e-ISSN 2518-1181
DOI 10.33146/2518-1181
Online Media ID R40-06293
← Back Published: 10.06.2025

The Impact of Gender Diversity and Political Connections on Sustainability Reporting Disclosure

Authors

Moch Mohtar State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia ORCID 0000-0003-0605-5566
Bambang Sugeng State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia ORCID 0000-0001-8050-5401
Puji Handayati State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia ORCID 0000-0001-8241-1337

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33146/2307-9878-2025-2(108)-152-163

Abstract

Today, society demands greater accountability from companies to control their impact on the environment. Sustainability reporting disclosure helps investors, civil society organizations, consumers, and other stakeholders evaluate companies' sustainability performance. This study aims to determine the effect of gender diversity and political connections on sustainability report disclosure by mining companies in Indonesia. The population of this study is all mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the period 2019-2023. Along with the main variables, this study also uses control variables such as CEO narcissism, audit committee, firm size, and CEO characteristics to ensure accurate and reliable results. For data analysis, the panel data regression analysis is carried out with the help of the Eviews-13 application. This study's stages of analysis are descriptive statistical analysis, classical assumption tests, panel data regression analysis, and hypothesis testing. The study results show that gender diversity on the board of directors has a positive and significant effect on sustainability reporting disclosure in Indonesian companies during the 2019–2023 period, where the presence of women on the board enhances the quality and transparency of sustainability reporting. Conversely, political connections do not significantly affect sustainability reporting disclosure. Additionally, control variables such as CEO narcissism and the presence of an audit committee have a positive and significant effect on sustainability reporting disclosure. In contrast, CEO characteristics and firm size do not show substantial influence. These findings highlight the importance of gender diversity and internal corporate governance in promoting transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting.

Keywords

sustainability reporting disclosure, gender diversity, political connections, CEO narcissism, audit committee, firm size
References
  1. Adhariani, D., & du Toit, E. (2020). Readability of sustainability reports: evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-10-2019-0194
  2. Al-Qudah, A. A., & Houcine, A. (2024). Firms’ characteristics, corporate governance, and the adoption of sustainability reporting: evidence from Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(2), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-02-2023-0066
  3. Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. (2018). Credibility of sustainability reports: The contribution of audit committees. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2046
  4. Alta’any, M., Tauringana, V., Zalata, A., & Achiro, L. O. (2024). Unpacking sustainability reporting dimensions: the impact of board characteristics. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-09-2023-0568
  5. Arayssi, M., Jizi, M., & Tabaja, H. H. (2020). The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136
  6. Arifianto, B. S. (2024). Kerusakan Lingkungan Tambang Timah Senilai Rp 271 Triliun Haruskah Diganti? Kompas.Id. Retrieved from https://www.kompas.id/baca/riset/2024/04/04/kerusakan-lingkungan-tambang-timah-senilai-rp-271-triliun-haruskan-diganti
  7. Buallay, A., & Al-Ajmi, J. (2019). The role of audit committee attributes in corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2018-0085
  8. Buniamin, S., Jaffar, R., Ahmad, N., & Johari, N. H. (2020). Exploring the involvement of Malaysian companies in sustainable development goals (SDGs). Global Business and Management Research, 12(4), 201–213.
  9. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 52(3), 351-386. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351
  10. Cicchiello, A. F., Fellegara, A. M., Kazemikhasragh, A., & Monferrà, S. (2021). Gender diversity on corporate boards: How Asian and African women contribute on sustainability reporting activity. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 36(7), 801–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-05-2020-0147
  11. Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2015). The Economic Relevance of Environmental Disclosure and its Impact on Corporate Legitimacy: An Empirical Investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1829
  12. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226
  13. Du, J., Bai, T., & Chen, S. (2019). Integrating corporate social and corporate political strategies: Performance implications and institutional contingencies in China. Journal of Business Research, 98, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.014
  14. Faccio, M. (2006). Politically Connected Firms. American Economic Review, 96(1), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806776157704
  15. Faccio, M., & HSU, H. (2017). Politically connected private equity and employment. The Journal of Finance, 72(2), 539–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12483
  16. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
  17. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768
  18. Girón, A., Kazemikhasragh, A., Cicchiello, A. F., & Panetti, E. (2021). Sustainability Reporting and Firms’ Economic Performance: Evidence from Asia and Africa. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(4), 1741–1759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00693-7
  19. Githaiga, P. N., & Kosgei, J. K. (2023). Board characteristics and sustainability reporting: a case of listed firms in East Africa. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 23(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2021-0449
  20. GRI. (2021). Consolidated Set of Consolidated Set of the GRI Standards 2021. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/resource-center/
  21. Guedhami, O., Pittman, J. A., & Saffar, W. (2014). Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(1), 107–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12032
  22. Hadya, R., & Susanto, R. (2018). Model Hubungan Antara Keberagaman Gender, Pendidikan Dan Nationality Dewan Komisaris Terhadap Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility. Jurnal Benefita, 3(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v3i2.3432
  23. Harymawan, I., Putra, F. K. G., Agni, T. D. K., & Kamarudin, K. A. (2020). Sustainability Report Practices in Indonesia: Context, Policy, and Readability. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 438–443. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.8979
  24. Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8559/sample/0521818559ws.pdf
  25. Hung, M., Kim, Y., & Li, S. (2018). Political connections and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from around the world. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3), 272–302. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0139-z
  26. Issa, A., Zaid, M. A. A., Hanaysha, J. R., & Gull, A. A. (2022). An examination of board diversity and corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from banking sector in the Arabian Gulf countries. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-07-2021-0137
  27. Jain, T., & Zaman, R. (2020). When Boards Matter: The Case of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12376
  28. Joni, J., Ahmed, K., & Hamilton, J. (2020). Politically connected boards, family and business group affiliations, and cost of capital: Evidence from Indonesia. The British Accounting Review, 52(3), 100878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100878
  29. Kalbuana, N., Taqi, M., Uzliawati, L., Ramdhani, D., & Muchlish, M. (2023). Factors Affecting the Disclosure of Sustainability Reports of Transportation Companies in Indonesia. Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR) Peer Reviewed-International Journal, 7(2), 2023. Retrieved from https://jurnal.stie-aas.ac.id/index.php/IJEBAR
  30. Kind, F. L., Zeppenfeld, J., & Lueg, R. (2023). The impact of chief executive officer narcissism on environmental, social, and governance reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4448–4466. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3375
  31. Kong, X., Radhakrishnan, S., & Tsang, A. (2017). Corporate Lobbying, Visibility and Accounting Conservatism. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 44(5–6), 527–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12246
  32. Kumar, K., Kumari, R., Poonia, A., & Kumar, R. (2023). Factors influencing corporate sustainability disclosure practices: empirical evidence from Indian National Stock Exchange. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 21(2), 300–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-01-2021-0023
  33. Luo, J., & Kaul, A. (2019). Private action in public interest: The comparative governance of social issues. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2961
  34. Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2017-0024
  35. Martínez-Ferrero, J., Lozano, M. B., & Vivas, M. (2021). The impact of board cultural diversity on a firm’s commitment toward the sustainability issues of emerging countries: The mediating effect of a CSR committee. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2080
  36. Muliawati, A. R., & Hariyati, H. (2021). Pengaruh Koneksi Politik Dan Media Exposure Terhadap Pengungkapan Tanggung Jawab Sosial. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Ekonomika, 11(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.37859/jae.v11i1.2509
  37. Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Mihret, D. G. (2018). The Effect of Board Capital and CEO Power on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3105-y
  38. Nicolò, G., Aversano, N., Sannino, G., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2023). Online sustainability disclosure practices in the university context. The role of the board of directors. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(4), 800–826. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2022-0224
  39. Nicolò, G., Zampone, G., Sannino, G., & De Iorio, S. (2022). Sustainable corporate governance and non-financial disclosure in Europe: does the gender diversity matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2021-0100
  40. Nugrahanti, Y. W. (2021). Do Political Connection and Corporate Governance Mechanism Increase Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure? International Journal of Applied Business Research, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.35313/ijabr.v3i2.147
  41. Orazalin, N., & Mahmood, M. (2020). Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2018-0137
  42. Oware, K. M., Amoako, G. K., & Halidu, O. B. (2023). Does the gender of board members influence the choice of sustainability report format of listed firms? Empirical evidence from India. Managerial Finance, 49(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2022-0242
  43. Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, Pub. L. No. 55, 1 (2015). Tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 12/POJK.05/2014 Tentang Perizinan Usaha Dan Kelembagaan Lembaga Keuangan Mikro. Retrieved from http://www.ojk.go.id/id/kanal/iknb/regulasi/lembaga-keuangan-mikro/peraturan-ojk/Documents/SAL-POJK PERIZINAN FINAL F.pdf
  44. Purnomo, T. A. W. H., Kusuma, S. A. D., & Amelia, C. (2023). Pengungkapan ESG: Cara Efektif Untuk Mencapai Bisnis Berkelanjutan? Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 19(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.21460/jrak.2023.191.439
  45. PWC. (2023). Tren dan Arah Sustainability Report Indonesia di Masa Mendatang. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/id/en/media-centre/press-release/2023/indonesian/tren-dan-arah-sustainability-report-indonesia-di-masa-mendatang.html
  46. Qian, W., & Chen, X. (2021). Corporate environmental disclosure and political connection in regulatory and leadership changes: The case of China. The British Accounting Review, 53(1), 100935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100935
  47. Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(2), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2015-0052
  48. Saefullah. (2024). Penambangan Timah Lepas Pantai Merusak Ekosistem Laut Bangka Belitung. Retrieved from https://www.ekuatorial.com/2024/05/penambangan-timah-lepas-pantai-merusak-ekosistem-laut-bangka-belitung/
  49. SAL POJK 51 – Keuangan Berkelanjutan, Pub. L. No. 51/POJK.03/2017, ojk.go.id (2017). Retrieved from https://ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Documents/Pages/Penerapan-Keuangan-Berkelanjutan-bagi-Lembaga-Jasa-Keuangan,-Emiten,-dan-Perusahaan-Publik/SAL%20POJK%2051%20-%20keuangan%20berkelanjutan.pdf
  50. Saputra, M. B., & Primasari, D. (2024). Pengaruh CEO Narcissism Terhadap Manajemen Laba dengan Koneksi Politik Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Jurnal Ilmiah Global Education, 5(1), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.55681/jige.v5i1.2486
  51. Saraswati, E., Sagitaputri, A., & Rahadian, Y. (2020). Political Connections and CSR Disclosures in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(11), 1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.1097
  52. Sutawan, M. D., & Sisdyani, E. A. (2022). Koneksi Politik, Kepemilikan Pemerintah dan Pengungkapan Sustainability Reporting. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 32(8), 2047. https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2022.v32.i08.p07
  53. Suwasono, H., & Anggraini, A. (2021). Pengaruh Financial Distress, Leverage, Umur Perusahaan, Tipe Industri dan Gender Diversity Terhadap Sustainability Report. Prosiding Seminar Nasional & Call for Paper STIE AAS, 34–43. Retrieved from https://prosiding.stie-aas.ac.id/index.php/prosenas/article/view/96
  54. Wahid, A. S. (2019). The Effects and the Mechanisms of Board Gender Diversity: Evidence from Financial Manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3785-6
  55. Wallad, J. R., & Darniaty, W. A. (2023). Pengaruh Koneksi Politik, Kepemilikan Pemerintah, Profitabilitas, Dan Leverage Terhadap Kualitas Laporan Keberlanjutan Pada Bumn Indonesia. Journal of Accounting, Management and Islamic Economics, 1(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.35384/jamie.v1i1.410
  56. Wang, Y., Ma, J., & Wang, T. (2023). Do all female directors have the same impact on corporate social responsibility? The role of their political connection. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(3), 1047–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09754-0
  57. Wang, Y., Wilson, C., & Li, Y. (2021). Gender attitudes and the effect of board gender diversity on corporate environmental responsibility. Emerging Markets Review, 47, 100744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100744
  58. Wang, Z., Reimsbach, D., & Braam, G. (2018). Political embeddedness and the diffusion of corporate social responsibility practices in China: A trade-off between financial and CSR performance? Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1185–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.116
  59. Wasiuzzaman, S., & Wan Mohammad, W. M. (2020). Board gender diversity and transparency of environmental, social and governance disclosure: Evidence from Malaysia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3099
  60. Xiao, G., & Shen, S. (2022). To pollute or not to pollute: Political connections and corporate environmental performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 74, 102214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2022.102214
  61. Zahid, M., Rahman, H. U., Ali, W., Khan, M., Alharthi, M., Imran Qureshi, M., & Jan, A. (2020). Boardroom gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability disclosures in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118683
  62. Zaid, M. A., Wang, M., Adib, M., Sahyouni, A., & Abuhijleh, S. T. (2020). Boardroom nationality and gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119652
  63. Zhang, Z., Xu, B., & Li, P. (2023). What affects the quality of sustainability report texts? Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1440–1456. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2429