebaiknya menjadi pertimbangan
bagi penelitian mendatang untuk memasukkan faktor-faktor
lain yang berpengaruh signifikan terhadap variabel ERC,
misalnya ukuran perusahaan, manajemen laba serta
kepemilikan manajerial.
Referensi mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
(1) Abolfazl, G.M., G.S.Akram, G.S.Elahe, M. Zakie, A.
Ensie, dan K.Neda. 2013. Effect of the Social
Responsibility on Earnings Response Coefficient.
World of Sciences Journal. 1 (10) : 39-49.
(2) Adi, P.S. 2005. Pengaruh Pengungkapan Sosial Dalam
Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan Terhadap Reaksi Investor
(Studi Kasus pada Perusahaan High Profile yang
Listing di BEI). Balance. 2(7) : 447-461.
(3) An, Y. 2015. Earnings Response Coefficients and
Default Risk: Case of Korean Firms. International
Journal of Financial Research. 6( 2). 2015.
(4) Bartov, E. dan Yanli. 2015. Corporate Social
Responsibility & the Market Pricing of Corporate
Earnings. www.uts.edu.au. Diakses 14 Februari 2016.
(5) Batosan. 2000. Disclosure Level and Expected Cost of
Equity Capital: An Examination of analysts’ Rangkings
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
of Corporate Disclosure and Alternative
Methods of Estimating Expected Cost of
Equity Capital. Social Science Research
Network Electronic Paper Collection.
(6) Chandrarin, G.. 2003. T he Impact of
Accounting Methods for Transaction Gains
(Losses) on The Earning Response
Coefficients: The Indonesian Case. Jurnal
Riset Akuntansi Indonesia. 6 (3) : 217 - 231.
(7) Chaney, P. K., and D. C. Jeter. 1991. The
Effect of Size on The Magnitude of Long
Coefficients. Contemporary Accounting
Research. 8 (2) : 540- 560.
(8) Chariri, A. dan Ghozali, I. 2007. Teori
Akuntansi. Economy Faculty : Diponegoro
University Semarang.
(9) Collins, D. W., & S. P. Kothari. 1989. An
Analysis of Intertemporal and Cross
Sectional Determinants of Earnings. Journal
of Accounting and Economics (11).
(10) Collins, D. W., & W. K. Salatka. 1993.
Noisy Accounting Earnings Signals and
Earnings Response Coefficients: The Case
of Foreign Currency Accounting.
Contemporary Accounting Research. 10 (1) :
119-159.
(11) Darwin, A. 2006. Akuntabilitas, Kebutuhan,
Pelaporan dan Pengungkapan CSR bagi
Perusahaan di Indonesia. Economics
Business Accounting Review. 3 : 83 - 95.
(12) Easton, P. D. dan M. E. Zmijweski. 1989.
Cross-Sectional Variation In The Stock
Market Response To Accounting Earnings
Announcements. Journal of Accounting and
Economics. July : 117-141.
(13) Francis, J., D. Nanda and P. Olsson. 2008.
Voluntary Disclosure, Earnings Quality, and
Cost of Capital. Journal of Accounting
Research. 46 (1) : 53-99.
(14) Ghozali, I. 2016. Aplikasi Analisis
Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS 23.
BPFE Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.
(15) Graham, J.R.; C.R. Harvey; dan S. Rajgopal.
2005. The Economic Implications Of
Corporate Financial Reporting.
http://www.ssrn.com. Diakses tanggal 27
Februari 2016
(16) Guthrie, J. and L.D. Parker. 1990. Corporate
Social Disclosure Practice: A Comparative
International Analysis. Advances in Public
Interest Accounting. 3 : 159-175.
(17) Haniffa, R.M., dan T.E. Cooke. 2005. The
Impact of Culture and Governance on
Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy. 24 : 391-430.
100

(18) Healy, P. M., & K. G. Palepu. 1993. The Effect of
Firms’ Financial Disclosure Strategies on Stock Prices.
Accounting Horizons. 7 (1) : 1-11.
(19) Healy, P.M., and K.G. Palepu. 2001. Information
Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure,and The Capital
Markets: A Review of The Empirical Disclosure
Lliterature. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 31:
405-440.
(20) Holbrook, M.B. 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Earnings Response Coefficients. Journal of
Finance and Accountancy.
(21) Kartadjumena, E. 2010. Pengaruh Voluntary Disclosure
Of Financial Information dan CSR Disclosure
Terhadap Earning Respon Coefficient. The 4th PPM
National Conference on Management Research. 25
November 2010. Jakarta.
(22) Kip, A. 2009. The Effect of Fair Value Accounting on
The Earnings Response Coefficient. Master Thesis.
2009.
(23) Kiroyan, N. 2006. Good Corporate Governance (GCG)
dan Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Adakah
Kaitan di Antara Keduanya. Economics Business
Accounting Review. Edisi III. September-Desember
2006 : 45-58.
(24) Kothari, S.P. dan J.L. Zimmerman. 1995. Price and
Return Models. Journal of Accounting and Economics.
20 : 155-192.
(25) Kross,W.J, W.G. Lewellen, dan B.T. Ro. 1994.
Evidence on the Motivation for Management Forecasts
of Corporate Earnings. Managerial and Decision
Economics. 15 : 187 - 200.
(26) Lang, M.H. dan R.J. Lundholm. 1993. Cross-Sectional
Determinants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate
Disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research. 31 (2) :
246 - 271.
(27) Lestari, R.O.. 2014. Pengaruh Pengungkapan Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) terhadap Earning Respon Coefficient (ERC)
dengan Good Corporate Governance sebagai Variabel Moderasi.
Jurnal Akuntansi Unesa . 3 (1).
(28) Meek. 1995. Factors Influencing Voluntary Annual
Report Disclosures By U.S, U.K, and Contiental
European Multinational Corporations. Journal of
International Business Studies. 3rd Quarter: 70 -82.
(29) Melati, A.R.. 2013. Pengaruh Pengungkapan Informasi
CSR dan Profitabilitas Terhadap Earning Respon
Coefficient (ERC). Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi. 2
(12):90- 104.
(30) Palupi, I.D.. 2000. Faktor-faktor yang Memotivasi
Pihak Manajemen dalam Memilih Bentuk Ramalan
Laba yang Diungkapkan pada Laporan Tahunan. Tesis.
Program Pasca Sarjana UGM.
(31) Restuti, M.I.M.D. dan C. Nathaniel. 2012. Pengaruh
pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility
Terhadap Earning Respon Coefficient.
http://journal.unnes.ac.id /nju/index.php/jdm Home >
Vol 3, No 1 (2012). Diakses tanggal 14 Februari 2016.
Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 2017
Palupi, Wulandari dan Safitri, 2017
(32) Sayekti, Y. dan L.S. Wondabio. 2007.
Pengaruh CSR Disclosure Terhadap Earning
Response Coefficient (Suatu Studi Empiris
Pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar Di Bursa
Efek Jakarta). Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi X. Juli 2007. Makasar.
(33) Scott, W.R. 2000. Financial Accounting
Theory. 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall Canada
Inc., Scarborough, Ontario.
(34) Sembiring, E.R. 2005. Karakteristik
Perusahaan dan Pengungkapan Tanggung
Jawab Sosial: Study Empiris pada
Perusahaan yang Tercatat Di Bursa Efek
Jakarta. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi
VIII. 2005.
(35) Suryani, A. dan E. Herianti. 2015. Pengaruh
Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial
Perusahaan terhadap Koefisien Respon Laba
dan Manajemen Laba. Prosiding Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi 18. Universitas Sumatra
Utara Medan 16 - 19 September 2015.
(36) Suwardjono. 2005. Teori Akuntansi:
Perekayasaan Pelaporan Keuangan. Edisi
Ketiga. Penerbit BPFE.
(37) Teoh, S. H., & T. J. Wong. 1993. Perceived
Auditor Quality and The Earnings Response
Coefficient. Accounting Review. 68(2) : 346
- 366.
(38) Utaminingtyas, T.H. dan Ahalik. 2010. The
Relationship between Corporate Social
Responsibility and Earnings Response
Coefficient: Evidence from Indonesian
Stock Exchange. Oxford Business &
Economics Conference Program 2010.
(39) Wibowo, V.A. 2013. Pengaruh Mekanisme
Good Corporate Governance terhadap
Earning Response Coefficient dengan
Pengungkapan Corporate Social
Responsibility sebagai Variabel Intervening
Pada Perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar
di Bursa Efek Indonesia.
http://repository.stiesia. ac.id/637/. Diaksesk
14 Februari 2016.
(40) Widiastuti, H.. 2002. Pengaruh Luas
Ungkapan Sukarela dalam Laporan Tahunan
terhadap Earning Response Coefficient
(ERC). Prosiding Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi V. Semarang
101
 Jurnal : Asian Review Of Accounting (Emerald Insight)

Disclosure Of Corporate Sustainability Performance and Firm Performance In Asia

(2018)
Oleh : Najul Laskar dan Santi Gopal Maji

A. Motivation Of Research
1. Penelitian ini mengamati tentang hubungan antara pelaporan pengungkapan dan kinerja
perusahaan di negara-negara Asia yang sangat terbatas dan para peneliti tidak
mempertimbangkan kontinuitas pelaporan.
2. Para peneliti hanya mempertimbangkan aspek kuantitatif dari pengungkapan
keberlanjutan dengan menggunakan sistem pengkodean biner, yang hanya menunjukkan
ada atau tidak adanya item dalam laporan ini.
3. Tidak ada penelitian yang menganalisis kualitas pengungkapan keberlanjutan, terdapat
kebutuhan untuk menyelidiki aspek kualitatif pelaporan keberlanjutan dalam konteks Asia.
 4. Makalah ini berkontribusi pada literatur empiris dengan memberikan gambaran yang
komprehensif tentang praktik pelaporan keberlanjutan negara-negara Asia terpilih, baik
dari segi kualitas dan kuantitas serta pengaruh pelaporan keberlanjutan perusahaan pada
kinerja keuangan perusahaan.
5. Kualitas laporan keberlanjutan perusahaan yang lebih baik menunjukkan ‘ komitmen
perusahaan ’ terhadap pengelolaan dampak ekonomi, sosial dan lingkungannya, dengan
demikian dapat meningkatkan transparansi, yang sangat penting untuk menjaga hubungan
yang sehat dengan para pemangku kepentingan (Laskar dan Maji, 2016).
6. Kurangnya kejelasan dalam proses pelaporan memperburuk relevansi pelaporan
keberlanjutan.
7. Kesinambungan dalam praktik keberlanjutan adalah kriteria penting lainnya dalam
memahami perilaku tanggung jawab perusahaan yang jelas kurang dalam studi
sebelumnya.
8. Laporan non-keuangan yang disiapkan tanpa ada kerangka kerja berstandar dapat merusak
karena kurangnya kredibilitas (yaitu kesenjangan antara kinerja aktual dan pelaporan) dan
mungkin ada peluang besar untuk pencucian uang.
B. Objection Of Research

Penelitian ini mengamati bagaimana hubungan antara pelaporan keberlanjutan

perusahaan dan kinerja perusahaan untuk negara-negara tertentu di Asia secara terpisah dan
juga membuat penyelidikan komparatif dari asosiasi ini antara negara-negara maju dan
berkembang. Hasil dari penelitian ini dapat membantu para pembuat kebijakan dalam hal
merumuskan kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan keberlanjutan di tingkat nasional dan
internasional, serta untuk para manajer perusahaan dalam hal pengambilan keputusan untuk
mencapai keunggulan kompetitif yang berkelanjutan.
C. Grand Theory
Dalam penelitian ini penulis menggunakan 3 landasan teori untuk mendukung
penelitiannya dan guna membutikkan hipotesis yang digunakan benar atau tidak, yaitu
institutional theory, stakeholder theory dan resource-based perspective (RBP) theory.
D. Hypothesis
Secara teoritis, pelaporan keberlanjutan perusahaan bisa sangat efektif dalam
menciptakan nilai perusahaan. Hubungan semacam itu diharapkan hanya berlaku jika
perusahaan mengungkapkan kegiatan terkait keberlanjutannya dengan sangat tepat dan
 objektif. Dengan demikian penelitian ini, bermaksud untuk menguji hipotesis penelitian
berikut:
H1: Terdapat hubungan positif antara kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan dan kinerja
perusahaan.
Menurut Usunier et al. (2011) menunjukkan bahwa persepsi mengenai pentingnya kinerja
keberlanjutan perusahaan berbeda sesuai dengan tingkat perkembangan ekonomi negara.
H2: Hubungan antara CSP dan kinerja perusahaan sangat berbeda antara negara maju
dan berkembang di Asia.
Menurut Bhatia dan Chander (2014), kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan dari negara maju
relatif lebih baik dibandingkan dengan perusahaan dari negara berkembang. Oleh karena
itu, untuk mengetahui bahwa pengaruh relatif kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan pada
kinerja perusahaan berbeda antara negara maju dan negara berkembang di Asia.
E. The Metodology Of Research
1. Sumber Data, Periode Penelitian dan Sampel
Penelitian ini didasarkan pada data sekunder yang dikumpulkan dari laporan keberlanjutan
yang diterbitkan dan laporan tahunan perusahaan non-keuangan yang terdaftar dari empat
negara terpilih untuk periode enam tahun dari 2009 - 2014.
2. Pengukuran variabel
Variabel dependen adalah kinerja perusahaan yang diukur dengan rasio pasar terhadap
buku (MBR). Karena pangsa pasar perusahaan mewakili pemangku kepentingan '
ekspektasi, MBR dianggap sebagai indikator yang lebih baik dari kinerja perusahaan
(Hussain, 2015). Variabel penjelas adalah kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan. Dengan
demikian, teknik analisis konten berdasarkan kerangka kerja GRI digunakan dalam
penelitian ini untuk menghitung skor pengungkapan. Kerangka kerja GRI cocok untuk
penelitian karena hampir semua perusahaan sampel telah mengadopsi kerangka kerja ini
untuk menerbitkan laporan keberlanjutan mereka. Untuk melaksanakan tugas analisis
konten, salah satu dari dua versi kerangka kerja GRI, yaitu, G3 dan G3.1 dianggap sesuai
penerapannya dalam laporan keberlanjutan. Variabel kontrolnya yaitu ukuran perusahaan.
3. Model Empiris
Dalam literatur yang ada menunjukkan bahwa peneliti telah menggunakan model regresi
data panel untuk memeriksa hubungan antara kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan dan kinerja
perusahaan.
Model regresi data panel yang sesuai digunakan dalam penelitian ini berdasarkan hasil dari
dua tes yang umum digunakan yaitu tes pagan dan tes Hausman. Sedangkan yang
 signifikan χ 2 nilai Breausch - Uji pagan menunjukkan bahwa model efek acak lebih tepat
daripada model pooled ordinary least square (OLS), yang signifikan χ 2nilai pendukung
tes Hausman yang mendukung model efek tetap dan bukan model efek acak. Atas dasar
hasil statistik uji (disajikan dalam tabel), kami menggunakan efek tetap atau model regresi
efek acak. Ketika tes Hausman mendukung model efek tetap, maka kami memperkirakan
koefisien yang menggunakan model berikut:

Untuk menyelidiki dampak relatif kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan (baik dalam hal level
yaitu CSPL dan kualitas yaitu CSPQ) pada kinerja perusahaan (MBR) antara negara-negara
maju dan berkembang di Asia, model regresi berikut digunakan untuk kumpulan data
gabungan:
F. Results
1. Statistik deskriptif
a. Melihat statistik deskriptif yang berkaitan dengan mean, median dan kemiringan semua
variabel yang termasuk dalam model regresi (Tabel I) mengungkapkan bahwa tingkat
rata-rata CSPQ dan CSPL untuk Jepang, Korea Selatan dan India sangat tinggi
dibandingkan dengan yang dari di Indonesia.
b. Nilai rata-rata tinggi yang diamati dari CSPL (tingkat pengungkapan) dan CSPQ
(kualitas pengungkapan) menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan-perusahaan dari negara-
negara Asia, kecuali Indonesia, mengungkapkan sebagian besar informasi
keberlanjutan yang ditentukan dalam kerangka kerja GRI dan informasi tersebut
diungkapkan dengan lebih transparan kepada memenuhi kebutuhan para pemangku
kepentingan.
c. Dalam hal kinerja perusahaan diukur dengan MBR, hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa rata-
rata kinerja perusahaan lebih tinggi dalam kasus Jepang diikuti oleh India dan Korea
Selatan. Dalam kasus Indonesia, nilai rata-rata jauh lebih rendah daripada yang lain.
d. Nilai tengah ukuran perusahaan (SIZE) dari keempat negara juga menunjukkan bahwa
perusahaan sampel ini adalah perusahaan yang lebih besar.
e. Sehubungan dengan profitabilitas rata-rata (ROA), hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa
profitabilitas perusahaan India relatif lebih dari yang lain.
2. Pola Pengungkapan Keberlanjutan
a. Box plot atau diagram kotak adalah cara standar untuk menampilkan distribusi data
berdasarkan lima ringkasan angka: minimum, kuartil pertama, median, kuartil ketiga, dan
maksimum. Box plot untuk keseluruhan kinerja keberlanjutan, kinerja ekonomi, kinerja
lingkungan, dan kinerja sosial dalam hal tingkat sistem pengkodean biner untuk keempat
negara.
b. Secara statistik, yang diamati χ 2 nilai untuk uji homogenitas dalam proporsi
pengungkapan termasuk keempat negara ditemukan 140,73, yang signifikan pada level
1 persen. Hasilnya, dengan demikian, menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan yang
signifikan dalam pengungkapan kinerja ekonomi setidaknya untuk satu negara.
c. Analisis detail dari sub-indikator kinerja sosial mengungkapkan bahwa lebih dari 90
persen perusahaan Jepang telah melaporkan semua item yang berkaitan dengan praktik
ketenagakerjaan dan indikator kinerja kerja yang layak.
 d. Analisis item-bijaksana mengungkapkan bahwa hampir semua perusahaan selama
periode studi dari empat negara ini telah melaporkan informasi terkait keragaman tenaga
kerja seperti jenis kelamin, kelompok usia, jenis pekerjaan, dll.
e. Indikator kinerja hak asasi manusia, rata-rata, lebih dari 80 persen perusahaan dari semua
negara telah mengungkapkan informasi. Tetapi pengungkapan informasi tersebut sekitar
60 persen untuk Indonesia.
f. Analisis pengungkapan keberlanjutan secara keseluruhan serta komponen keberlanjutan
mengungkapkan bahwa ada perbedaan yang signifikan dalam pengungkapan informasi
antar negara.
3. Asosiasi antara Kinerja Keberlanjutan Perusahaan dan Kinerja Perusahaan
a. Peningkatan yang stabil dalam hubungan linear antara CSPQ dan MBR dalam kasus
Jepang dan Korea Selatan.
b. Hasil dampak CSPL pada MBR setelah mengendalikan pengaruh ROA, SIZE, LEV dan
LnRD ditunjukkan pada Tabel II.
c. Perbedaan yang cukup besar dalam koefisien yang diamati jelas menunjukkan bahwa
pengaruh ekonomi CSP secara signifikan lebih besar dalam kasus Jepang dibandingkan
dengan di Indonesia. Antara India dan Korea Selatan, pengaruh CSP pada MBR relatif
lebih banyak terjadi di Korea Selatan daripada di India.
d. Plot sebaran ganda untuk Indonesia juga memperlihatkan bahwa hubungan antara CSPQ
dan MBR tetap tidak jelas dan tidak dapat ditafsirkan. Ini menyiratkan bahwa konsep CS
masih pada tahap embrionik dalam kasus Indonesia dibandingkan dengan Jepang.
4. Dampak Relatif CSP dan Kinerja Perusahaan terhadap Negara-Negara Maju dan
Berkembang di Asia
Untuk menyelidiki apakah pengaruh positif CSP (baik dari segi level dan kualitas) pada
MBR berbeda secara signifikan antara negara-negara maju dan berkembang di Asia, model
regresi 3 dan 4 digunakan untuk kumpulan data gabungan. Hasil model ditunjukkan pada
Tabel IV. Koefisien yang diamati dari kedua interaksi (DxCSPL dan DxCSPQ) adalah
positif dan signifikan pada tingkat 1 persen. Ini menunjukkan bahwa pengaruh relatif CSP
(baik dari segi level dan kualitas) pada MBR berbeda secara signifikan antara negara maju
dan negara berkembang di Asia.
5. Implikasi Praktis
Pelaporan keberlanjutan adalah senjata strategis yang berkontribusi terhadap
pembangunan berkelanjutan dan mengarah pada maksimalisasi nilai. Hasil dari penelitian
 ini juga menunjukkan bahwa pelaporan CS membantu perusahaan untuk meningkatkan
kinerja mereka dan akibatnya meningkatkan pentingnya praktik pelaporan tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, tingkat dan kualitas pengungkapan dalam kasus perusahaan
Indonesia relatif lebih rendah dibandingkan dengan perusahaan dari tiga negara lain dan
dengan demikian, dampaknya ditemukan sangat rendah.
G. Conclusion
1. Upaya sederhana untuk mengeksplorasi hubungan antara kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan
(baik dari segi level dan kualitas) dan kinerja perusahaan (MBR) dari empat negara Asia -
Jepang, Korea Selatan, Indonesia dan India.
2. Dengan menggunakan teknik analisis konten berdasarkan indikator GRI, studi ini
menemukan tingkat rata-rata dan kualitas pengungkapan adalah yang tertinggi untuk
perusahaan Jepang (90,24 % ; 84,75 % ), diikuti oleh India (88,3 % ; 79,51 %) dan Korea
Selatan (85,32 %; 79,71 %). Namun, dalam kasus Indonesia, skor rata-rata sangat rendah
(yaitu 72,1 % untuk tingkat rata – rata dan 51,31 % untuk kualitas).
3. Temuan dari plot hamburan bivariat menggambarkan peningkatan yang stabil dalam
kemiringan hubungan linear antara kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan (baik dari segi level
dan kualitas) dan MBR, seperti halnya Jepang dan Korea Selatan tetapi kesan seperti itu
tidak terlalu menonjol dalam kasus India dan Indonesia.
4. Hasil dari model regresi di atas mengungkapkan bahwa dampak kinerja keberlanjutan
perusahaan (baik dalam hal tingkat dan kualitas) pada MBR adalah positif dan signifikan
dalam kasus semua empat negara Asia.
5. Hasil regresi lebih lanjut mengungkapkan bahwa dampak positif kinerja keberlanjutan
perusahaan (baik dari segi level dan kualitas) pada negara-negara maju secara signifikan
lebih tinggi daripada negara-negara berkembang.
6. Penelitian ini menegaskan bahwa pengungkapan kinerja keberlanjutan perusahaan
meningkatkan transparansi dan membangkitkan kepercayaan para pemangku kepentingan
terhadap perusahaan.
B. Limitation

Penelitian ini hanya berfokus pada pengukuran kinerja perusahaan (MBR) yang
berbasis pasar. Dan mungkin tidak cukup bagi perusahaan industri yang berbeda untuk
mengungkapkan praktik keberlanjutan mereka dalam format GRI karena tingkat kegiatan di
masing-masing industri berbeda satu sama lain.
C. Future Research
1. Penelitian selanjutnya dapat memfokuskan pada pengukuran berbasis akuntansi (ROA dan
pertumbuhan penjualan) serta pengukuran kinerja perusahaan non-keuangan seperti
kinerja sumber daya manusia, kinerja pemasaran dan kinerja operasional.
2. Mempertimbangkan kerangka kerja yang diakui secara internasional lainnya seperti
UNGC dan Proyek Pengungkapan Karbon bersama dengan kerangka kerja GRI.
3. Dapat memberikan gambaran yang komprehensif tentang perbedaan dalam pola
pengungkapan dengan menganalisis item dari masing-masing indikator keberlanjutan
perusahaaan.
 Asian Review of Accounting
Disclosure of corporate sustainability performance and firm performance in Asia
Najul Laskar, Santi Gopal Maji,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Najul Laskar, Santi Gopal Maji, (2018) "Disclosure of corporate sustainability performance and firm
performance in Asia", Asian Review of Accounting, https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-02-2017-0029
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-02-2017-0029
Downloaded on: 03 November 2018, At: 09:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 86 other documents.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1321-7348.htm

CSP and firm

Disclosure of corporate performance
sustainability performance and in Asia

firm performance in Asia

Najul Laskar
Department of Management, Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune, India, and
Received 27 February 2017
Santi Gopal Maji Revised 5 May 2018
Accepted 6 May 2018
Department of Commerce, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the disclosure pattern of corporate sustainability (CS) and
the influence of sustainability reporting on firm performance of four countries in Asia – Japan, South Korea,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Indonesia and India.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors have collected the sustainability reports and annual reports
of 111 firms from four Asian countries for a period of six years. Based on the framework of Global Reporting
Initiatives (GRI, 3 and 3.1), content analysis is used for calculating the disclosure score of corporate
sustainability performance (CSP). These scores are further used to examine the impact on firm performance
by employing a panel data regression model.
Findings – The study finds that the average level and quality of disclosure are the highest for Japanese
firms, followed by India and South Korea. However, in the case of Indonesia, the average score is very low.
Further, the study finds a significant difference in the disclosure of overall sustainability as well as
components of sustainability between the countries. The regression results indicate the positive impact of
CSP (both in terms of level and quality) on MBR. Specifically, the outcome of the regression model reveals that
both the level and quality disclosure of CS are crucial for enhancing firm value for both the developed and
developing countries of Asia. Moreover, the relative influence of CSP (both in terms of level and quality) on
firm performance is found to be more in developed countries than the developing countries of Asia.
Originality/value – This is the first comprehensive study in the Asian context to investigate the disclosure
pattern of CSP and also examine the association between CSP and firm performance by employing the panel
data model. The outcome of this study is useful for policy implication.
Keywords Asia, Global reporting initiatives, Firm performance, Content analysis,
Corporate sustainability reporting
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, there has been a remarkable upsurge in the demand for
companies to provide an account of their responsibilities relating to economic, social and
environmental activities in a more comprehensive way (KPMG, 2008, 2013). The traditional
financial reporting encompassing mainly economic activities is losing its relevance due to
the growing importance of social and environmental issues. Thus, corporate reporting that
gives a holistic picture of firms’ performance towards the triple bottom line (economy,
society and environment) is gaining momentum. Such reporting is commonly termed as
corporate sustainability (CS) reporting or triple bottom line reporting (Elkington, 1994).
In this rapidly transforming global economy, CS reporting has emerged as the strategic
weapon for the growth and survival of the company (Lo and Sheu, 2007) by maintaining the
quality relationship with stakeholders (Lourenço et al., 2012). Consequently, performing
sustainability activities contributing to sustainable development has emerged as an
important aspect of company’s voluntary practices (Lacy et al., 2010) and a rare source of
competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Lourenço et al., 2012). Asian Review of Accounting
Survey reports of KPMG (2008, 2013) indicate that there is a significant increase in © Emerald Publishing Limited
1321-7348
publishing CS report over the past few years and the reporting rates are very high in DOI 10.1108/ARA-02-2017-0029
 ARA developed countries like USA, UK, France, Germany and Japan. In the context of Asia, only
a few countries like Japan, South Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are
publishing CS report. Apart from Japan and South Korea, CS reporting is still in infant stage
for the rest of Asian countries. On the other hand, empirical studies relating to
the association between CS reporting and firm performance in Asian countries (Ho and
Taylor, 2007; Cortez and Cudia, 2011; Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012; Hidemichi et al., 2012) are
very limited to the best of our knowledge and the outcomes are inconclusive. Further, the
earlier studies have addressed the sustainability issue in a specific context. For instance,
while some studies were countries specific (Choi, 1999; Choi et al., 2010; Laskar and Maji,
2016), others have undertaken some studies with a very limited study period (Burhan and
Rahmanti, 2012; Kumar, 2014; Tewari and Dev, 2012; Maji and Laskar, 2014). On the other
hand, there are also some studies where only one component of CS was studied as a proxy
for CS (Hidemichi et al., 2012; Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010; Chen et al., 2015).
Additionally, there are some cross-country analyses to look into the sustainability
reporting practices (Chapple and Moon, 2005; Ho and Taylor, 2007; Gill et al., 2008; Singh
et al., 2017). But these studies have failed to demonstrate the comprehensive picture of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

sustainability practices in the Asian context due to several shortcomings. First, the study
period was very limited and the researchers did not consider the continuity of reporting.
Second, the researchers have considered only the quantitative aspects of sustainability
disclosure by using the binary coding system, which indicates only the presence or absence
of any items in the report. Since none of the studies has analysed the quality of
sustainability disclosure, there is a need to investigate the qualitative aspects of
sustainability reporting in the Asian context. Third, the influence of sustainability
disclosure (both in terms of quantity and quality) on firm performance is very limited in the
Asian context (Chapple and Moon, 2005; Gill et al., 2008).
Two developed countries ( Japan and South Korea) and two developing countries (India
and Indonesia) from Asia are considered for the study. These countries are selected based on
the availability of CS report in the English language from the company’s website from
2008–2009 to 2013–2014. Company’s website is a reliable source of data because Asian
companies are found to be publishing their CS report on their respective website for easy
accessibility. The study first examines the variations in the CS practices between Asian
countries. Further, the study examines the association between CS reporting and firm
performance for selected countries separately and also makes a comparative investigation
of this association between developed and developing countries. The outcome of the present
study may be helpful to policymakers in terms of formulating policies relating to
sustainability at the national and international level, as well as to corporate managers in
terms of decision making for attaining a sustainable competitive advantage. It is also
important to note that all non-financial reports prepared without any standardised
framework may suffer from a lack of credibility (i.e. the gap between actual performance
and reporting) and there might be a high chance of green wash. These problems can reduce
to a greater extent if the non-financial reports are prepared with a standardised reporting
framework. At present, GRI is one of the most standardised reporting frameworks, which is
universally accepted by majority of the stakeholders (Carrots & Sticks, 2013; KPMG, 2008,
2013). According to Brown et al. (2009), Marimon et al. (2012) and Laskar and Maji (2016,
2017a), GRI is the most comprehensive, consistent and reliable framework for assessing
sustainability activities. Thus, in this perspective, CS reporting, CS disclosure and CS
performance can be used synonymously. Again, CS reporting, CS disclosure and CS
performance are considered synonymously by a number of researchers when content
analysis is used to measure CS disclosure score from the published report (Saleh et al., 2011;
Ameer and Othman, 2012; Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012; Hussain, 2015; Laskar and Maji,
2017b). In the present study, the methodology of content analysis based on the GRI
 framework is used to measure CS disclosure score and hence, CS reporting, CS disclosure CSP and firm
and CS performance are used interchangeably. performance
This paper contributes to the empirical literature by providing a comprehensive picture in Asia
of the sustainability reporting practices of selected Asian countries (both in terms of quality
and quantity) and the influence of such reporting on the financial performance of firms.
Better quality of CS report demonstrates a company’s commitment towards managing its
economic, social and environmental impacts and, in doing so, it enhances transparency,
which is very crucial for maintaining a healthy relationship with stakeholders (Carrots and
Sticks, 2013; Laskar and Maji, 2016). According to Williams (2015), a lack of clarity in
reporting process deteriorates the relevance of sustainability reporting. Again, continuity in
sustainability practice is another important criterion in understanding the responsibility
behaviour of the firm which is clearly lacking in the previous studies. In the present context,
we have strictly analysed this continuity in reporting and considered only those companies
that have continuously published their sustainability over the years. Our study period is
also longer as compared to earlier studies. Further, the study enriches the empirical
literature by providing evidences of the cross-country differences in the disclosure of CS and
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

its components in the Asian context. Additionally, there is a lack of comparative studies
between developed and developing countries of Asia. This aspect is also undertaken in the
present context.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: literature review and development of
hypotheses are presented in Section 2. Section 3 is devoted to data, variables and model
adopted in this study followed by results and discussion and practical implication in
Section 4. Finally, concluding remarks followed by limitations and suggestion for future
study are presented in Section 5.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Theoretical background of CS reporting
The extant literature suggests that the concept of CS reporting borrows elements from mainly
three established theories: institutional theory, stakeholder theory and resource-based
perspective (RBP) theory (Ruf et al., 2001; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Bansal, 2005; Surroca et al.,
2010; Lourenço et al., 2012). Researchers have used institutional perspectives as a lens in order
to explore CS (Campbell, 2007; Doh and Guay, 2006; Doh et al., 2010). According to the
institutional theory, firms imitate certain practices which are perceived as the best practices
by the key stakeholders (Doh and Guay, 2006). Avras and Lee argued that, under the
institutional theory, firms engage in CS reporting due to certain external pressures (e.g. critical
norms of the society) and not necessarily because they are interested in being responsible
towards the society, economy and environment as a whole. Social legitimacy is another
analytical focus of institutional perspectives, which refers to the acceptance of the firm by the
society (i.e. the external stakeholders). However, the failure of a firm to perform within the
critical and institutionalised norms of the society can harm its legitimacy and ultimately its
survival and growth. Hence, this perspective suggests that firms should respond strategically
according to social-environmental changes in order to develop and maintain legitimacy
(Suchman, 1995; Bansal, 2005).
Globally companies are facing continuous pressure from the wide group of stakeholders
to become sustainable (Chen and Wang, 2011). Since the last few decades, the stakeholders’
demand for information relating to companies’ various activities has increased massively
(KPMG, 2008; Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Carrots and Sticks, 2013). These stakeholders
expect companies to disclose not only the financial information but also information relating
to their activities performed towards the society and environment (KPMG, 2013; Carrots and
Sticks, 2013). Thus, the stakeholder theory also contributes to the analytical focus of
institutional perspective. Moreover, the stakeholders constitute the society within which
 ARA firms operate, and their legitimacy depends on meeting the stakeholders’ expectations
(Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). Therefore, from a stakeholder theory perspective, CSP of a
firm can be evaluated through CS report in terms of meeting the demands of a wide range of
stakeholders (Ruf et al., 2001).
Engaging in CS activities with the expectation of improving firms’ performance can also
be explained through RBP (Siegel, 2009; Hussainey and Salama, 2010; Surroca et al., 2010;
McWilliams et al., 2006). According to RBP, companies can develop and maintain the
competitive advantage by efficiently managing their resources that are scarce, valuable and
non-substitutable (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2003; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Lourenço et al.,
2012). Further, firms’ access to any of such resources is controlled by a wide group of
stakeholders. Therefore, firms must maintain their relationship with stakeholders by
disclosing their CS activities in the form of a CS report to ensure the accessibility of these
resources continuously (Roberts, 1992). In other words, RBP also seems to be
complementing the stakeholder theory because meeting the stakeholders’ demands may
be viewed as a strategy that requires commitment beyond the minimum requirements to
satisfy stakeholders (Ruf et al., 2001).
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Firms engage in CS activities because it is acknowledged that such activities when

communicated through CS report lead to sustainable competitive advantage (Lourenço et al.,
2012). In addition, CS provides various benefits to the firm. For instance, making
investments in CS activities may help the firm in developing capabilities and resources.
These capabilities and resources related to corporate culture and technical know-how, which
are acquired internally, can eventually lead to more efficient utilisation of resources. Such
investments may also lead to the creation or depletion of various essential intangible
resources which are mostly associated with employees. Further, CS can also help in
enhancing employees’ enthusiasm to work for the organisation, which brings direct benefits
to the organisation by increasing productivity and self-esteem. CS reporting also provides
external benefits, which are related to firm’s image in the market (Lo and Sheu, 2007; Tracy
et al., 2010). Firm’s image is one of the fundamental intangible resources that lead to
competitive advantage (Roberts and Dowling, 2002). Firms with a better CS image are able
to develop and maintain a healthy relationship with investors, suppliers, bankers, customers
and competitors (KPMG, 2013; Lourenço et al., 2012). Through CS report, firms are able to
attract and retain better employees and enhance employees’ motivation, as well as their
loyalty and commitment towards the firm, which, in turn, improves firms’ profitability.
In the long run, CS brings better benefits by reducing the cost of conflicts with
stakeholders and ensures a healthy relationship with them. It also helps in building a
reputation and enhances firm’s productivity. These aspects make firms more attractive to
ethical investors that eventually increase firm’s market capitalisation (KPMG, 2013; Carrots
and Sticks, 2013). Further, better CS practices are subject to more predictable earnings and
lower the risk for investors and economic uncertainty. Firms get the benefit of CS from the
market only when CS activities are communicated in the form of a report (Michelon and
Parbonetti, 2012). Hence, in order to derive these benefits, CS reporting has become
a necessary requirement for entering the market.

2.2 Sustainability initiatives in Asian countries

Japan. With the rise in the economic prosperity and rapid expansion of Japanese companies,
the Council for Better Corporate Citizen (CBCC) was established by Japanese Business
Federation in 1989, with the intention to supporting Japanese companies to be recognised
as a good corporate citizen. However, due to the collapse of the financial market in 1991, the
Japanese companies started facing serious problems and it was difficult to gain the
confidence of stakeholders. Thus, the Charter for Good Corporate Behaviour was
established in 1991 to incorporate corporate ethics and corporate social responsibilities.
 Although Japanese companies were actively participating in environmental protection as CSP and firm
well as cutting-edge technology for the conservation of energy and resources, the UN performance
conference on Environmental Development in 1992, the adoption of ISO 14000 Standard for in Asia
Environmental Management in 1996 and the UN conference on Climate Change held in 1997
further influenced the Japanese companies to actively participate in various activities
related to sustainable development. To facilitate the initiatives further, the government of
Japan has also adopted various laws relating to sustainable development. Such laws relate
to the Rational Users of Energy (Energy Conservation Act, 1979) enabling companies to
report the consumption of energy and greenhouse gas emissions; The Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register, 2001 dealing with the disclosure of chemical substances; End-of-Life
Vehicles Law, 2002 dealing with automobile business and enabling new recycling system
which prevents illegal dumping and making use of recyclable resources; Law relating to
Promotion of Business Activities with Environmental Conservation, 2005 which enables
some specified companies to publish environmental report. Further, the Ministry of the
Environment also developed some voluntary guidelines relating to environmental reporting
in 2007. At present, Japan is one of the most influential countries in the world in terms of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

publishing a sustainability report.

South Korea. Although the traditional form of corporate benevolence and philanthropic
activities towards society were the features of South Korean companies, the modern form of
corporate responsibility towards society and environment was started after the Asian
financial crisis 1997–1998 followed by corporate scandals that negatively affected the
stakeholders’ trust. Consequently, the Government of South Korea has taken a large number
of sustainability initiatives to bring back the stakeholders’ confidence. For instance, Korean
Business Ethics Index (KoBEI) was initiated by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (2003)
for evaluating the ethical leadership of CEO, human resource development, health and
safety to workers and equal employment opportunity. In 2005, ISO 26000 forum for
sustainability reporting based on GRI guidelines was instituted by the Ministry of
Knowledge Economy. Again in 2006, the same ministry established certain voluntary
guidelines for a sustainable management report. South Korean UN Global Compact was
established in 2007. In order to motivate the South Korean corporate for better sustainability
reporting, Sustainability Management Award for outstanding companies was launched by
the Ministry of Knowledge Economy in 2007. Again, to boost the sustainability performance
of the small and medium enterprise, corporate social responsibility forum was established in
2007. Similarly, social responsibility information centre was established in 2007 by the
Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs. Further, Industrial Development Act was
revised in 2007 by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy to include the promotion of
sustainability management. Social Enterprise Support Act was also enacted in 2007 by the
Ministry of Labour. The Government of South Korea announced new national vision of
“Green Growth, Low Carbon”, which is considered to be a strategic move towards
environmental responsibility. Again, to assess the corporate responsibility towards overall
society, ISO 26000 Self Diagnosis Check List was established in 2010 by the Ministry of
Trade, Industry and Energy Korean Agency for Technology and Standard. The Financial
Service Commission of South Korea also made mandatory to disclose the amount of
greenhouse gas emission, energy consumption, the certification of green technology and
green business for some firms.
India. With poor economic performance, poverty, environmental disasters coupled with
many corporate scandals during the 1970s and 1980s, there was an immediate need for laws
and regulations for various social and environmental issues in India. As a result of which
many important laws like Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Environment (Protection) Act 1986,
 ARA Factories Act 1948 (Amended in 1987), Hazardous (Management and Handling) Rules 1989,
Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998, Recycled Plastics (Management
and Usage) Rules 1999, Biological Diversity Act 2000 were enacted in India. According to
the Ministry of Environment and Forest, it is important that the companies not only perform
but also publish their respective environmental audit report annually to the State Pollution
Control Board. In 2009, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued voluntary guidelines on
corporate social responsibility, which is considered to be a major step towards sustainability
reporting. In 2011, the guidelines were revised by initiating National Voluntary Guidelines
that incorporate all the three major components of CSP (i.e. economy, environment and
society). Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Board of India also made it mandatory
for the top 100 listed companies to publish their respective sustainability report from
31 March 2012 continuously. Again, according to the Companies Bill 2012, it is compulsory
to spent 2 per cent of past three years average profit on social responsibilities activities.
Indonesia. In order to alleviate the CS practices in Indonesia, sustainability initiatives
started with the Clean River Project in 1989, a well-known voluntary guideline towards
corporate environmental responsibility, which was immediately followed by Programme for
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Pollution Control, Evaluation and Rating in 1995. The main objective of both the programme
was to reduce pollution. In 1999, Indonesian Business Links was established to promote and
encourage Indonesian companies for proper disclosure, ethical and responsible business
practices and effective governance. Further, to hold companies accountable for negative
impact on the society and environment, Business Watch Indonesia was launched in 2002.
It became the first representative of Indonesian civil society to suggest the inclusion for CS
practices. Again, to encourage the CS reporting practices among the Indonesian companies,
the National Centre for Sustainability Reporting was established in 2005. This was
immediately followed by the launch of Global Compact Local Network Indonesia in 2006.
In 2007, Indonesia became the first country in the world to make compulsory reporting for
limited liability companies under the Article 74 of the Law 40/2007. Although it was
discontinued, it was re-introduced in 2012.

2.3 Corporate sustainability performance (CSP) and firm performance

The association between CSP and firm performance has become an emerging issue for
corporate firms as stakeholders are showing an ever-increasing interest in the responsibility
behaviour of the firms (Waddock and Graves, 2000; Marti et al., 2015). This has stimulated
immense interest among researchers to examine empirically the influence CSP on firm
performance. Accordingly, researchers have used different methodologies to measure CSP,
such as content analysis based on published CS report, questionnaires and interviews and
indexes like DJSI and KLD indexes (Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012; O’Dwyer, 2002; Lopez
et al., 2007; Marti et al., 2015).
A large number of internationally standardised guidelines have been developed in order
to facilitate reporting and assessing the performance towards the triple bottom line, namely
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), The United Nation Global Compact (UNGC), United Nation
Environment Programme (UNEP) and so on. Among these guidelines, GRI is the most
popular and widely used method in the field of CS research as it contains indicators for all
the three components of CS (Hussain, 2015; Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012). Using the
technique of content analysis based on the GRI framework, Burhan and Rahmanti (2012)
examined the impact of CS reporting on company performance in the case of Indonesian
stock exchange. Employing logistic regression model, the study indicated that CS report
positively and significantly influenced the financial performance of the listed Indonesian
firms. Similarly, Jones et al. (2007) investigated the issue and found a positive and significant
impact of CS reporting on the financial performance of the Australian companies.
 However, the study failed to extricate any significant impact on the market performance CSP and firm
measured by abnormal returns. Another study was conducted by Schadewitz and Niskala performance
(2010) in the context of Finland companies following the GRI reporting framework. in Asia
The study found that the quality disclosure of CSP significantly improved the market value
(MV ) of the Finland firms. Using event study method for a sample of 68 companies listed in
New Zealand Stock Exchange and on the Australian Stock exchange, Reddy and Lucus
(2010) found that CS reporting was statistically significant in explaining abnormal returns
for the Australian companies. Hussain (2015) examined the impact of CSP on firm
performance in the context of Global Fortune (N100) firms. Employing the methodology of
content analysis based on the GRI reporting framework, the study indicated that the impact
of CSP on firm performance was positive and significant. Similar was the findings of Laskar
and Maji (2016) for non-financial firms of India. Dhaliwal et al. (2014) examined the
association between corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital.
The study found such association to be negative and this relationship was more pronounced
in stakeholder-oriented countries. The outcome of the study demonstrates that CSR
disclosure is an important channel for informing investors about CSR performance. While
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

studying the quality of environmental disclosure, Plumlee et al. (2015) found that voluntary
environmental disclosure quality was positively associated with the firm value of
US-listed firms.
Based on the standardised indexes like The Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini (KLD), Dow
Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), Stoxx Europe Sustainability index, many empirical
studies relating to CSP and firm performance have been undertaken (Waddock and
Graves, 2000; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Lo and Sheu, 2007; Lourenço et al., 2012; Marti et al.,
2015). For instance, employing KLD index (Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini), a
multi-dimensional measure of social performance, Waddock and Graves (2000) and
Hillman and Keim (2001) found a positive influence of customers and employees on the
financial performance of USA firms. According to Waddock and Graves (2000), better
responsibility practices are indicative of sound management practices, which lead to
superior financial performance. Similarly, Hillman and Keim (2001) reported that better
stakeholder management practices are indicative of good management practices and are
complementary to value creation which, in turn, creates a foundation for sustainable
competitive advantage. The finding was consistent with the study of Choi et al. (2010) in
the context of Korean firms. Again, Lo and Sheu (2007) in the context of 148 sustainable
firms selected from DJSGI (Dow Jones Sustainability Global Index) found a positive and
significant association between CSP (measured by dummy variable) and firms’ MV
measured by Tobin’s Q. The study further concluded that companies with better
sustainable strategies are more likely to be rewarded by financial markets. Similarly,
employing the same index in the case of 600 large firms from Canada and the USA,
Lourenço et al. (2012) empirically found that CSP was positively associated with the
financial performance of the firms which were able to signal their sustainability
performance. Again, Marti et al. (2015) analysed the effect exerted by CSP on firm
performance in the context of Stoxx Europe 600 index and Stoxx Europe Sustainability
index. The study measured CSP using a dummy variable and found that the companies
that contribute to sustainable development incur higher financial performance. The study
further concluded that the financial performance of the companies that implemented
sustainability-related strategies is better than those that implemented traditional
management strategies. Ameer and Othman (2012) examined the association between the
qualitative aspects of CS report and financial performance of top 100 sustainable global
companies and reported that there exists a simultaneous relationship between them.
Employing environmental performance as a proxy for sustainable business practices,
Ngwakwe (2008) and Hidemichi et al. (2012) found that such practices of the responsible
 ARA firms are significantly associated with financial performance in case of Nigerian and
Japanese manufacturing companies. According to these studies, fines and penalties are
inversely related to sustainable business practices.
On the other hand, McWilliams and Siegel (2000) failed to disentangle any significant
association between social responsibility and financial performance in the context of large
524 companies from the US. Further, the study concluded that the positive association could
turn out to be negative if firm’s sustainability activities involve higher costs than the
benefits derived from such activities. Similarly, Cortez and Cudia (2011) reported
the insignificant impact of environmental performance on the profitability of Japanese
electronics companies. While analysing this association using cross-sectional analysis in the
case of UK firms, Murray et al. (2006) found an insignificant association between market
reactions and reporting. The finding was consistent with the study of Nilipour and Nilipour
(2012) for Tehran firms. Similarly, in the context of Indian non-financial firms, Aggarwal
(2013) studied the impact of CSP on financial performance with study period of two years
and reported a positive but insignificant impact of CSP on financial performance measured
by return on assets (ROAs) and growth in total assets. Again, in the context of Indonesian
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

companies, Kusuma and Koesrindartoto (2014) reported a positive but insignificant impact
of sustainability reporting on the financial performance of the firm. Maji and Laskar (2014)
failed to disentangle any significant association between CS reporting and firm performance
in the case of 18 non-financial firms from India. Based on a one-year study period, Singh
et al. (2017) analysed the influence of CS reporting on firm value in context with Hong Kong
and China. However, they failed to disentangle any significant association between CS
reporting and firm performance. On the contrary, by analysing the level of disclosure
between December 2003 and January 2004, Ho and Taylor (2007) examined the
sustainability reporting practices in context of the US and Japan and found a negative
relationship between CS reporting and firm’s profitability. Again, Lopez et al. (2007) found a
negative association between CSP and firm performance in case of 110 firms from DJSI and
DJGI (Dow Jones Global Index). Likewise, Lucy and Martin (2018) encountered a negative
relationship between environmental performance and financial performance in the context
of large size companies of the USA. According to the study of Dimitrov and Davey (2011),
sustainability neither helps to improve profitability nor helps to reduce cost.
Taking a cursory look at the above-reviewed studies, an argument in favour of the CSP
in creating value for the firm can be put forth irrespective of some contradictions.
Theoretically, CS reporting can be very effective in creating value of the firm. Such
relationship is expected to be valid only if firm discloses its sustainability-related activities
very precisely and objectively. The present study, thus, intends to test the following
research hypothesis:
H1. There is a positive association between CSP and firm performance.
Moreover, Usunier et al. (2011) indicated that the perception regarding the importance of
CSP differs as per the level of economic development of the country. Such differences arise
due to the availability of resources, sceptic behaviour of stakeholders and advanced
technologies at the disposal of developed countries. Gill et al. (2008) conducted a descriptive
analysis to study the level of disclosure of CSP in the context of North American, European
and Asian firms and found that European and North American firms are better in terms of
sustainability reporting practices than their Asian counterparts. Similar was the findings of
Chapple and Moon (2005) in case of seven Asian countries like India, South Korea,
Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Moreover, according to Bhatia
and Chander (2014), sustainability performance of companies from developed countries is
relatively better compared to companies from developing countries. Hence, it is legitimate to
expect that the relative influence of CSP on firm performance is different between developed
 and developing country in Asia. Accordingly, the following alternate hypothesis is CSP and firm
formulated for empirical testing: performance
H2. The association between CSP and firm performance is significantly different in Asia
between developed and developing countries of Asia.

3. Data and methodology

3.1 Source of data, study period and sample
The present study is based on secondary data collected from published sustainability
reports and annual reports of listed non-financial[1] firms from Asia for a period of six years
from 2009 to 2014. According to the survey reports of KPMG (2008, 2013) and Carrots &
Sticks (2013), the concept of CS practice is highly advance in developed nations like the USA,
UK, Japan, Germany, Australia, Spain and many other European countries. However in
Asia, such practice is represented by China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore
and South Korea (Carrots & Sticks, 2013; KPMG, 2008, 2013). Among these Asian countries,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

the concept is highly developed in Japan and South Korea. Thus, Japan provides the highest
number of sustainability reports which is immediately followed by South Korea, while the
other Asian countries have started reporting from 2009 onwards[2]. Hence, there is a lack of
empirical evidence relating to the CS practices in the context of Asia. Therefore, the present
study relies on survey reports of Carrots and Sticks (2013) and KPMG (2008, 2013) to select
the sample of the study. Initially, all these Asian countries are considered and the following
criteria are used to select companies from these countries: companies must be listed
non-financial companies; non-financial companies must be publishing their sustainability
report on a continuous basis; and reporting must be made in their respective website in the
English language.
While collecting the data from the companies listed in the Singapore stock exchange and
the stock exchange of Bursa Malaysia, we found very few companies have published their
sustainability report on their respective website and also for a very limited period (one or
two years). On the hand, it was not possible to access the Chinese company’s website. Thus,
China, Malaysia and Singapore are excluded from the study sample. Finally, the numbers of
companies that fulfil the above criteria are 28 non-financial companies from India, 36 from
Japan, 26 from South Korea and 21 from Indonesia. Apart from the company’s website, there
are different platforms where the companies publish their sustainability report like
Corporate Register.com, GRI website, UNGC website, etc. However, we relied on company’s
website due to easy accessibility. Further, continuity in reporting is the essence to judge
firms’ responsibility behaviour, therefore companies that published their sustainability
report only for two or three years are excluded from the sample of the study.

3.2 Measurement of variables

Dependent variable. Firm performance is the dependent variable of the study, which is
measured by the market to book ratio (MBR). Since market share of the firm represents
stakeholders’ expectations, MBR is considered to be a better indicator of firm performance
(Lo and Sheu, 2007; Hussain, 2015). MBR is defined as the MV equity to book value (BV ) of
equity. The MV of equity is calculated by multiplying the number of equity shares
outstanding to the share price at the end of each financial year.
Explanatory variables. CSP is the main explanatory variable in this study. For measuring
CSP, researchers have widely adopted the methodology of content analysis (Cormier and
Magnan, 1999; Guthrie et al., 1999; Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012; Hussain, 2015). Thus, the
content analysis technique based on GRI framework is employed in the present study to
calculate the disclosure score. GRI framework is suitable for the study because almost all the
 ARA sample firms have adopted this framework for publishing their sustainability reports.
In order to carry out the task of content analysis, either of the two versions of GRI
framework, i.e., G3 and G3.1 is considered as per their applicability in the sustainability
report. In G3 version, there are 79 indicators of CS and it was published in 2006, and G3.1
came up with additional 5 indicators in 2011. Thus, the total number of items in G3.1 version
has increased from 79 to 84. It is also worth noting that for the firm that did not follow either
of the versions, G3 version is used for performing the content analysis.
We have computed the level of disclosure and quality of disclosure scores. While level of
disclosure merely indicates the presence or absence of the items specified in the GRI
framework in the published sustainability report, the quality of disclosure exhibits the
quality and preciseness of the items disclosed in the sustainability reports may be in terms
of numerical figure or description. To calculate the overall level of disclosure (CSPL) score,
binary coding system is used, i.e. 1 if the indicator is disclosed or 0 for not disclosed. Again,
to calculate the quality of disclosure (CSPQ), a four-point scale ( from “0” to “3”) is used.
In the existing literature, Cormier and Magnan (1999) and Guthrie et al. (1999) have used a
four-point scale (“0” to “3”, i.e. “3” for monetary disclosure; “2” for numerical disclosure, “1”
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

for narrative form and “0” for non-disclosure). The present study has slightly modified the
coding system adopted by Cormier and Magnan (1999) and Guthrie et al. (1999). In this
study, “3”is assigned if the item is fully disclosed with clarity and preciseness[3], “2”is
assigned if the item is fully disclosed in simply narrative form, “1” for partly disclosure and
“0” if the item is not disclosed. After obtaining the item-wise disclosure, overall disclosure
score is computed by:
Pn
X ijt
Disclosure Scorejt ¼ i¼1
; (1)
Nj

where Nj is the maximum score which is computed by multiplying the maximum score with
the number of items, j is the company, i is the items and t is the time. Xijt is the estimated
score of firm j at period t. Xijt assumes 0 or 1 value in case of level of disclosure and for the
quality of disclosure, it can be any one number of the four-point scale.
Apart from the variable CSP, the study has employed some other variables based on
extant literature that influences the firm performance. Firm size (SIZE) is used as a control
variable (Choi et al., 2010), measured by the natural log of total sales. The extant literature
also indicates that a firm’s value is influenced by the financial leverage (Lo and Sheu, 2007).
In order to control the effect of capital structure, debt to equity ratio (LEV ) is used as
a measure of financial leverage. In order to control the influence of profitability on MBR,
ROAs measured by the ratio of operating profit to sales are considered (Hussain, 2015; Ortas
et al., 2015; Dhaliwal et al., 2014). Finally, research and development expenditure is expected
to play a significant role in enhancing firm performance (Lo and Sheu, 2007; Choi et al., 2010;
Martinez-Ferrero and Frias-Aceituno, 2015; Laskar and Maji, 2017a, b), and the natural log
of research and development expenditure (LnRD) is used.

3.3 Empirical models

Existing literature indicates that researchers have employed the panel data regression model
to examine the association between CSP and firm performance (Ho and Taylor, 2007; Hussain,
2015). Initially, we have examined endogeneity between CSP and firm performance by
employing the Hausman test of endogeneity. The result indicates that there is no endogeneity
between the variables. Hence, the appropriate panel data regression model is employed in this
study based on the outcome of two commonly used tests: Breusch–Pagan test and Hausman
test. While the significant χ 2 value of Breausch–Pagan test indicates that random effect model
 is more appropriate than the pooled ordinary least square (OLS) model, the significant χ 2 CSP and firm
value of Hausman test advocates in favour of fixed effect model instead of random effect performance
model. On the basis of the outcomes of the test statistics (presented in the tables), we use fixed in Asia
effects or random effects regression model. Since we measure CSP in terms of level (CSPL) and
quality (CSPQ), the following regression models are used in this study.
When Hausman test advocates in favour of fixed-effects model, then we estimate the
coefficients employing the following model:
MBRit ¼ b0i þb1 CSPLit þb2 ROAit þb3 SIZEit þb4 LEVit þb5 LnRDit þeit . . .ðModel1F Þ;

MBRit ¼ b0i þ b1 CSPQit þb2 ROAit þb3 SIZEit þb4 LEVit þb5 LnRDit þeit . . .ðModel2F Þ;
where β0i is the time invariant intercept of each firm and εit is the error component. Here:
ei HN ð0; s2e Þ:
In case of appropriateness of the random-effects model, we use the following equation:
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

MBRit ¼ b0 þb1 CSPLit þb2 ROAit þb3 SIZEit þb4 LEVit þb5 LnRDit þei þuit . . .ðModel 1R Þ;

MBRit ¼ b0 þb1 CSPQit þb2 ROAit þb3 SIZEit þb4 LEVit þb5 LnRDit þei þuit . . .ðModel 2R Þ;

where ei is the cross section error component and ei HN ð0; s2e Þ. On the other hand, uit is
idiosyncratic error term and uit HNð0; s2u Þ.
CSPL is the CSP measured in terms of level of information disclosed, CSPQ is the CSP
measured in terms of quality, ROA is ROAs, SIZE is the firm size measured by the natural
log of sales, LEV denotes debt-equity ratio and LnRD is the natural log of research and
development expenditure.
In order to investigate the relative impact of CSP (both in terms of level i.e. CSPL and
quality i.e. CSPQ) on firm performance (MBR) between the developed and developing
countries of Asia, following regression model is used for the combined data set:
MBRit ¼ b0 þb1 CSPLit þb2 DxCSPLit þb3 ROAit þb4 SIZEit þb5 LEVit þb6 LnRDit
þ oit . . .ðModel 3Þ;

M BRit ¼ b0 þb1 CSPQit þb2 DxCSPQit þb3 ROAit þb4 SIZEit þb5 LEVit þb6 LnRDit
þoit . . .ðModel 4Þ;
where D is a dummy variable that represents “1” for developed countries and “0” for
developing countries; DxCSPL represents the interaction effect of dummy variable and
CSPL and DxCSPQ represents the interaction effect of dummy variable and CSPQ. The sign
and significant level of interaction effect (i.e. DxCSPL and DxCSPQ) indicate whether there
is any difference in the influence of CSP (both in terms of level i.e. CSPL and quality i.e.
CSPQ) on firm performance between developed countries and developing countries of Asia.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive statistics
A look into the descriptive statistics relating to mean, median and skewness of all the
variables included in the regression model (Table I) reveals that the average level of CSPQ
and CSPL for Japan, South Korea and India is considerably high as compared to that
of in Indonesia. For instance, the mean value of CSPQ and CSPL is 84.75 per cent and
 ARA Country Variable Min. Max. Mean Median Skewness

Japan CSPQ 0.711 0.950 0.847 0.845 −0.054

CSPL 0.790 1.000 0.902 0.900 −0.229
MBR 6.682 26.855 13.074 12.370 0.857
SIZE 12.00 17.000 15.160 15.185 −0.063
LEV 0.006 22.900 0.775 0.450 9.650
ROA 0.001 0.505 0.070 0.056 1.547
LnRD 9.223 11.488 10.438 10.421 −0.228
South Korea CSPQ 0.533 0.910 0.797 0.807 −0.808
CSPL 0.606 0.942 0.853 0.856 −0.862
MBR 0.611 10.662 5.770 5.398 0.221
SIZE 16.00 18.00 16.96 17.046 0.266
LEV 0.012 2.582 0.304 0.247 3.445
ROA −0.228 0.267 0.043 0.031 0.184
LnRD 9.402 14.470 11.942 11.813 0.184
Indonesia CSPQ 0.194 0.859 0.513 0.498 0.078
CSPL 0.247 1.000 0.721 0.745 −0.237
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

MBR 0.005 7.143 1.681 1.151 1.202

SIZE 11.396 17.277 15.387 15.853 −0.897
LEV 0.000 3.177 0.889 0.702 1.350
ROA −0.169 0.894 0.142 0.103 2.044
India CSPQ 0.248 0.947 0.795 0.811 −2.189
CSPL 0.544 1.000 0.883 0.892 −1.056
MBR 0.372 39.846 7.033 3.515 2.150
SIZE 5.398 11.970 9.536 9.847 −0.811
LEV 0.000 1.720 0.315 0.205 1.654
ROA −0.001 0.636 0.317 0.215 1.334
Table I. LnRD −2.799 12.592 6.596 7.749 −0.716
Descriptive statistics Source: Computed by the authors

90.24 per cent for Japan, which indicates that the Japanese firms have disclosed about
90 per cent of the GRI specified items and the quality of such disclosure is nearly 85 per cent.
In case of South Korea, the average disclosure of CSPL is 85.32 per cent and the CSPQ is
79.71 per cent, and for India, it is 88.3 per cent and 79.51 per cent respectively. However, in
the case of Indonesia, the mean value of CSPL is only 72.1 per cent and CSPQ is only
51.31 per cent, which indicates that Indonesian firms disclose about 72 per cent of the
GRI-specified items and the quality of such disclosure is only 51.31 per cent. The observed
high average value of CSPL (level of disclosure) and CSPQ (quality of disclosure) indicates
that firms from Asian countries, except Indonesia, are disclosing most of the sustainability
information specified in the GRI framework and such information are disclosed with more
transparency to satisfy the needs of the stakeholders. The observed values of mean and
median of CSPQ for each of the four countries are not significantly different, which indicates
that the presence of outliers is not pronounced in the data set. As a result, the values of
skewness are also very low except India.
In case of firm performance measured by MBR, the results indicate that average (mean)
firm performance is higher in case of Japan followed by India and South Korea. In case of
Indonesia, the mean value is considerably lower than the others. Further, near equality of
mean and median of MBR is observed for Japan and South Korea, which is reflected in the
lower value of skewness. However, in case of India and Indonesia, the distribution of MBR is
found to be relatively more skewed. Again, the mean and the median values of firm size
(SIZE) of all the four countries also indicate that these sample firms are larger firms. We look
into the mean and the median value of leverage (LEV ) which is less than 1, indicating that
 these larger firms are having low debt capital in comparison to equity capital. However, the CSP and firm
use of debt capital in the capital structure is relatively more for firms from Indonesia and performance
India as compared to others. In respect of average profitability (ROA), the results indicate in Asia
that profitability of Indian firms is relatively more than the others.

4.2 Disclosure pattern of sustainability

The descriptive statistics discussed above (section 4.1) can provide only the average picture
about the sustainability disclosure. In order to obtain a better picture about the pattern of
sustainability disclosure in respect of overall as well as three components of CS, we have
used a box plot. Box plot or box and whisker diagram is a standardized way of displaying
the distribution of data based on the five number summaries: minimum, first quartile,
median, third quartile and maximum. Box plot for overall sustainability performance,
economic performance, environment performance and social performance in terms of level
(i.e. binary coding system) for all the four countries is presented in Figures 1–4, respectively[4].
Figure 1 reveals that there is a substantial difference in the disclosure of overall sustainability
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

related information in case of Indonesia as compared to other three countries. The size of the
box in case of Indonesia is notably larger than the other three countries, which implies
that the spread is more. Further, while the distance between lower quartile and upper quartile
in case of Japan and South Korea is relatively less, it is more in case of Indonesia and to some
extend India. Further, to test whether the proportion of overall sustainability disclosure is
same for all the four countries or is different at least for one country, we have used
Pearson χ 2 test where the null hypothesis (H0) is P1 ¼ P2 ¼ P3 ¼ P4 as against alternative
H1 of at least one Pi ≠ Pj.The observed χ 2 value is 352.74 ( p-value ¼ 0.000). This implies
that there is a significant difference in the disclosure of sustainability information between the
four countries.
A look into the disclosure of economic indicators (Figure 2) reveals that the size of box as
well as the upper and lower quartiles in case of Japan, South Korea and India is almost same.
This implies that the spread is less and apparently, there is no difference in the disclosure of
economic performance of these countries. However, it is notably different in case of
Indonesia. Larger size of the box which contains middle 50 per cent of the values exhibits
wide spread. This implies that there is less consistency among the firms in disclosing
economic-related information. Further, the position of the median within the box indicates

0.8
Disclosure score

0.6

0.4

0.2 Figure 1.
Box plot for
Japan South Korea
sustainability
performance
India Indonesia
 ARA 1

0.8

Disclosure score 0.6

0.4

0.2
Figure 2.
Box plot for economic Japan South Korea
performance
India Indonesia
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

that the distribution is positively skewed. Statistically, the observed χ 2 value for the test of
homogeneity in the proportion of disclosure including all the four countries is found to be
140.73, which is significant at 1 per cent level. The results, thus, demonstrate that there is a
significant difference in the disclosure of economic performance at least for one country.
With an intention to know whether the disclosure proportion of Indonesian firms is different
from the rest or not, we again perform the χ 2 test excluding Indonesia. The results show that
there is homogeneity in the proportion of disclosure ( χ 2 value is 5.271 with p-value 0.105).
Thus, the results corroborate the findings of graphical distribution of the disclosure of
economic indicators.
In case of environmental disclosure, Figure 3 reveals that there is a notable difference
between the countries. While in case of Japan, substantial number firms disclose more than
90 per cent of the items specified in the GRI guidelines, it is reverse in case of Indonesia.
The position of the median within the box indicates that a large number of firms discloses
less than half of the items specified in the GRI guidelines. Although the spread of disclosure

0.8
Disclosure score

0.6

0.4

0.2
Figure 3.
Box plot for
environmental Japan South Korea
performance
India Indonesia
 is relatively less in case of South Korea, the presence of outliers, as indicated by the dots, is CSP and firm
more. Relatively, higher spread as well as outliers is present in case of India. Statistically, we performance
also observe that the χ 2 value (1,120.12) is significant at 1 per cent level, which implies that in Asia
there is no homogeneity in the disclosure of environmental indicators between the countries.
Similar results are observed in case of social disclosure both graphically (i.e. Figure 4) and
statistically ( χ 2 value is 787.37 with p-value 0.000). A detail analysis of the sub-indicators of
social performance reveals that more than 90 per cent of the firms in case of Japan have
reported all the items relating to labour practices and decent work performance indicators.
In case of South Korea and India, it is around 82 per cent, while about 75 per cent of the firms
have disclosed such information in case of Indonesia. Further, item-wise analysis reveals
that almost all firms during the study period from these four countries have reported
workforce diversity related information such as gender, age group, employment type, etc.
In contrary, in case of training and skill management of employees, less than half of the
firms have disclosed such information in case of Indian and Indonesia. But the rate of
disclosure is very high (about 85 per cent) for Japan and South Korea. This may be an
indication that firms from developed nations are more concerned about enhancing the
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

knowledge and skill of employees to improve productivity as in comparison to developing

nations. However, in case of human rights performance indicators, on an average, more than
80 per cent of the firms from all the countries have disclosed information. Similar results are
observed in respect of other two indicators (society performance indicators and product
responsibility performance indicators) for Japan, South Korea and India. But disclosure of
such information is around 60 per cent in case of Indonesia. The analysis of overall
sustainability disclosure as well as the components of sustainability reveals that there are
significant differences in the disclosure of information between countries. Such differences
are also noticed between the firms within a country, specifically more in case of Indonesia.

4.3 Association between CSP and firm performance

In order to have an overview of the association between CSP and firm performance without
adjusting for the confounders, an exploratory analysis is carried out using bivariate scatter
plots for all the four countries of Asia. Figures 5 and 6 clearly demonstrate a steady increase
in the linear relationship between CSPQ and MBR in the case of Japan and South Korea.
However, such a strong relationship is not so obvious in the case of Indonesia and India as

0.8
Disclosure score

0.6

0.4

0.2
Figure 4.
Japan South Korea
Box plot for scoial
India
performance
Indonesia
 ARA shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. In the case of Japan, almost all the points are along
with the regression line. To a significant extent, the same is true in the case of South Korea.
On the other hand, a very weak linear relationship is visible in case of India and Indonesia.
Hence, such a relationship between the study variables has remained obscured and not
interpretable for Indian and Indonesian firms. It is also important to note that the scatter

1.5

1
CSPQ 0.5

0
Figure 5. 0 10 20 30
Scatter plot of CSPQ MBR
vs MBR ( Japan)
Source: Graph plotted by the author
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

1
0.8
CSPQ

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 6. 0 5 10 15
Scatter plot of CSPQ MBR
vs MBR (South Korea)
Source: Graph plotted by the author

1
0.8
CSPQ

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 7. 0 20 40 60
Scatter plot of CSPQ MBR
vs MBR (India)
Source: Graph plotted by the author

1
0.8
0.6
CSPQ

0.4
0.2
0
Figure 8. 0 2 4 6 8
Scatter plot of CSPQ MBR
vs MBR (Indonesia)
Source: Graph plotted by the author
 plots in terms of CSPL also depict the same picture as CSPQ of the respective country. CSP and firm
Hence, the scatter plots relating to CSPL are not shown here. performance
We have used fixed effects or random effects regression model for each country as well in Asia
as for the combined data set in Asian context. Initially, we use normal standard effort, and
for further robustness check of the results, we have employed robust standard error that
relaxes the assumptions of independently and identically distribution of residuals (White,
1980). The results of the impact of CSPL on MBR after controlling the influence of ROA,
SIZE, LEV and LnRD are shown in Table II. It is imperative to note here that we exclude
the variable LnRD in case of Indonesia from the models as most of firms did not report the
research and development expenditure in the published annual report. In case of Japan,
the coefficient estimate of CSPL is found to be positive and statistically significant at
1 per cent level using both normal and robust standard errors. In case of South Korea, India
and Indonesia also, the observed coefficient of CSPL is found to be positive and significant.
Accordingly, the combined data of all the four countries provide empirical evidence on the
positive and significant impact of CSPL on MBR in the Asian context. The robust estimates
of the models corroborate the significant influence of CSPL in enhancing the firm
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

performance of firms belonging to four Asian countries.

In case of control variables, the observed coefficient of ROA is found to be positive for all
except in case of Indonesia, although the results are not statistically significant for all cases.
The positive influence indicates that an increase in operating profitability is associated with
the increase in MV of firms. Firm size is found to be positively associated with MBR for
all the cases. This implies that large firms possess certain inherent advantages over small in
terms of resource base, use of technology, better access to the capital market and scope for
product diversification, which eventually leads to an increase in MV. On the other hand, the
influence of financial leverage (LEV ) on MBR is observed to be negative. The negative
impact of leverage on firm performance indicates that profitable firms use less debt capital
in the capital structure due to sufficient internal sources, which supports the pecking order
theory of capital structure (Myers and Majluf, 1984). Finally, the influence of research and
development expenditure on firm performance is observed to be statistically insignificant
for all the cases. This is contrary to our expectation, as in the knowledge-based economy,
research and development, expenditure plays a significant role in enhancing firm value.
The incurred expenditure on research and development may not be sufficient to create
significant impact on firms’ market performance, but need to be investigated further.
Nevertheless, empirically some researchers also observe an insignificant impact of research
and development expenditure on firm performance (Martinez-Ferrero and Frias-Aceituno,
2015; Laskar and Maji, 2017a, b).
Using quality aspect of CSP (CSPQ), we observe similar results (Table III). The impact of
CSPQ on MBR after controlling the influences of control variables used in this study is seen
to be positive and statistically significant for all the countries along with the combined data
set. The use of robust standard error also justifies the same. Similar results are found in case
of control variables. The observed results, thus, demonstrate that both quality and level of
CSP are a significant factor for enhancing the financial performance of firms for all the four
selected countries in Asia. The results are, therefore, sufficient to accept the research H1 for
all the selected countries. Our findings are consistent with the outcomes of the previous
studies (Lo and Sheu, 2007; Lourenço et al., 2012; Burhan and Rahmanti, 2012; Ameer and
Othman, 2012; Hussain, 2015; Ortas et al., 2015). Moreover, the findings also support the
arguments of King, Adam and Zutshi (2004), and Tracy et al. (2010), that sustainability is
strategic management concept and adopting such strategy helps firm in attaining
competitive advantage that leads to value maximisation.
Although the results are statistically significant for all the cases, there are substantial
differences in terms of the economic influence of CSP on firm performance between
 ARA Country Variables Coefficients Normal standard error Robust standard error R2

Panel A
Japan Constant −19.132 6.037 (0.001) 7.834 (0.014) 0.482
CSPL 31.182 2.801 (0.000) 4.003 (0.000)
ROA 0.135 2.669 (0.959) 2.364 (0.954)
SIZE 0.556 0.310 (0.073) 0.405 (0.169)
LEV −0.059 0.084 (0.480) 0.033 (0.076)
LnRD −0.389 0.541 (0.472) 0.707 (0.582)
Panel B
South Korea Constant −20.8261 6.174 (0.000) 7.200 (0.007) 0.391
CSPL 7.613 2.329 (0.000) 1.658 (0.000)
ROA 11.215 3.163 (0.000) 6.144 (0.079)
SIZE 0.733 0.385 (0.059) 0.382 (0.066)
LEV −0.301 0.489 (0.539) 0.421 (0.481)
LnRD 0.664 0.392 (0.093) 0.496 (1.336)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Panel C
India Constant −0.894 0.429 (0.039) 0.784 (0.264) 0.361
CSPL 2.413 0.350 (0.000) 0.764 (0.003)
ROA 0.394 0.194 (0.044) 0.219 (0.083)
SIZE 0.033 0.032 (0.298) 0.022 (0.145)
LEV −0.446 0.187 (0.018) 0.244 (0.079)
LnRD −0.017 0.015 (0.274) 0.015 (0.264)
Panel D
Indonesia Constant −4.502 2.551 (0.077) 3.583 (0.208) 0.139
CSPL 1.188 0.422 (0.004) 0.463 (0.010)
ROA −0.662 0.437 (0.130) 0.439 (0.143)
LEV −0.181 0.179 (0.311) 0.088 (0.039)
SIZE 0.374 0.170 (0.028) 0.253 (0.140)
Panel E
Asia Constant −4.928 2.054 (0.016) 4.896 (0.316) 0.238
CSPL 5.614 0.777 (0.000) 1.327 (0.000)
ROA 1.964 0.674 (0.003) 1.716 (0.254)
SIZE 0.559 0.165 (0.000) 0.350 (0.113)
LEV −0.137 0.089 (0.125) 0.103 (0.1861)
LnRD −0.006 0.093 (0.947) 0.082 (0.941)
Notes: Panel A: model used – Random effects model; Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 226.48 (0.000); Hausman test
χ 2 ¼ 3.204 (0.668); Wald χ 2 ¼ 166.325 (0.000); Log-likelihood ¼ −517.398; Between variance ¼ 5.242; Within
Variance ¼ 2.382; p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel B: model used – Fixed-effects model;
Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 83.945 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 19.299 (0.001); Log-likelihood ¼ −230.327;
F-statistic ¼ 16.046 (0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel C: model used – Fixed-effects model;
Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 125.317 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 48.302 (0.000); Log-likelihood ¼ 1.508;
F-statistic ¼ 15.238 (0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel D: model used – Random effects model;
Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 174.872 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 0.931 (0.920); Wald χ 2 ¼ 16.889 (0.000);
Table II. Log-likelihood ¼ −235.985; Between variance ¼ 2.393; Within Variance ¼ 0.629; p-values are shown in
Regression results of parenthesis. Panel E: model used – Fixed-effects model; Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 1,057.78 (0.000); Hausman
level of CSP and test χ 2 ¼ 60.880 (0.000); Log-likelihood ¼ −1,232.889; Within R 2 ¼ 0.238; F-statistic ¼ 17.714 (0.000); p-values
firm performance are shown in parenthesis

the countries. For instance, the estimated coefficient of CSPL in case of Japan is 31.182,
which implies that for a one unit increase in CSPL, the MBR will be increased by on average
31.182 units, all else equal. In case of the quality aspect of CSP, it is on average 29.435 units.
In contrary, in the case of Indonesia, for one unit increase of CSPL is estimated to increase
MBR by only 1.188 units, on average, after controlling the influence of other factors. On the
 Country Variables Coefficients Normal standard error Robust standard error R2
CSP and firm
performance
Panel A in Asia
Japan Constant −9.999 5.840 (0.086) 8.17 (0.221) 0.265
CSPQ 29.435 2.242 (0.000) 3.480 (0.000)
ROA −0.245 2.480 (0.921) 2.237 (0.913)
SIZE 0.463 0.300 (0.122) 0.417 (0.267)
LEV −0.026 0.077 (0.736) 0.029 (0.380)
LnRD −0.827 0.521 (0.112) 0.721 (0.251)
Panel B
South Korea Constant −19.514 6.290 (0.002) 7.101 (0.011) 0.385
CSPQ 6.374 2.092 (0.002) 1.354 (0.000)
ROA 11.251 3.184 (0.000) 6.123 (0.078)
SIZE 0.783 0.385 (0.044) 0.360 (0.039)
LEV −0.352 0.490 (0.473) 0.458 (0.449)
LnRD 0.607 0.396 (0.128) 0.495 (0.231)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Panel C
India Constant −0.079 0.368 (0.828) 0.655 (0.903) 0.331
CSPQ 2.313 0.272 (0.000) 0.697 (0.010)
ROA 0.395 0.201 (0.051) 0.273 (0.159)
SIZE 0.027 0.032 (0.399) 0.026 (0.294)
LEV −0.518 0.190 (0.007) 0.266 (0.062)
LnRD −0.012 0.015 (0.425) 0.016 (0.444)
Panel D
Indonesia Constant −4.181 2.564 (0.103) 3.573 (0.242) 0.127
CSPQ 1.423 0.597 (0.017) 0.644 (0.027)
ROA −0.601 0.441 (0.173) 0.245 (0.014)
SIZE 0.360 0.172 (0.036) 0.254 (0.156)
LEV −0.183 0.180 (0.310) 0.091 (0.045)
Panel E
Asia Constant −4.532 1.992 (0.023) 4.040 (0.264) 0.276
CSPQ 7.620 0.851 (0.000) 1.528 (0.000)
ROA 2.495 0.664 (0.000) 1.952 (0.204)
SIZE 0.449 0.163 (0.006) 0.298 (0.134)
LEV −0.110 0.087 (0.208) 0.091 (0.229)
LnRD −0.003 0.091 (0.970) 0.082 (0.966)
Notes: Panel A: model used – random effects model; Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 248.299 (0.000); Hausman test
χ2 ¼ 2.937 (0.709); Wald χ 2 ¼ 223.518 (0.000); Log-likelihood ¼ −511.787; Between variance ¼ 5.209; Within
Variance ¼ 2.046; p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel B: model used – Fixed-effects model; Breusch–Pagan
test χ 2 ¼ 88.910 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 17.882 (0.003); Log-likelihood ¼ −231.137; F-statistic ¼ 15.622
(0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel C: model used – Fixed-effects model; Breusch–Pagan test
χ 2 ¼ 130.365 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 43.324 (0.003); Log-likelihood ¼ −2.297; F-statistic ¼ 13.327 (0.000);
p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel D: model used – Random effects model; Breusch–Pagan test
χ 2 ¼ 170.121 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 1.755 (0.780); Wald χ 2 ¼ 14.479 (0.005); Log-likelihood ¼ −237.755; Table III.
Between variance ¼ 2.363; Within Variance ¼ 0.638; p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel E: model Regression results of
used – Fixed-effects model; Breusch–Pagan test χ 2 ¼ 1,054.14 (0.000); Hausman test χ 2 ¼ 55.1737 (0.000); quality of CSP and
Log-likelihood ¼ −1,217.804; Within R 2 ¼ 0.276; F-statistic. ¼ 23.6332 (0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis firm performance

other hand, for a one unit increase in CSPQ is expected to enhance MBR by 1.424 units, on
average. Such considerable difference in the observed coefficient clearly indicates that the
economic influence of CSP is significantly greater in case of Japan as compared to that of in
Indonesia. Between India and South Korea, the influence of CSP on MBR is relatively more
in case of South Korea than that of India. From the observed descriptive statistics, we find
 ARA that the disclosure score of CSP both in terms of level and quality in case of Indonesia is
substantially lower than Japan, the best performing country in our sample. Further, the
bi-variate scatter plot in case of Indonesia also exhibits that the relationship between CSPQ
and MBR has remained obscured and not interpretable. This implies that the concept of CS is
still at the embryonic stage in case of Indonesia as compared to Japan and to a large extends
South Korea. The results, thus, indicate that the disclosure of sustainability information is a
strategic weapon for the firms to enhance MV and consequently gain sustainable competitive
advantage. It is imperative to mention here that for individual country analysis, we observe
that the economic influence of CSPQ is slightly lower than that of CSPL. But practically,
the influence of the quality of sustainability reporting on firm performance should be more.
This is evident when we combine the data set of four countries. The results indicate that for a
one unit increase in CSPQ is estimated to increase MBR, on average, by 7.620 units after
controlling the influence of ROA, SIZE, LEV and LnRD. In contrast, for a one unit increase in
CSPL is estimated to increase MBR by 5.614 units, all else constant. This may be an indication
that the influence of quality may not be visible for small sample or in the short run. But
ultimately, the economic influence of quality aspect of CS is likely to be more.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

4.4 Relative impact of CSP and firm performance between developed and developing
countries of Asia
In order to investigate whether the positive influence of CSP (both in terms of level and
quality) on MBR is significantly different between developed and developing countries of
Asia, the regression models 3 and 4 are employed for the combined data set. The results of the
models are shown in Table IV. The observed coefficients of both the interactions (DxCSPL
and DxCSPQ) are positive and significant at 1 per cent level. This indicates that the relative
influence of CSP (both in terms of level and quality) on MBR is significantly different between
developed and developing countries of Asia. Since in the dummy variable, “1” represents
developed countries and “0” for developing countries, the observed result advocates in favour
of developed countries. The main plausible reason may be because there is strong awareness
regarding the sustainability issues among the stakeholders from the developed countries.

Variables Coefficients Normal standard error Robust standard error R2

Panel A
Constant 5.194 1.652 (0.001) 3.175 (0.104) 0.612
CSPL 3.369 1.349 (0.012) 1.507 (0.027)
DxCSPL 13.375 0.729 (0.000) 1.276 (0.000)
ROA 17.395 0.818 (0.000) 3.851 (0.000)
SIZE 0.573 0.076 (0.000) 0.179 (0.001)
LEV 0.025 0.142 (0.859) 0.258 (0.922)
LnRD −0.195 0.054 (0.000) 0.100 (0.054)
Panel B
Constant 4.736 1.635 (0.001) 3.193 (0.140) 0.614
CSPQ 3.969 1.357 (0.012) 1.781 (0.027)
DxCSPQ 13.797 0.809 (0.000) 1.473 (0.000)
ROA 17.394 0.810 (0.000) 3.822 (0.000)
SIZE 0.523 0.081 (0.000) 0.182 (0.004)
LEV 0.047 0.141 (0.859) 0.259 (0.855)
Table IV. LnRD −0.217 0.055 (0.000) 0.096 (0.026)
Relative impact Notes: Panel A: model used – Pooled OLS model; Adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.600; Log-likelihood ¼ −1,864.011;
of CSP and F-statistic ¼ 167.647 (0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis. Panel B: model used – Pooled OLS model; Adjusted
financial performance R 2 ¼ 0.606; Log-likelihood ¼ −1,859.245; F-statistic ¼ 171.647 (0.000); p-values are shown in parenthesis
 Moreover, the economic status of the firms from the developed nations is very high as CSP and firm
compared to firms from developing countries. The survey reports (KPMG, 2008, 2013; Carrots performance
& Sticks, 2013) also indicate that developed countries of Asia are much ahead in performing in Asia
their responsibility activities than the developing nations of Asia. The other explanatory
variables like CSPL, CSPQ, SIZE and ROA are found to be positively associated with MBR.
However, the estimated coefficient of research and development (LnRD) is found to be
negative and significant, whereas leverage (LEV ) is found to be positive but insignificant.
Hence, the results are sufficient to accept the alternative H2. Moreover, the values of R 2 are
quite satisfactory and F-statistics are also significant at 1 per cent level. Further, relating to
the influence of the interaction effect as well as other explanatory variables, the observed
results of robust standard error corroborate the outcomes of normal standard error, which
indicates the reliability of the results.

4.5 Practical implications

According to KPMG (2008, 2013), sustainability reporting is a strategic weapon that
contributes to sustainable development and leads to value maximisation. The outcomes of the
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

present study also exhibit that CS reporting helps firms to improve their performance and
consequently elevate the importance of such reporting practices. In the present study, the level
and quality of disclosure in the case of Indonesian firms are relatively less as compared to
firms from other three countries and thus, the impact is found to be very low. The outcomes of
the study may help the Indonesian firm to improve their reporting practices, which will help
the stakeholders in making their strategic decisions. Because there is weakness in the capital
market of Indonesia regarding the enforcement of transparency and information disclosure
(Sharma, 2013), the outcome of the study may motivate the corporate manager and the
government of Indonesia to improve the awareness regarding the importance of CSP.
This may be possible by conducting regular symposium on the sustainability reporting
practices, ISO 26000 ( for social responsibility) and ISO 14000 and 14001 (environmental
responsibility). Since, less than half of the firms from India and Indonesia have disclosed
information relating to training and skill management of their employees, the findings of the
study suggest that these firms must provide more training and skill management to their
employees and then disclose them accordingly. Such development will enhance the
knowledge, skills and finally the productivity of the employees.
According to Annie White, the associate director of Sustainalytics[5], most of the Asian
companies are diversifying their business operations in the western world. Thus, to
maintain their competitive advantage on a global scale, it is important for the
Asian business to integrate and communicate holistic sustainability strategies
throughout business operations. The outcome of the present study may motivate the
Asian corporate managers to incorporate CS strategies into the management process, which
will contribute to the importance of sustainable development. In addition, contributing to
sustainable development can improve government trust in a company, which reduces the
risk (i.e. fines and penalties) and attracts benefits in the form of tax rebate and less legal
pressures. The present effort further suggests that stakeholders must make use of CS report
for assessing firm performance, because it may not be wise to make any valuable decision
based on merely financial report. Moreover, the findings of the study also have implications
for the policy-makers to develop important policies that will contribute to the broad
objectives of sustainable development as pointed out in the “Brundtland Report”.

5. Concluding remarks
5.1 Conclusion
The present study is a modest attempt to explore the association between CSP (both in
terms of level and quality) and firm performance (MBR) of four Asian countries – Japan,
 ARA South Korea, Indonesia and India. The study is based on secondary data collected from
published sustainability report and annual report of listed non-financial companies of four
selected countries for a period of six years from 2009 to 2014. Employing content analysis
technique based on GRI indicators, the study finds the average level and quality of
disclosure are the highest for Japanese firms (90.24 per cent; 84.75 per cent), followed by
India (88.3 per cent; 79.51 per cent) and South Korea (85.32 per cent; 79.71 per cent).
However, in the case of Indonesia, the average score is very low (i.e. 72.1 per cent for level
and 51.31 per cent for quality). The finding of the bivariate scatter plots depicts a steady
increase in the slope of the linear relationship between CSP (both in terms of level and
quality) and MBR, as is a case of Japan and South Korea but such an impression is not very
pronouncing in case of India and Indonesia. The outcomes of the above regression models
reveal that the impact of CSP (both in terms of level and quality) on MBR is positive and
significant in case of all the four Asian countries. Hence, the present study supports the
alternate H1 for all the selected countries of Asia. In addition, the regression results further
reveal that the positive impact of CSP (both in terms of level and quality) on developed
countries is significantly higher than that of developing countries. Hence, the alternate H2 is
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

also accepted. The present study confirms that the disclosure of CSP improves transparency
and stimulates stakeholders’ trust in the company.

5.2 Limitations and suggestion for future research

The present study has mainly focused only on the market-based measurement of firm
performance (MBR). Future study may also focus on accounting-based measurement (ROA
and sales growth) as well as non-financial measurement of firm performance like human
resource performance, marketing performance and operational performance. Proper
integration of both financial and non-financial parameters may add to the robustness of
measuring the firm performance. Again, the present study has also used the GRI framework
to measure CSP. Regardless of having wide acceptability, it may not be enough for the
companies belonging to different industries to disclose their sustainability practices in GRI
format because the level of activities in each of the industries are different from one another.
Therefore, every firm must disclose additional information in addition to GRI-specified
items, so that such disclosure may improve the reliability and acceptability of sustainability
report. Additionally, to get a more vivid picture of CSP, future study may consider other
internationally recognised frameworks like UNGC and Carbon Disclosure Project along with
GRI framework. Further, the study has presented briefly the pattern of disclosure between
different countries. Further study can be undertaken to give a comprehensive picture about
the differences in the pattern of disclosure by analysing the items of each indicator of CS.

Notes
1. Many items of the GRI sustainability report are not applicable for financial firms like green house
gas emission, energy consumption, product life cycle, etc. and hence the results of CSP between
financial and non-financial firms are not comparable.
2. KPMG, Unit for Corporate Governance in Africa, UNEP and GRI jointly published an update on
trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting in 2013 entitled
“Carrots and Stick – Promoting Transparency and Sustainability”.
3. \Normally, if the items are expressed in quantitative terms, code 3 should be assigned. In some cases,
if the items cannot be expressed in the quantitative form, the study has assessed these particular
items in terms of preciseness and clarity of the disclosure in order to assign the value as 3.
4. It can be noted here that similar pattern has been observed for all the cases by using quality aspect
of overall as well as components of corporate sustainability.
 5. Eco-business: The future of good business, Issue 3, October–December 2014, available at: www.google. CSP and firm
co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://issuu.com/ecobusiness&ved=0ahUKEwiVt7_cx performance
5fUAhXBqI8KHbh_CaoQFggrMAI&usg=AFQjCNHwBOwSZbV7Y3W1NfJC03r_RXWosA&sig2=
qtLCB0pu60EauL13kgEy6w (accessed 30 May 2017). in Asia

References
Adam, C. and Zutshi, A. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility: why business should act responsibly
and be accountable”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 31-39.
Aggarwal, P. (2013), “Impact of sustainability performance of company on its financial performance: a
study of listed Indian companies”, Global Journal of Management and Business Research
Finance, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 61-70.
Ameer, R. and Othman, R. (2012), “Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study
based on the top global corporations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 61-79.
Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development”,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-218.

Bhatia, A. and Chander, S. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility disclosure by SENSEX companies in
India”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2003), “How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the
firm inform corporate-level strategy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 289-303.
Brown, H.S., de Jong, M. and Levy, D.L. (2009), “Building institutions based on information disclosure:
lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting”, Journal Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 571-580.
Burhan, A.H.N. and Rahmanti, W. (2012), “The impact of sustainable reporting on companies
performance”, Journal of Economics Business and Accountancy Ventura, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 257-272.
Campbell, J.L. (2007), “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 946-967.
Carrots and Sticks (2013), “Promoting transparency and sustainability: an update on trends in
voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting”, available at: www.
globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/carrots-and-sticks.pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study
of CSR web site reporting”, Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441.
Chen, H. and Wang, X. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in
China: an empirical research from Chinese firms”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 361-370.
Chen, L., Feldmann, A. and Tang, O. (2015), “The relationship between disclosures of corporate social
performance and financial performance: evidences from GRI reports in manufacturing
industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 170, Part B, pp. 445-456.
Choi, J. (1999), “An investigation of the initial voluntary environmental disclosures made in Korean
semi-annual financial reports”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 73-102.
Choi, J., Kwak, Y. and Choe, C. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial
performance: evidence from Korea”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 291-311.
Cormier, S. and Magnan, M. (1999), “Corporate environmental disclosure strategies: determinants, costs
and benefits”, Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 429-451.
Cortez, M. and Cudia, C. (2011), “The virtuous cycles between environmental innovation and financial
performance: case study of Japanese automotive and electronic companies”, Academy of
Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 31-44.
Dhaliwal, D., Zhen Li, O., Tsang, A. and Yang, Y.G. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility disclosure
and thecost of equity capital: the roles of stakeholderorientation and financial transparency”,
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 328-355.
 ARA Dimitrov, D.K. and Davey, H. (2011), “Sustainable development: what it means to CFOs of New
Zealand”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 86-108.
Doh, J.P. and Guay, T.R. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in
Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 47-73.
Doh, J.P., Howton, S.D., Howton, S.W. and Siegel, D.S. (2010), “Does the market respond to an
endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1461-1485.
Elkington, J. (1994), “Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable development”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Energy Conservation Act (1979), available at: www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/japan/name-2
4362-en.php (accessed 12 November 2017).
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romerp, S. and Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014), “Women on boards: do they affect
sustainability reporting?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 351-364.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Gill, D., Dickinson, S. and Scharl, A. (2008), “Communicating sustainability: a web content analysis
ofNorth American, European and Asian firms”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Ferrier, F. and Wells, R. (1999), “There is no accounting for intellectual capital in
Australia: a review of annual reporting practices and the internal measurement of intangibles
within Australian organizations”, available at: www.oecd.org/sti/ind/1947783.pdf (accessed
15 June 2015).
Hidemichi, F., Kazuyuki, I., Shinji, K. and Shunsuke, M. (2012), “Corporate environmental and economic
performances of Japanese manufacturing firms: empirical study for sustainable development”,
available at: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/39564/pdf (accessed 13 September 2014).
Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G.D. (2001), “Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
what’s the bottom line?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 25-139.
Ho, L.J. and Taylor, M.E. (2007), “An empirical analysis of triple bottom-line reporting and its
determinants: evidence from the United States and Japan”, Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 123-150.
Hussain, N. (2015), “Impact of sustainability performance on financial performance: an empirical study
of global fortune (N100) firms”, Working Papers No. 1, Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari
University of Venice, Venice.
Hussainey, K. and Salama, A. (2010), “The importance of corporate environmental reputation to
investors”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229-241.
Jones, S., Frost, G., Loftus, J. and van der Laan, S. (2007), “An empirical examination of the market
returns and financial performance of entities engaged in sustainability reporting”, Australian
Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 41, pp. 78-87.
KPMG (2008), “International survey of corporate responsibility reporting”, available at: www.kpmg.
com/EU/en/Documents/KPMG_International_survey_Corporate_responsibility_Survey_
Reporting_2008.pdf (accessed 11 August 2014).
KPMG (2013), “Indian corporate responsibility reporting survey”, available at: www.kpmg.com/IN/en/
IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/India-Corporate-Responsibility-Reporting-
Survey-2013.pdf (accessed 12 August 2014).
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C. and Groen, A.J. (2010), “The resource-based view: a review and
assessment of its critiques”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 349-372.
Kumar, R. (2014), “A study on sustainability reporting practices in Indian and global companies with
special references to the petroleum companies”, Abhinav National Monthly Refereed Journal of
Research in Commerce & Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 15-25.
 Kusuma, A.P.A. and Koesrindartoto, D.P. (2014), “Sustainability practices and financial performance: CSP and firm
an empirical evidence from Indonesia”, International Conference on Trends in Economics, performance
Humanities and Management (ICTEHM’14), Pattaya, 13-14 August.
in Asia
Lacy, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R. and Neuberger, L. (2010), “A New Era of Sustainability –UN Global
Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010”, Accenture, available at: www.compromisorse.com/
upload/estudios/000/53/AccentureUNGCStudy10.pdf (accessed 12 November 2016).
Laskar, N. and Maji, S.G. (2016), “Corporate sustainability reporting practices in India: myth or
reality?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 625-641.
Laskar, N. and Maji, S.G. (2017a), “Disclosure of corporate social responsibility and firm performance:
evidence from India”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Laskar, N. and Maji, S.G. (2017b), “Sustainability performance and firm performance in India and South
Korea: a comparative study”, International Journal of Corporate Strategy and Social
Responsibility, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 118-140.
Lo, S. and Sheu, H. (2007), “Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business?”,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 345-358.

Lopez, M.V., Garcia, A. and Rodriguez, L. (2007), “Sustainable development and corporate performance:
a study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 285-300.
Lourenço, C.L., Castelo, M.B., Curto, D.J. and Teresa, E. (2012), “How does the market value corporate
sustainability performance?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 417-428.
Lucy, W.L. and Martin, E.T. (2018), “A study of the relationships among environmental performance,
environmental disclosure, and financial performance”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 107-130.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:
correlation or misspecification?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 603-609.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. and Wright, P.M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Maji, S.G. and Laskar, N. (2014), “Corporate sustainability performance and financial performance:
empirical evidence from India”, Journal of Banking Information Technology and Management,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 62-71.
Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Rodríguez, M.P. and Cortez Alejandro, K.A. (2012), “The
worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point?”, Journal of Clean
Production, Vol. 33, pp. 132-144.
Martinez-Ferrero, J. and Frias-Aceituno, J. (2015), “Relationship between sustainable development and
financial performance: international empirical research”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Marti, C.P., Rovira-Val, M.R. and Drescher, L.G.J. (2015), “Are firms that contribute to sustainable
development better financially?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 305-319.
Michelon, G. and Parbonetti, A. (2012), “The effect of corporate governance on sustainability
disclosure”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 477-509.
Ministry of Knowledge Economy (2003), available at: www.koisra.co.kr/en/partners/governmental/187-
ministry-of-knowledge-economy.html (accessed 12 November 2017).
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. and Gary, R. (2006), “Do financial markets care about social and
environmental disclosure?”, Accounting Audit and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 228-255.
Myers, S.C. and Majluf, N.S. (1984), “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have
information that investors do not have”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-221.
 ARA Ngwakwe, C.C. (2008), “Environmental responsibility and firm performance: evidence from Nigeria”,
available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.193.3293&rep=rep1&
type=pdf (accessed 22 September 2014).
Nilipour, A. and Nilipour, A. (2012), “Survey of the association between financial performance and
corporate sustainability performance (case study: cement companies accepted at Tehran stock
exchange)”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3 No. 9,
pp. 1084-1092.
O’Dwyer, B. (2002), “Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 406-436.
Ortas, E., Gallego-Alvarez, I. and Etxeberria, I.A. (2015), “Financial factors influencing the quality of
corporate social responsibility and environmental management disclosure: a quantile regression
approach”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 362-380.
Plumlee, M., Brow, D., Hayes, R.M. and Marshall, R.S. (2015), “Voluntary environmental disclosure
quality and firm value: further evidence”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 336-361.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Reddy, K. and Lucus, W.G. (2010), “The effect of sustainability reporting on financial performance: an
empirical study using listed companies”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 19-42.
Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002), “Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077-1093.
Roberts, R.W. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of
stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612.
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J. and Paul, K. (2001), “An empirical investigation of
the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: a
stakeholder theory perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 143-156.
Saleh, M., Zulkifli, N. and Muhamad, R. (2011), “Looking for evidence of the relationship between
corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in an emerging market”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 165-190.
Schadewitz, H. and Niskala, M. (2010), “Communication via responsibility reporting and its effect on
firm value in Finland”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 96-106.
Sharma, B. (2013), Contextualising CSR in Asia: Corporate Social Responsibility in Asian Economies,
Lien Centre for Social Innovation, Singapore.
Siegel, D.S. (2009), “Green management matters only if it yields more green: an economic/strategic
perspective”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 5-16.
Singh, P.J., Sethuraman, K. and Lam, J.Y. (2017), “Impact of corporate social responsibility dimensions
on firm value: some evidences from Hong Kong and China”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. 1-24.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Surroca, J., Tribo’, J.A. and Waddock, S. (2010), “Corporate responsibility and financial performance:
the role of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 463-490.
Tewari, R. and Dave, D. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility: communication through sustainability
reports by Indian and multinational companies”, Global Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 393-405.
Tracy, A., Lee, D., Nelson, D. and Walker, J. (2010), “The determinants of corporate sustainability
performance”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
 Usunier, J.C., Furrer, O. and Furrer-Perrinjaquet, A. (2011), “The perceived trade-off between corporate CSP and firm
social and economic responsibility: a cross-national study”, International Journal of Cross performance
Cultural Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-302.
in Asia
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (2000), “Beyond built to last…stakeholder relations in built to last
companies”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 393-418.
White, H. (1980), “A Heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for
Heteroskedasticity”, Econometrica, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 817-838.
Williams, B.R. (2015), “Reporting on sustainability by Australian companies- a communication
perspective”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 186-203.

Further reading
Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2011), “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a
developing country”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 141-156.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
Dilling, P.F.A. (2010), “Sustainability Reporting in a global context: what are the characteristics of
corporations that provide high quality sustainability reports – an empirical analysis”,
International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Haniffa, R.M. and Cooke, T.E. (2005), “The impact of culture and governance on corporate social
reporting”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 391-430.
Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.M. (1992), “Stakeholder-agency theory”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 131-154.
Post, J.E., Preston, L.E. and Sachs, S. (2002), “Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder
view”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 6-28.
Reddy, K. and Gordonl, L.W. (2010), “The effect of sustainability reporting on financial performance: an
empirical study using listed companies”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 19-42.
Warhurst, A. (2000), “Tri-sector partnerships for social investment: business drivers”, Working Paper
No. 4, Natural Resources Cluster of the Business Partners for Development, CARE International UK,
London.
 ARA Appendix. GRI framework (G3)

Economic performance indicators

EC1 Direct economic value generated and distributed, including revenues, operating costs,
employee compensation, donations and other community investments, retained earnings,
and payments to capital providers and governments
EC2 Financial implications and other risks and opportunities for the organisation’s activities
due to climate change
EC3 Coverage of the organisation’s defined benefit plan obligations
EC4 Significant financial assistance received from government
EC5 Range of ratios of standard entry level wage compared to local minimum wage at
significant locations of operation
EC6 Policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally-based suppliers at significant
locations of operation
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

EC7 Procedures for local hiring and proportion of senior management hired from the local
community at locations of significant operation
EC8 Development and impact of infrastructure investments and services provided primarily for
public benefit through commercial, in kind, or pro bono engagement
EC9 Understanding and describing significant indirect economic impacts, including the extent
of impacts
Environmental performance indicators
EN1 Materials used by weight or volume
EN2 Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials
EN3 Direct energy consumption by a primary energy source
EN4 Indirect energy consumption by a primary source
EN5 Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements
EN6 Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy-based products and services,
and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives
EN7 Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved
EN8 Total water withdrawal by a source
EN9 Water sources significantly affected by the withdrawal of water
EN10 Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused
EN11 Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and
areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas
EN12 Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in
protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas
EN13 Habitats protected or restored
EN14 Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity
EN15 Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in
are as affected by operations, by level of extinction risk
EN16 Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight
EN17 Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight
EN18 Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved
EN19 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight
EN20 NO, SO, and other significant air emissions by type and weight
EN21 Total water discharge by quality and destination
EN22 Total weight of waste by type and disposal
EN23 Total number and volume of significant spills
EN24 Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under the
terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and percentage of transported
Table AI. waste shipped internationally
Global Reporting
Initiatives Framework
(GRI-G3) (continued )
 EN25 Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related habitats
CSP and firm
significantly affected by the reporting organisation’s discharges of water and runoff performance
EN26 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of in Asia
impact mitigation
EN27 Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed by category
EN28 Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-
compliance with environmental laws and regulations
EN29 Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and materials
used for the organisation’s operations, and transporting members of the workforce
EN30 Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type
Social performance indicators
Labour practices and decent work performance indicators
LA1 Total workforce by employment type, employment contract, and region
LA2 Total number and rate of employee turnover by age group, gender and region
LA3 Benefits provided to full-time employees that are not provided to temporary or part-time
employees, by major operations
LA4 Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

LA5 Minimum notice period(s) regarding operational changes, including whether it is specified
in collective agreements
LA6 Percentage of total workforce represented informal joint management–worker health and
safety committees that help monitor and advice on occupational health and safety programs
LA7 Rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and absenteeism, and number of work
related fatalities by region
LA8 Education, training, counselling, prevention, and risk-control programs in place to assist
workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases
LA9 Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with trade unions
LA10 Average hours of training per year per employee by employee category
LA11 Programs for skills management and lifelong learning that support the continued
employability of employees and assist them in managing career endings
LA12 Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews
LA13 Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per category according to
gender, age group, minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity
LA14 Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category
Human rights performance indicators
HR1 Percentage and total number of significant investment agreements that include human
rights clauses or that have undergone human rights screening
HR2 Percentage of significant suppliers and contractors that have undergone screening on
human rights and actions taken
HR3 Total hours of employee training on policies and procedures concerning aspects of human
rights that are relevant to operations, including the percentage of employees trained
HR4 Total number of incidents of discrimination and actions taken
HR5 Operations identified in which the right to exercise freedom of association and collective
bargaining may be at significant risk, and actions taken to support these rights
HR6 Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of child labour, and measures
taken to contribute to the elimination of child labour
HR7 Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory
labour, and measures to contribute to the elimination of forced or compulsory labour
HR8 Percentage of security personnel trained in the organisation’s policies or procedures
concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations
HR9 Total number of incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous people and actions taken
Society performance indicators
SO1 Nature, scope, and effectiveness of any programs and practices that assess and manage the
impacts of operations on communities, including entering, operating, and exiting

(continued ) Table AI.

 ARA SO2 Percentage and total number of business units analysed for risks related to corruption
SO3 Percentage of employees trained in organisation’s anti-corruption policies and procedures
SO4 Actions taken in response to incidents of corruption
SO5 Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying
SO6 Total value of financial and in-kind contributions to political parties, politicians, and
related institutions by country
SO7 Total number of legal actions for anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust, and monopoly
practices and their outcomes
SO8 Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for
non-compliance with laws and regulations
Product responsibility performance indicators
PR1 Life cycle stages in which health and safety impacts of products and services are assessed
for improvement, and percentage of significant products and services categories subject to
such procedures
PR2 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes
concerning health and safety impacts of products and services during their life cycle, by
type of outcomes
Downloaded by INSEAD At 09:17 03 November 2018 (PT)

PR3 Type of product and service information required by procedures, and percentage of
significant products and services subject to such information requirements
PR4 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes
concerning product and service information and labelling, by type of outcomes
PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer
satisfaction
PR6 Programs for adherence to laws, standards, and voluntary codes related to marketing
communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship
PR7 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes
concerning marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship
by type of outcomes
PR8 Total number of substantiated complaints regarding breaches of customer privacy and
losses of customer data
PR9 Monetary value of significant fines for non-compliance with laws and regulations
Table AI. concerning the provision and use of products and services

About the authors

Najul Laskar is currently Faculty in the Department of Management at Ajeekya DY Patil University
(iNurture Education Solutions), India. His research interest includes corporate sustainability, corporate
social responsibility and corporate finance. He has written a number of research articles in renowned
national and international research journals. Najul Laskar is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: najul89@gmail.com
Santi Gopal Maji is currently Assistant Professor of Commerce at North-Eastern Hill University,
India. His teaching and research interests are intellectual capital, corporate sustainability, risk
management and corporate finance. He has written a number of research articles in renowned national
and international research journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com