Jurnal Akuntansi

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2022): Jurnal Akuntansi
Articles

ANALISIS PENILAIAN MATERIALITAS LAPORAN KEBERLANJUTAN PADA 15 PERUSAHAAN MULTIFINANCE

PDF
  • Cindy Feliyanti
Cindy Feliyanti
Institut Bisnis dan Informatika Kwik Kian Gie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46806/ja.v11i1.814

Published 2022-02-28

Keywords

  • Materiality,
  • Sustainability Report,
  • Financing Service,
  • Stakeholders,
  • Multifinance

How to Cite

Feliyanti, C. (2022). ANALISIS PENILAIAN MATERIALITAS LAPORAN KEBERLANJUTAN PADA 15 PERUSAHAAN MULTIFINANCE. Jurnal Akuntansi, 11(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.46806/ja.v11i1.814

Abstract

The background is materiality which is emphazised in the report guidelines in order to improve the quality of sustainability reports. Related to the company’s social, economic, and environmental issues. The lack of research discussing the materiality analysis of sustainability repoerts, prompted the authors to raise issue about the definition of materiality, stakeholder engagement, and identification of key materiality issues. This study aims to determine the practice of materiality assessment in sustainability reports in current financing services. Using stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and sustainability reporting standards. Taking 12 qualitative studies on materiality and non-materiality, and 7 quantitative studies on CSR. This research method is qualitative with a research design that examines the materiality aspect of sustainability reports reported by 15 companies in the financing services sub-sector. 4 companies provided an explanation of how materiality was defined, while the other companies only developed their own approach without GRI guidelines. And only 2 companies provided detailed information of stakeholder engagement. And 3 companies that convey the main materiality problems indicated. Therefore, there is still a lack of uniformity in sustainability reports related to materiality assessment, lack of completeness and transparency in Indonesia, especially for companies in the financing services sub-sector.

PDF

References

  1. Account Ability. (2008). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard.
  2. Account Ability. (2018). AA1000 PRINSIP-PRINSIP ACCOUNTABILITY.
  3. Account Ability. (2020). AA1000 Assurance Standard v3. 1–48. www.accountability.org
  4. Aryal, N. (2017). Materiality assessment in sustainability reporting: case study of the airline industry. 1–64. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/54674
  5. Bellantuono, N., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2018). Guiding materiality analysis for sustainability reporting: The case of agri-food sector. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 18(4), 336–359. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2018.096181
  6. Beske, F., Haustein, E., & Lorson, P. C. (2020). Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0343
  7. Brunstein, J., Sambiase, M. F., Kerr, R. B., Brunnquell, C., & Perera, L. C. J. (2020). Sustainability in finance teaching: evaluating levels of reflection and transformative learning. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2018-0164
  8. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi Ghiron, N., & Menichini, T. (2019). Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: A tool for directing corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(5), 1016–1038. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.10550
  9. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., & Rosati, F. (2015). A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis. Accounting Forum, 39(4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2015.06.002
  10. Chedrawi, C., Osta, A., & Osta, S. (2020). CSR in the Lebanese banking sector: a neo-institutional approach to stakeholders’ legitimacy. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2018-0093
  11. Ellerup Nielsen, A., & Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: a legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications, 23(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0042
  12. Freeman, R. E., & David, L. R. (1983). Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165018
  13. Geerts, M., & Dooms, M. (2020). Sustainability reporting for inland port managing bodies: A stakeholder-based view on materiality. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051726
  14. Global Reporting Initiative. (2016a). GRI 102 : Pengungkapan Umum 2016. 1–45.
  15. Global Reporting Initiative. (2016b). GRI 103 : Pendekatan Manajemen 2016. 1–14.
  16. Global Sustainability Standards Board. (2016). Standar Pelaporan Keberlanjutan GRI 2016 : 101 Landasan. Global Reporting Initiative, 30.
  17. James Kamwachale Khomba. (2012). Relevance of financial reporting systems: Single-bottom line or triple-bottom line. African Journal of Business Management, 6(9), 3519–3527. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm11.2956
  18. John Elkington. (1997). Cannibals with forks The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
  19. Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2018). Materiality and external assurance in corporate sustainability reporting: An exploratory case study of the UK construction industry. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 14(4), 454–472. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2018.093568
  20. Lassala, C., Apetrei, A., & Sapena, J. (2017). Sustainability matter and financial performance of companies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091498
  21. LINDBLOM, & K., C. (1994). The implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, 1994. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10025885553/en/
  22. Puroila, J., & Mäkelä, H. (2019). Matter of opinion: Exploring the socio-political nature of materiality disclosures in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(4), 1043–1072. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2016-2788
  23. Simatele, M., & Dlamini, P. (2020). Finance and the social mission: a quest for sustainability and inclusion. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-02-2019-0024
  24. Stakeholders, L. T. O., Chief, M., Officer, E., Assheton, A., Carter, L. S., Accountability, C., & Board, S. (2013). Stakeholder Engagement Standards. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2305–2305. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_101479
  25. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Approaches and Strategic Managing Legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331
  26. Uma Sekaran and Roger Bougie. (2019). Research Methods for Business. 1, 105–112.