The Quality of Sustainability Reporting in the Property and Real Estate Sector Listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange From 2020 To 2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijma.v4i2.410Keywords:
Sustainability Reporting, ESG, Real Estate Sector, IDX, GRI, Institutional Theory.Abstract
This study aims to analyze the quality of sustainability reporting in the property and real estate sector listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the 2020–2024 period. Based on institutional theory, this study examines whether coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures influence the quality of ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) disclosures by property companies. Using content analysis of the sustainability reports of eight IDX-listed property companies, this study measures the ESG disclosure index based on GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) standards, comprising a total of 114 indicators: 31 environmental indicators, 35 social indicators, and 48 governance indicators. Disclosure scores are classified into four quality categories based on IDX/Sustainalytics guidelines. The quality of ESG reporting in the real estate sector remains varied. The governance dimension shows the highest level of disclosure, followed by the environmental and social dimensions. Bumi Serpong Damai Tbk (BSDE) and Adhi Commuter Properti Tbk (ADCP) demonstrate the greatest improvement in quality.
References
Adnan, S.M., Hay, D., and van Staden, C.J. (2018). The influence of culture and corporate governance on corporate social responsibility disclosure: a cross-country analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198, pp. 820–832.
Andrikopoulos, A., Samitas, A., and Bekiaris, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in financial institutions: evidence from Euronext. Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 32, pp. 27–35.
IDX (2023). Explanation of ESG Values. Indonesia Stock Exchange. Available at: www.idx.co.id/id/perusahaan-tercatat/penjelasan-nilai-esg/
Indonesia Stock Exchange (2022). IDX ESG Leaders Index Guide. Jakarta: IDX.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3,
pp. 282–311.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147–160.
Dong, S., Xu, L., and McIver, R. (2021). China’s financial sector sustainability and ‘green finance’ disclosures. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 353–384.
Global Reporting Initiative (2021). GRI Universal Standards 2021. Amsterdam: GRI.
Habek, P. and Wolniak, R. (2016). Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Quality
and Quantity, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 399–420.
Marquis, C. and Qian, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organization Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 127–148.
Morningstar Sustainalytics (2022). ESG Risk Ratings Methodology. Amsterdam: Sustainalytics.
OJK (2021). Indonesia Sustainable Finance Roadmap 2021–2025. Jakarta: Financial Services Authority.
Shabana, K.M., Buchholtz, A.K., and Carroll, A.B. (2017). The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility reporting. Business and Society, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1107– 1135.
Shen, H., Ng, A.W., Zhang, J., and Wang, L. (2020). Sustainability accounting, management, and policy in China: recent developments and future avenues. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 825– 839.
Weber, O. (2014). The financial sector’s impact on sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–8.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Reny Ernitasari, Mukhzarudfa, Ratih Kusumastuti, Wiwik Tiswiyanti

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




