ANALYSING DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS OF STAKEHOLDER THEORY ON ENERGY

DISCLOSURE: MAIN FACTORS AND VALUABLE OBSERVATIONS

AMINAH1 ANDALA RAMA PUTRA BARUSMAN2 KHAIRUDIN3 YANUARIUS YAN

U DHARMAWAN4 NURDIAWANSYAH5

1
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Bandar Lampung, Lampung, I
ndonesia
2
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Bandar Lampung, Lampung, I
ndonesia
3
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Bandar Lampung, Lampung, I
ndonesia
4
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Bandar Lampung, Lam
pung, Indonesia
5
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Bandar Lampung, Lampung, I
ndonesia

*Correspondence to: Aminah, Universitas Bandar Lampung, 1Faculty of Econo

mics and Business, Lampung, Indonesia.
E-mail: [email protected]

Recommended citation:

Abstract: This study examines corporate social responsibility, with a specific focus on
the disclosure of energy practices in the non-cyclical consumer sector. Energy disclos
ure is a crucial component of corporate reporting, included in annual or sustainability
reports. It demonstrates a company's dedication to transparency and the responsible
use of energy. Our research aims to examine the effects of important financial and go
vernance factors, specifically profitability, leverage, management ownership, and dire
cting roles, on energy disclosure practices using empirical analysis. We utilised a purp
osive sampling method to gather a dataset consisting of 98 data samples from non-cy
clical consumer sector companies that are listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (ID
X) between the years 2021 and 2022. The utilisation of SPSS 18 and multiple linear regr
ession methods indicates that profitability and directing positions have a significant b
eneficial impact on energy disclosure, but leverage has a noteworthy negative affect.
In contrast, management ownership has a minimal effect. Our research adds to the cu
rrent discussion on corporate sustainability, emphasising the crucial influence of finan
cial and governance considerations on energy disclosure practices in the business wo
rld.

Keywords: Energy Disclosure, Profitability, Leverage, Managerial Ownership, Director

s

Introduction
The worldwide energy consumption is seeing a steady upward trend, primarily due to the
growth of the global population, as noted by Gomez-Echeverri (2018) and
Herrero et al. (2009)
. The projections for the near future indicate a significant rise in the global populatio
n by 2030, together with a corresponding surge in energy demand, as emphasised by
Liu et al. (2020)
and Madkour (2022). The increasing energy demand requires immediate actio
n to provide a sustainable energy supply for present and future requirements. As a respo
nse to this urgent command, the government is implementing strict rules, as demonstrat
ed by Government Regulation (PP) Number 33 of 2023, which prioritises energy saving eff
orts. The rules, emphasised by Aboueata et al. (2021) and Dorian et al. (2006) , aim to tackl
e the urgent energy requirements in a way that is financially feasible, logical, and environ
mentally friendly, guaranteeing a well-rounded approach to energy use and preservation.

Figure 1. Graph of Energy Use in Indonesia 2018-2022

The collaborative actions taken by countries highlight the acknowledgment of the c

rucial significance of sustainable energy practices in addressing the increasing energy nee
ds of a rapidly expanding global population. Regulatory frameworks, including Governme
nt Regulation (PP) Number 33 of 2023, play a crucial role in guiding energy policies toward
s sustainability and resilience in the face of increasing energy difficulties.
Indonesia's heavy dependence on fossil fuels poses a significant challenge to achievi
ng sustainable development goals, surpassing targets for renewable energy. Despite effo
rts to diversify energy sources, such as Government Regulation (PP) Number 33 of 2023 f
ocusing on energy conservation, reliance on coal, petroleum, and gas persists, hindering s
ustainability progress (Vera & Langlois, 2007). With mounting environmental concerns, co
rporations face increasing pressure to address sustainability issues, evidenced by calls for
comprehensive assessments of economic, environmental, and social impacts
(Apriyanti et al., 2019; Hasan et al., 2012; Sharvini et al., 2
. However, the energy sector receives insu
fficient attention in sustainability reporting studies, underscoring the need for a compreh
ensive analysis of energy disclosure protocols to address associated sustainability challen
ges effectively (Chen et al., 2019; Shalaeva et al., 2020; Wu & Chen, 2017).
Sustainability reporting is crucial for organisations to effectively convey their perfor
mance and impacts. According to Carolina et al. (2020), Kurniawan et al. (2020) , and
Orazalin & Mahmood (2020)
sustainability reporting is a holistic platform that communicates b
oth financial accomplishments and the wider impact of corporate operations on the envir
onment and society. Energy disclosure is essential within this framework as it serves as a
concrete indication of a company's dedication to environmental stewardship and openne
ss. According to Kay et al. (2020), include information on energy usage in sustainability re
ports demonstrates a proactive effort to deal with environmental issues, which in turn im
proves trust and accountability among stakeholders. Companies promote openness and s
howcase their commitment to sustainable practices by revealing details about energy use
patterns, management tactics, and environmental consequences (Musah et al., 2022).
Furthermore, incorporating stakeholder theory viewpoints into energy disclosure a
nalysis enhances the importance of sustainability reporting. Carolina et al. (2020) ,
Kurniawan et al. (2020)
, and Orazalin & Mahmood (2020) stress that stakeholder theory emphas
ises the significance of taking into account the concerns of different stakeholders, such as
investors, employees, communities, and society as a whole, when making corporate decis
ions. By integrating stakeholder viewpoints into the analysis of energy disclosure, firms ca
n acquire useful insights about their sustainability and accountability processes. By adopti
ng this method, businesses can ensure that their energy disclosure policies are in line with
the expectations of stakeholders. This, in turn, will improve their entire corporate reputat
ion and provide them a competitive edge in the market. Essentially, incorporating stakeh
older theory viewpoints enhances energy disclosure procedures, leading to enhanced bus
iness sustainability and accountability.
Stakeholder theory, as outlined by Harrison & Wicks (2013), underscores the import
ance of considering the interests of various stakeholders, including management, investo
rs, employees, and impacted communities, in business decision-making. Prioritizing stake
holder interests enables companies to embrace sustainable and responsible practices, fos
tering trust and enhancing the long-term sustainability of their operations.
Kay et al. (2020) found a strong correlation between well-established environmental,
sustainability, and social responsibility policies in organizations and their propensity to es
tablish Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) incentive goals. This alignment signi
fies a commitment to enhancing stakeholder value and underscores the critical role of sus
tainability measures in contemporary corporate governance, ultimately enhancing firms'
competitiveness and resilience in an increasingly conscientious market. Additionally, exa
mining energy disclosure practices through the lens of stakeholder theory, as proposed b
y Carolina et al. (2020), Kurniawan et al. (2020) , and Orazalin & Mahmood (2020) , provide
s valuable insights into the influence of ESG strategies and objectives on energy disclosur
e. This analysis elucidates the intricate dynamics shaping corporate sustainability efforts a
nd underscores the interplay between sustainability initiatives, stakeholder expectations,
and societal well-being, thereby promoting transparency, accountability, and overall corp
orate sustainability.
The objective of this study is to examine the sustainability reports of non-cyclical co
nsumer companies that are publicly traded on the Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX). The
analysis specifically intends to examine the influence of various important characteristics,
such as profitability, leverage, management ownership, and directing roles, on the energy
disclosure policies of these organisations. This study aims to analyse the impact of several
factors on the disclosure of energy-related information in sustainability reports. By closely
investigating these variables, the study tries to uncover the fundamental mechanisms tha
t drive corporate behaviour in terms of energy transparency and accountability.
The study explores the intricate relationship between financial performance metrics
and energy disclosure practices in the non-cyclical consumer sector. It examines the facto
rs influencing energy disclosure practices, including profitability, leverage, ownership stru
ctures, and directorial responsibilities. The research is crucial for academia, industry practi
tioners, politicians, and stakeholders interested in advancing sustainable energy practices
and corporate responsibility programs. It aims to enhance understanding of energy mana
gement and reporting by identifying key elements influencing disclosure strategies. The s
tudy aims to provide practical ideas for improving energy openness and accountability in t
he non-cyclical consumer sector, promoting well-informed decision-making and facilitatin
g positive transformation towards a more sustainable and socially responsible business e
nvironment.
The Stakeholder Theory emphasises that corporations have a duty to operate in a m
anner that benefits not just themselves, but also a wide range of stakeholders, including s
hareholders, creditors, consumers, suppliers, government agencies, society, and other rel
evant parties (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jamali, 2008; Steurer, 2006) . This idea asserts t
hat firms have a social responsibility to take into account the interests of all stakeholders
affected by their decisions.
An excellent approach to fulfil these responsibilities and establish strong connectio
ns with stakeholders is by providing sustainability reports. These reports, which include m
easurements of economic, social, and environmental performance, are used to distribute
important information to all stakeholders (Ayuso et al., 2012). Companies can enhance the
ir ability to navigate dynamic market conditions and ensure their survival by meeting the i
nformation requirements of stakeholders, hence cultivating crucial support
(Cullen et al., 2018; Leonidou et al., 2020)
. Stakeholder Theory suggests that when organisations disclos
e financial, social, and environmental information, it helps to enhance communication bet
ween the companies and their stakeholders. This transparent flow of information positive
ly influences the way stakeholders perceive and expect from the companies
(Singh & Rahman, 2021; Wu & Yuan, 2020)
. This conversation not only improves the involvement of indi
viduals or groups with an interest in the firm but also improves the organisation's standin
g and trustworthiness, bringing its activities in line with what society expects and promoti
ng long-lasting business methods.
Energy disclosure refers to the act of an organisation sharing information about its
energy consumption and management methods. Energy disclosure in the context of sust
ainability reporting involves sharing detailed information on the use of energy both withi
n and outside the organisation (Cormier et al., 2004; Manetti, 2011) . Maximising energy e
fficiency and embracing renewable energy sources are crucial in tackling climate change a
nd reducing the environmental impact of organisations. The disclosures described in this
Standard provide a means of revealing information about an organization's energy impac
t and the techniques it employs to manage it (Diouf & Boiral, 2017; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013) .
Energy disclosure is a crucial element in sustainability reporting, since it demonstrat
es an organization's dedication to environmental stewardship and sustainable operations.
Organisations can enhance stakeholder trust and confidence by providing detailed infor
mation on energy usage patterns and management strategies, promoting transparency a
nd accountability (Camilleri, 2017; Carolina et al., 2020; Hahn et al., 2015). Furthermore, en
ergy disclosure enhances the ability to make well-informed decisions, allowing stakeholde
rs to evaluate an organization's environmental performance and determine its complianc
e with sustainability goals and regulatory obligations.
Moreover, energy disclosure is crucial in driving organisational change towards ado
pting more sustainable energy practices. By clearly explaining the environmental consequ
ences of energy usage and outlining methods for reducing and improving it, organisation
s can promote innovation and efficiency improvements throughout their activities
(Ngu & Amran, 2018; Traxler &
. Furthermore, e
nergy disclosure promotes communication and cooperation among individuals or groups
with an interest in the matter, creating a shared dedication to promoting sustainable ener
gy goals and building resilience in response to climate-related difficulties.
Comprehending profitability is essential for assessing a company's financial well-bei
ng and effectiveness. Profitability is a crucial metric that measures a company's ability to
earn profits throughout a given time frame (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020; Shahnia et al., 2020) .
The ratio serves as a metric to gauge the efficiency of a company's management, indicati
ng the level of profits earned from sales or investment funds. Profitability ratios provide v
aluable information about a company's potential to create profits by efficiently using its r
esources.
According to Brigham & Houston (2013), profitability ratios are a collection of indica
tors that encompass the overall influence of liquidity, asset management, and debt on op
erational results. These statistics not only illuminate a company's capacity to make profits
but also offer a holistic perspective on its financial performance. Profitability measures co
mmonly utilised are Net Profit Margin, Return On Investment (ROI), Return On Equity (RO
E), and Return On Assets (ROA). These ratios provide unique insights into a company's pr
ofitability and operational efficiency
(Bashir et al., 2022; Chaudhry et al., 2019; Laplume et al., 2008)
.
Profitability ratios are crucial instruments for evaluating a company's profitability in
several aspects, such as sales, assets, and capital. Through the examination of these ratio
s, stakeholders can acquire vital insights into a company's financial performance, the effic
acy of its management, and its overall competitiveness in the market
(Hediger, 2010; Sternberg, 1997)
. Furthermore, comprehending profitability ratios facilitates well-informed de
cision-making, assisting stakeholders in pinpointing areas for enhancement and optimisin
g resource allocation to boost profitability and ensure long-term sustainability.
Gaining a comprehensive understanding of profitability and leverage is essential in t
he realm of financial management for firms. Leverage refers to the deliberate and strateg
ic use of resources and diverse funding sources, specifically for organisations that have fix
ed expenses (Ayuso et al., 2012; Olajide et al., 2020). Usually, these funds are obtained thr
ough borrowing, resulting in interest fees that are included in fixed costs. The reason for
utilising leverage is its capacity to enhance returns for investors. Companies utilise borro
wed cash to increase their equity base, which in turn promotes corporate growth and sus
tains operational activities.
Leverage refers to the use of borrowed funds or capital to increase earnings in a bu
siness setting. This strategy entails obtaining loans or utilising alternative types of debt fin
ancing to strengthen the company's financial standing (Camilleri, 2017; Kaur, 2021) . The inj
ection of borrowed funds enhances the company's equity reserves, allowing it to actively
seek growth prospects and maintain its daily operations efficiently.
Comprehending leverage involves more than just obtaining extra finances; it involve
s strategically utilising these resources to maximise returns and attain long-lasting growth.
Leveraging enables firms to utilise external money to enhance their operations, allocate f
unds towards new ventures, or pursue strategic objectives that may not be viable purely t
hrough internal finance sources (Kuzey & Uyar, 2017; Nisak & Yuniarti, 2018; Ziaei, 2021) .N
evertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that utilising leverage also has inherent risks, as h
igher levels of debt can magnify financial vulnerabilities during periods of economic declin
e or unfavourable market conditions.
Businesses must have a detailed understanding of leverage in order to successfully
handle their financial resources, balance the risks and returns, and achieve long-term profi
tability. By strategically and cautiously utilising resources, firms can take advantage of pos
sibilities for expansion while minimising the risks associated with higher levels of debt.
Managerial ownership refers to the level of share ownership owned by managers w
ho are actively involved in making decisions within a company (Chabachib et al., 2020) . Thi
s indicator is measured by evaluating the proportion of shares held by the management a
t the end of a fiscal year. The fundamental nature of management ownership is in its capa
city to synchronise the interests of shareholders and managers. This connection arises fro
m the managers' direct exposure to the outcomes of their decisions. Managers might get
advantages from wise decisions but also suffer the negative consequences of wrong choi
ces.
Building upon this idea, managerial ownership refers to the percentage of shares o
wned by those who are actively involved in guiding the strategic decisions of the organisa
tion, such as directors and commissioners. Managerial ownership refers to a situation in
which firm managers possess shares in the organisation
(Chanatup et al., 2020; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Perrini & Tencati, 2006)
. Managers have a dual position in the organisation, ac
ting as both guardians of corporate operations and invested stakeholders in the compan
y's performance and direction. Managerial ownership refers to a situation where manage
rs not only supervise company operations but also have a direct stake in the ownership of
the company (Bui et al., 2020; Iatridis, 2013; Tasrip et al., 2017). This arrangement promote
s a stronger sense of dedication and responsibility towards achieving the goals of the org
anisation.
Directors, as defined in Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 33/POJK.04/
2014 about Directors and Board of Commissioners of Issuers or Public Companies, are con
sidered a crucial component of an Issuer or Public Company. Directors has extensive pow
er and have the significant duty of overseeing the organisation in accordance with its best
interests and overall objectives. As stated in the articles of association
(Financial Services Authority Regulation, 2014)
, they act as the primary representatives of the company, both
internally and externally, including during legal processes.
The Board of Directors plays a critical role in maintaining the long-term success of th
e organisation, responsible for providing strategic supervision over managerial choices. T
he Board aims to protect the company's stability and ability to withstand changing marke
t conditions and difficulties by promoting a long-term outlook
(Chanatup et al., 2020; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Kostyuk et al., 2016)
. Furthermore, the Board is accountable for ensurin
g adherence to legal and regulatory requirements, which includes the distribution of opti
onal reports such as sustainability reports.
Essentially, the Board of Directors serves as the protector of the company's integrit
y and long-term viability, supervising its activities, policies, and commitment to ethical pri
nciples. Directors diligently guide the company towards success while fulfilling its respons
ibilities to stakeholders and society. The definition of directors encompasses their crucial r
ole in determining the direction and reputation of the firm, emphasising their significant i
nfluence on its current and future endeavours.

Hypothesis Development

Profitability H1 (+)
(X1)

Leverage
(X2)
 H2 (-)
Energy Disclosur
e (Y)
Managerial own H3 (+)
ership (X3)

H4 (+)
Directors (X4)

Figure 2. Framework of Thought

Profitability is a crucial measure that indicates how well a company's management is perf
orming. It often leads to more disclosure of information during periods of higher profitabi
lity (Aldaas, 2021; EL-Ansary & Al-Gazzar, 2021) . The evaluation of this metric is commonly
conducted using Return on Assets (ROA), which is determined by dividing the net profit a
fter tax by the total assets (Aminah et al., 2022a). It is worth mentioning that corporation
s with higher returns on assets tend to have higher levels of Corporate Social Responsibili
ty (CSR) disclosure (García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Gillan et al., 2021). There is a notable and f
avourable relationship between profitability and the disclosure of sustainability reports
(López-Santamaría et al., 2021; Singh & Rahman, 20
. Increased profitability is believed to
impact the publication of sustainability reports by strengthening shareholder trust in the
company's fulfilment of social duties (Taha et al., 2023; Ziaei, 2021).
H1 posits that profitability exerts a positive effect on Energy Disclosure.

Leverage, however, is a measure of the degree to which a corporation depends on borro

wing money, usually assessed by the Debt to Equity Ratio (DER). Increased leverage ampli
fies the likelihood of violating loan agreements, forcing managers to disclose higher profit
s as a means of reducing this risk (López-Santamaría et al., 2021; Singh & Rahman, 2021a) .
As a result, enterprises may give more importance to reporting large profits in order to cr
eate a positive financial image and gain the trust of stakeholders for the purpose of gettin
g loans (Ng & Rezaee, 2015; Xie et al., 2019). Nevertheless, there is typically a negative ass
ociation between increased leverage and the extent to which sustainability reports are di
sclosed. This is because more leverage is seen as an added financial burden
(Ng & Rezaee, 2015; Qiu et al., 2016)
.
H2 asserts that Leverage exerts a negative effect on Energy Disclosure.

Managerial ownership refers to the ownership of shares by individuals who are actively in
volved in making decisions for the organisation. Managers have a vested interest in both
operational success and shareholder profits, which motivates them to provide more detai
led information on their social activities (Ika et al., 2021; Singh & Rahman, 2021a). Increase
d managerial ownership promotes a higher level of active involvement by managers in pr
oviding social disclosures, which in turn improves the value of the company for sharehold
ers (Fatmawati & Trisnawati, 2022; Muhmad & Muhamad, 2021).
H3 suggests that Managerial Ownership positively influences Energy Disclosure.

Stakeholder theory posits that directors have the duty to take into account the concerns
of all individuals and groups connected to the company, emphasising a comprehensive ap
proach to corporate responsibility that goes beyond the interests of shareholders. Boards
that are bigger in size frequently have access to a wider range of resources and experienc
e, which improves their ability to make decisions and encourages them to provide more d
etailed information about their corporate social responsibility activities
(Ben-Amar & McIlkenny, 2015; Helfaya & Mou
. This viewpoint is additionally su
pported by studies that shows the beneficial impact of larger boards on sustainability rep
orting (Helfaya & Moussa, 2017).
H4 contends that Directors exert a positive influence on Energy Disclosure.

Method
The research methodology employed in this study is quantitative, emphasizing the syste
matic analysis of numerical data to discern patterns and trends. Secondary data serves as
the primary information source, acquired indirectly through intermediary channels. The d
ata collection encompasses annual reports and sustainability reports from non-cyclical co
nsumer sector enterprises, spanning the years 2021 to 2022. These reports were sourced f
rom either the official websites of the relevant companies or the Indonesia Stock Exchang
e (IDX) website, accessible at http://www.idx.co.id.
Sample selection adheres to a purposive sampling method, deliberately selecting sa
mples that meet predetermined criteria. The parameters for sample selection encompass
several crucial aspects:

1. Inclusion of non-cyclical consumer sector companies listed on the IDX between 2021 an
d 2022.
2. Evaluation of non-cyclical consumer sector enterprises that have published both annua
l reports and sustainability reports within the specified timeframe.
3. Identification of non-cyclical consumer sector enterprises that have disclosed energy-r
elated information during the reporting period of 2021-2022.

This research employs purposive selection to select relevant samples aligned with t
he study's objectives, facilitating an exploration of energy disclosure practices across the
non-cyclical consumer sector. This methodology enables focused and precise research, fo
stering a deeper understanding of the factors and trends driving energy disclosure behavi
ors among the chosen organizations.

Table 1. Table of Definitions and Measurement of Variables

Variable Definition Measurement Previous Resear
chers
Energy Disclosure Disclosure of Comparing the total num
corporate social ber of Energy Disclosure i
responsibility tems disclosed with the
regarding the energy maximum total items tha
it uses, including t can be disclosed based
information on on the 2016 GRI 302 on E
energy use and nergy indicators.
energy saving efforts
 . ∑ X ie
ED ie=
ne
Profitability A ratio that measures Profitability uses ROA (Ahmad, 2014;
a company's ability to measurements to Aminah et al.,
generate profits at a measure the ability of 2022b)
certain level of sales, company assets to
assets and share generate profits.
capital
Profit after tax
Total Assets
Leverage A ratio that describes Leverage in this study (Romadhona &
how much the uses the DER Wibowo, 2020;
company is financed measurement to assess Saragih &
by debt or by outside debt against equity. Sembiring, 2019)
parties
Total Amoun of debt
Total Capital
Managerial Managerial Managerial ownership is
ownership ownership is measured using a score
(Purnama et al., 2021; Saptowin
company of 1 for companies that
management that have managerial .
owns shares in the ownership and a score of
company where 0 for companies that do
management plays an not have managerial
active role during share ownership.
decision making.

Directors The Board of Directors are measured

Directors is the part by the number of board
of the company members the company (Ramadhani & Maresti, 2021; Y
whose task is to has.
determine the .
direction of policies
and resource
strategies owned by
the company for both
the long and short
term

Energy disclosure is evaluated using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 302 Standard, sp
ecifically focusing on the energy component within the environmental category outlined
by the GRI framework. The selection of the GRI 302 Standard underscores a comprehensi
ve approach to assessing energy disclosure practices, aligning with globally recognized re
porting criteria. Within this framework, various metrics are utilized to gauge the extent an
d quality of energy disclosure by enterprises in the non-cyclical consumer sector. This rese
arch ensures consistency and comparability in evaluating energy disclosure practices amo
ng the selected companies by adhering to the GRI 302 Standard. This methodological choi
ce facilitates a thorough analysis of energy-related metrics, offering critical insights into c
orporate sustainability initiatives in the non-cyclical consumer industry.

Table 2. Energy Disclosure Measurement Indicators

Category Item
Energy 302-1 Energy consumption in organizations
302-2 Energy consumption outside the organization
302-3 Energy intensity
302-4 Reduction of energy consumption
302-5 Reduction in the energy required for products and services

Descriptive statistical data analysis methods are employed to examine correlations amon
g different variables. Regression analysis, particularly multiple linear regression, is utilized
for hypothesis testing purposes. This analytical approach aims to assess the relationships
between independent variables (Profitability, Leverage, Managerial Ownership, and Direc
tors) and a dependent variable (Energy Disclosure). By examining these variables collectiv
ely, a comprehensive multiple linear regression model is constructed to elucidate the intri
cate relationship between financial performance metrics, corporate governance issues, a
nd energy disclosure practices. This research endeavors to leverage an analytical approac
h to gain nuanced insights into the factors influencing energy disclosure behaviors in non-
cyclical consumer sector enterprises.

Y = a + β1PROF + β2LV + β3KM + β4DIR + e

Information:
Y = Energy Disclosure
a = Constanta
β1PROF = Profitability
β2LV = Leverage
β3KM = Managerial ownership
β4UD = Directors
e = Errors or confounding variables

Result and Discussion

Descriptive statistics
 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Table
Standard De
N Minimum Maximum Average
viation
Profitability 98 -,22 ,25 ,0667 ,09245
Leverage 98 -,46 3,18 ,8716 ,72327
Managerial ownershi 98 ,00 1,00 ,6531 ,47844
p
Directors 98 1,00 11,00 4,5612 2,05625
Energy Disclosure 98 ,20 1,00 ,4673 ,20698
Valid N 98

Out of the 120 data samples collected, 22 data points were eliminated due to the pre
sence of outliers that could potentially disrupt the study. A total of 98 data samples were
processed. The use of descriptive statistical tests yielded data indicating that the profitabi
lity ranged from a maximum value of 0.25 to a minimum value of -0.022. The mean profita
bility figure is 0.0667, indicating that the company being analysed has a profitability ratio
of 6.67%. The profitability obtained has a standard deviation of 0.092.
The greatest value of leverage is 3.18, while the minimum value is -0.46. The variable
has a mean value of 0.8716, indicating that the company being analysed has a leverage rat
io of 87.16%. Based on this mean figure, it can be inferred that the majority of the compan
y's composition is derived from debt. The profitability obtained has a standard deviation o
f 0.723.
Managerial Ownership employs a binary variable, where the highest value is 1 and th
e lowest value is 0. The management ownership has a standard deviation of 0.478. The m
ean value of management ownership is 0.653. Considering the average value, which is oft
en near 1, it can be inferred that the majority of the organisations analysed (65.3%) posses
s managerial ownership.
The range of values for directors is from 1 to 11, inclusive. The directors have a stand
ard deviation of 2.06. The average score for directors is 4.56, indicating that each compan
y examined typically has around 4 or 5 directors.
The energy disclosure ranges from a minimum value of 0.2 to a maximum value of 1.
The variable has a standard deviation of 0.20698. The mean energy disclosure value obtai
ned is 0.467. Based on the average figure, we can infer that the companies analysed subm
itted energy information for 46.7% of all the items that were eligible for disclosure.

Test the Classical Assumptions of Previous Research

Normality test
 Table 4. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Unstandardized
Residual
N 98
Normal Parameters a,b
Mean .0000000
Std. Deviation .16322056
Most Extreme Differen Absolute .051
ces Positive .047
Negative -.051
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .505
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .960

The conducted normalcy test resulted in a significance value of 0.960. Given a significance
value greater than the frequently used threshold of 0.05, which is typically used to establi
sh statistical significance, the data can be interpreted as following a normal distribution. E
ssentially, the p-value of 0.960 suggests that there is no substantial deviation from norma
lcy in the dataset being analysed. These results indicate that the data points are evenly sp
read out around the average, conforming to the typical bell-shaped curve that is associate
d with a normal distribution. Therefore, it can be inferred that the dataset meets the requ
irements of normalcy, thereby establishing a reliable basis for further statistical analysis a
nd interpretations.

Multicollinearity Test
Table 5. Multicollinearity Test Results
Collinearity Statistics
Model
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
Profitability .792 1.262
Leverage .803 1.245
Managerial ownersh .946 1.057
ip
Directors .990 1.010
The table's findings provide strong evidence that there is no multicollinearity among the i
ndependent variables. All independent variables have a tolerance value greater than the t
hreshold of 0.10 and variance inflation factor (VIF) values below 10. The convergence of d
ata definitively confirms the strength and reliability of the model, demonstrating that ther
e is no presence of multicollinearity, which refers to substantial intercorrelations among p
redictor variables. This result enhances the trustworthiness and accuracy of the statistical
analysis performed, thereby strengthening the credibility of the study's conclusions. As a
result, researchers can confidently analyse the correlations between variables, knowing t
hat any distortions caused by multicollinearity have been eliminated in the analytical fram
ework.
Heteroscedasticity Test

Figure 2. Scatterplot graph

The scatterplot graph above exhibits a distribution of points that appear to be randomly a
rranged, without any clear structure. Significantly, these points demonstrate dispersion in
both positive and negative values on the Y-axis. The distribution pattern indicates that th
ere is no systematic variability in the residuals, suggesting that there is no heteroscedastic
ity in the regression model being examined. The presence of heteroscedasticity, if detect
ed, could potentially compromise the dependability of the model's estimations and predic
tions, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the regression study done. Therefore, the l
ack of heteroscedasticity strengthens the confidence in the reliability and precision of the
regression model's outcomes, thereby increasing the credibility of any conclusions made f
rom the research.

Autocorrelation Test
Tabl
e 6. Adjusted R Sq Std. Error of t Durbin-Watso Mod
Model R R Square
el Su uare he Estimate n mma
ry 1 .615 .378 .351 .16669 1.890

The Durbin-Watson test, as shown in Table 6, has a result of 1.890. Given a sample size (n)
of 98 and 4 independent variables (k), applying the Durbin-Watson algorithm results in a r
ange of 1.756 < 1.890 < 2.110 for the inequality Du < Dw < 4 - Du. Based on the interpretatio
n of these findings, it may be concluded that there is no indication of autocorrelation in th
e research model. The presence of regular patterns in the residuals of a regression analysi
s, known as autocorrelation, is considered to be absent when the estimated Durbin-Wats
on statistic falls within the prescribed range. This result strengthens the credibility of the r
egression analysis, suggesting that the model accurately represents the connection betw
een the independent and dependent variables without being affected by autocorrelation.
Therefore, the outcomes obtained from the study model can be considered trustworthy f
or additional analysis and deduction within the given context.

Hypothesis testing
Coefficient of Determination
The coefficient of determination, as shown in Table 6, indicates an adjusted R-squar
e value of 0.351. This study indicates that around 35.1% of the differences seen in the indep
endent factors, specifically Profitability, Leverage, Managerial Ownership, and Directors, c
an explain the changes in the dependent variable, Energy Disclosure. Nevertheless, it is im
portant to mention that the components included in the regression model only explain 35.
1% of the remaining variation, leaving 64.9% unexplained. This suggests that there are oth
er factors not taken into account in the analysis that could influence the differences in en
ergy disclosure procedures among the entities being analysed. Therefore, although the va
riables that have been identified provide some understanding of the relationship with ene
rgy disclosure, a significant amount of the variation is still unexplained and can be attribut
ed to factors that have not been explored. This indicates the need for further investigatio
n in order to fully comprehend the factors that determine energy disclosure within the sp
ecific context being studied.

f test
Tabel 7. Tabel Uji f
Sum of Square Mean Squar
Model df F Sig.
s e
1 Regression 1.571 4 .393 14.137 .000a
Residual 2.584 94 .028
Total 4.156 98

The results obtained from the F Test indicate a highly significant level of 0.000. The r
esult obtained is significantly below the conventional threshold of 0.05, indicating that th
e combined effect of the independent variables (Profitability, Leverage, Managerial Owne
rship, and Directors) has a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable, Ener
gy Disclosure. This result highlights the crucial influence of these elements on the develop
ment of energy disclosure practices in the specific environment that was examined. The s
tudy examines how financial performance, organisational structure, and managerial dyna
mics affect energy disclosure, by analysing these variables together. Therefore, the resear
ch provides significant knowledge on the various factors that influence openness and acc
ountability in energy-related disclosures. This knowledge helps in making well-informed d
ecisions and promoting sustainable business practices in the non-cyclical consumer sector.

t test
Table 8. t test table
 Unstandardized Coeffici Standardized
Model ents Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .351 .057 6.133 .000
Profitability .863 .206 .386 4.199 .000
Leverage -.064 .026 -.224 -2.461 .016
Managerial ownershi -.033 .036 -.076 -.903 .369
p
Directors .030 .008 .296 3.595 .001

The regression model obtained from the table above provides valuable insights into the c
orrelation between different parameters and energy disclosure (ED) inside firms. The mo
del is depicted in the following manner:

ED = 0,351 + 0,863 PROF + -0,64 LV + -0,033 KM + 0,03 DIR + e

Multiple important inferences can be made based on the regression coefficients:

1. The constant term (0.351) is the energy disclosure level that companies exhibit on aver
age when all independent variables are at zero. This indicates that the baseline energy
disclosure level is 35.1%.
2. The profitability coefficient (PROF) is 0.863, indicating a positive correlation between p
rofitability and energy disclosure. This implies that for every 1 unit gain in profitability, t
here is a corresponding increase of 0.863 units in energy disclosure.
3. The leverage (LV) coefficient, indicated as -0.064, exhibits a negative correlation with e
nergy disclosure. An incremental rise in leverage results in a reduction of energy disclo
sure by 0.064 units, suggesting a possible trade-off between financial leverage and ene
rgy disclosure.
4. The coefficient of -0.033 indicates a negative correlation between managerial ownershi
p (KM) and energy disclosure. This indicates that a rise in managerial ownership leads t
o a reduction in energy disclosure by 0.033 units, emphasising the impact of the manag
erial ownership structure on disclosure practices.
5. The coefficient for the director variable (DIR) is 0.03, suggesting a positive correlation
between directorship and energy disclosure. As the value of the director variable incre
ments by 1 unit, the energy disclosure tends to increment by 0.03 units, emphasising th
e influence of directors in promoting transparency and disclosure standards in organis
ations.

Regression analysis offers excellent insights into the factors that influence energy disclos
ure in organisations, revealing the intricate connections between profitability, leverage,
managerial ownership, directorship, and energy disclosure policies. These insights can be
used to make strategic decisions and develop policies that aim to improve transparency a
nd sustainability in corporate operations.

The Effect of Profitability on Energy Disclosure

 The research findings corroborate Hypothesis 1 (H1), affirming a positive correlation
between profitability and energy disclosure (Cormier et al., 2004; Manetti, 2011) . The anal
ysis reveals a statistically significant regression coefficient of 0.863 (p < 0.001), indicating
a substantial impact of profitability on energy disclosure, thus supporting the acceptance
of H1 (Diouf & Boiral, 2017; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013) . This aligns with stakeholder theory, sug
gesting that profitable organizations tend to exhibit enhanced performance and resource
availability, prompting stakeholders to seek greater transparency in social responsibility e
fforts (Camilleri, 2017; Hahn et al., 2015). Consequently, as profitability increases, organiza
tions are inclined to expand and fortify their energy disclosure policies
(Carolina et al., 2020)
.
Moreover, these findings echo previous studies indicating the positive influence of p
rofitability on sustainability report disclosure (Ngu & Amran, 2018; Traxler & Greiling, 2019) .
This underscores the pivotal role of profitability in driving transparent and comprehensiv
e disclosure practices within corporate sustainability reporting systems
(Velte et al., 2020; Zong et al., 2020)
. Such insights are instrumental for stakeholders, managers, and policym
akers, emphasizing the integration of financial performance considerations with sustaina
bility reporting endeavors to enhance transparency and accountability in business operati
ons (Aldaas, 2021; EL-Ansary & Al-Gazzar, 2021) .
Comprehending profitability is paramount for evaluating a company's financial healt
h and efficacy (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020; Shahnia et al., 2020) . Profitability ratios, including
Return On Investment (ROI) and Return On Assets (ROA), provide invaluable insights into
a company's ability to generate profits and manage resources efficiently
(Bashir et al., 2022; Chaudhry et al., 2019)
. Higher profitability often correlates with increased disclosure du
ring periods of financial success (García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Gillan et al., 2021). This is con
sistent with the notion that heightened profitability strengthens shareholder trust, drivin
g greater disclosure of sustainability reports and social responsibility efforts
(López-Santamaría et al., 2021; Singh & Rahman, 2021a)
.
In conclusion, profitability serves as a catalyst for energy disclosure, underscoring th
e symbiotic relationship between financial performance and sustainability reporting
(Taha et al., 2023; Ziaei, 2021)
. As organizations strive for profitability, they are incentivized to ad
opt transparent energy disclosure practices, fostering stakeholder trust and facilitating in
formed decision-making towards sustainable operations and long-term viability
(Hediger, 2010; Sternberg, 1997)
.

The Effect of Leverage on Energy Disclosure

The study explores the relationship between leverage and energy disclosure, with a
focus on understanding how financial structures influence organizational transparency re
garding energy consumption and management practices. Hypothesis 2 (H2) posits a nega
tive association between leverage and energy disclosure. The analysis reveals a statisticall
y significant regression coefficient of -0.064, with a significance level of 0.016, supporting
the assertion that higher leverage correlates with reduced energy disclosure. This finding
aligns with previous research, which suggests that leverage exerts a detrimental effect on
sustainability reporting, particularly in terms of disclosing energy-related information.
Consistent with stakeholder theory, organizations facing higher debt levels often pri
oritize meeting financial obligations to creditors, potentially at the expense of non-essent
ial expenses like energy disclosure. The inverse correlation between leverage and energy
disclosure underscores the intricate interplay among financial structures, stakeholder res
ponsibilities, and disclosure policies within modern business environments
(Cormier et al., 2004; Manetti, 2011)
. This finding underscores the significance of energy disclosure as a vit
al component of sustainability reporting.

Energy disclosure serves as a key mechanism for organizations to communicate thei

r energy consumption patterns and management approaches, demonstrating a commitm
ent to environmental responsibility and sustainable practices
(Camilleri, 2017; Carolina et al., 2020; Hahn et al., 2015)
. By providing detailed information on energy usage and manag
ement strategies, organizations foster transparency, which enhances stakeholder trust a
nd confidence. Moreover, energy disclosure enables stakeholders to assess an organizati
on's environmental performance and compliance with sustainability objectives and regula
tory requirements.
Additionally, energy disclosure plays a pivotal role in driving organizational change t
owards adopting more sustainable energy practices. By highlighting the environmental i
mpacts of energy consumption and offering strategies for improvement, organizations sti
mulate innovation and efficiency enhancements across their operations
(Ngu & Amran, 2018; Traxler & Greiling,
. Furthermore, energy discl
osure fosters collaboration among stakeholders, fostering a shared commitment to sustai
nable energy goals and resilience-building in response to climate challenges
(Diouf & Boiral, 2017; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013)
.
The study's findings affirm the negative impact of leverage on energy disclosure, hig
hlighting the importance of transparent reporting practices in promoting sustainability an
d driving organizational change towards more environmentally responsible operations. T
hrough comprehensive energy disclosure, organizations can enhance stakeholder engage
ment, foster innovation, and contribute to collective efforts aimed at addressing climate c
hange.

The Effect of Managerial Ownership on Energy Disclosure

The research finding challenges the assumed positive correlation between manageri
al ownership and energy disclosure. Contrary to expectations, regression analysis indicate
s a negative coefficient value for managerial ownership (-0.033), with a significance level
(0.361) surpassing the preset threshold (α = 0.05), thereby rejecting the hypothesis of a p
ositive correlation (Fatmawati & Trisnawati, 2022; Muhmad & Muhamad, 2021) . The lack o
f significance suggests that managerial ownership has a diminished impact on energy disc
losure.
One plausible explanation for this diminished impact lies in the fact that a significant
number of firm managers have minimal or no ownership stakes in the companies they ov
ersee. This lack of substantial ownership diminishes managers' motivation to prioritize en
ergy disclosure, potentially undermining the effectiveness of sustainability reporting in m
aximizing business value (Ika et al., 2021; Singh & Rahman, 2021b). This finding is consisten
t with previous research indicating that managerial ownership does not notably influence
the disclosure of sustainability reports (Perrini & Tencati, 2006).
These observations underscore the complex nature of managerial ownership's impa
ct on disclosure practices, emphasizing the need for further exploration into the fundame
ntal mechanisms driving corporate transparency and accountability in energy disclosure
(Cormier et al., 2004; Manetti, 2011)
. Despite the theoretical expectation of managerial o
wnership incentivizing greater social disclosures, the empirical evidence suggests a nuanc
ed reality where the link between managerial ownership and energy disclosure is not strai
ghtforward (Diouf & Boiral, 2017; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013) . Hence, future research should de
lve deeper into understanding the contextual factors that mediate this relationship to inf
orm effective corporate governance and sustainability practices.

The Influence of Directors on Energy Disclosure

The findings of this study affirm the significant influence of directors on energy discl
osure practices within organizations, aligning with existing research on energy disclosure
and corporate governance. Energy disclosure, as part of sustainability reporting, plays a vi
tal role in conveying an organization's commitment to environmental responsibility and o
perational sustainability (Cormier et al., 2004; Manetti, 2011). By sharing detailed informati
on on energy consumption and management techniques, organizations enhance transpar
ency and accountability, thus fostering stakeholder trust and confidence
(Camilleri, 2017; Carolina et al., 2020; Hahn et al., 2015)
.
Moreover, energy disclosure serves as a catalyst for organizational change towards
adopting more sustainable energy practices
(Ngu & Amran, 2018; Traxler & Greiling, 2019; Velte et al., 2020; Zong
. By delineating the environmental impacts of energy u
sage and strategies for improvement, organizations stimulate innovation and efficiency e
nhancements across their operations. Additionally, energy disclosure facilitates communi
cation and collaboration among stakeholders, fostering a collective commitment to sustai
nable energy goals and climate resilience.
The observed correlation between the number of directors and energy disclosure u
nderscores the pivotal role of board composition in shaping corporate disclosure behavio
rs. A larger board size not only signifies access to a broader array of resources and experti
se but also correlates with enhanced decision-making capabilities and a proactive stance t
owards corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure
(Ben-Amar & McIlkenny, 2015; Helfaya & Moussa, 2017; Hussai
. These attributes contribute to a climate conduci
ve to robust energy disclosure procedures, thereby bolstering an organization's overall su
stainability efforts.
The regulatory framework defines directors as central figures within organizations,
entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the company's interests and guiding its
strategic direction (Financial Services Authority Regulation, 2014) . Directors play a critical
role in upholding the organization's integrity, overseeing its activities, and ensuring compl
iance with legal and regulatory mandates, including the dissemination of optional reports
such as sustainability reports
(Chanatup et al., 2020; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Kostyuk et al., 2016)
.
In light of stakeholder theory, directors are obligated to consider the interests of all
stakeholders, not just shareholders, in their decision-making processes. Larger boards are
better equipped to fulfill this obligation by leveraging their diverse resources and experie
nces to provide comprehensive information on CSR activities, as evidenced by their positi
ve impact on sustainability reporting (Helfaya & Moussa, 2017). Thus, the findings of this s
tudy underscore the crucial role of directors in shaping energy disclosure practices, highli
ghting the importance of board composition in advancing organizational sustainability ob
jectives.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our research offers useful insights into the intricate landscape of energy disclosure i
n non-cyclical consumer sector manufacturing companies. The worldwide increase in ener
 gy usage, which is caused by the growth of the population, highlights the necessity for su
stainable energy methods in order to guarantee long-term development and economic pr
ogress. Governmental laws, such as Government Regulation (PP) Number 33 of 2023, spe
cifically target energy saving programmes to meet the urgent requirement for a cost-effe
ctive and sufficient energy provision. Empirical research has shown a strong and positive r
elationship between profitability and energy disclosure. This supports the idea put out by
stakeholder theory that prosperous organisations should prioritise transparent reporting.
Furthermore, the research reveals that directors have a significant impact on energy discl
osure policies. However, it also identifies a significant negative effect of leverage, which e
mphasises the difficulty that firms confront in balancing financial risk management with m
aintaining transparency. The findings imply that organisations can strategically use profita
bility and directorial influence to improve energy disclosure. This can help support nationa
l energy conservation efforts and encourage the adoption of New and Renewable Energy
(EBT). However, the research recognises many limitations, particularly the relatively low c
orrected R square value of 35.1%, which highlights the intricate nature of the elements tha
t affect energy disclosure. Therefore, further examination and a more comprehensive co
mprehension of the complex characteristics of energy disclosure procedures are necessar
y. In order to make progress in this area, future research should take into account the incl
usion of supplementary independent variables, such as company size, liquidity, and institu
tional share ownership. An extensive investigation into energy disclosure behaviours in th
e non-cyclical consumer sector, along with continued empirical research and methodologi
cal improvements, will provide valuable insights for discussions on business sustainability
policies and energy-saving programmes. This will contribute to the development of sustai
nable corporate practices and energy conservation.

References
Aboueata, W., Hijawi, U., Al-Kababji, A., Mohieddine, A., & Choe, P. (2021). Statistical Analysis
of Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption against Population Growth. IOP Conf
erence Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 726(1), 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/175
5-1315/726/1/012003
Ahmad, F. (2014). Pengaruh Karakteristik Perusahaan Dan Profitabilitas Terhadap Pengungkap
an Sustainability Report. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Universitas Negeri Padang, 1(1), 8.
Aldaas, A. (2021). The effect of firm life cycle on profitability: Evidence from Jordanian firms. M
anagement Science Letters, 1919–1926. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2021.1.009
Aminah, Suhardjanto, D., Rahmawati, R., & Winarna, J. (2022a). Impact of Financial Performanc
e and CSR Disclosures on Consumer Goods Industry Companies. Proceedings of the Intern
ational Colloquium on Business and Economics (ICBE 2022), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.2991/97
8-94-6463-066-4_5
Aminah, Suhardjanto, D., Rahmawati, R., & Winarna, J. (2022b). Impact of Financial Performanc
e and CSR Disclosures on Consumer Goods Industry Companies. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-
94-6463-066-4_5
Apriyanti, D., Prasetyo, T., & Warsito, B. (2019). The Sustainability of Energy Management Syst
em Implementation in Pilot Company’s Industry of Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science, 248(1), 012069. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/248/1/012069
Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. A., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M. A. (2012). Maximizing Stakeholders’ I
nterests: An Empirical Analysis of the Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance. Bu
siness & Society, 53(3), 414–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650311433122
Bashir, I., Multan, P., Hassan, M., & Arif, M. (2022). Integrating the Relationship between Stake
holder’s Perspective and Corporate Sustainability: A Literature Review. Journal of Account
ing and Finance in Emerging Economies, 8(2), 331–342. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.267
10/jafee.v8i2.2372
Ben-Amar, W., & McIlkenny, P. (2015). Board Effectiveness and the Voluntary Disclosure of Clim
ate Change Information. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 704–719. https://do
i.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1840
Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2013). Fundamentals of financial management. South-Western C
engage Learning.
Bui, T. D., Ali, M. H., Tsai, F. M., Iranmanesh, M., Tseng, M.-L., & Lim, M. K. (2020). Challenges a
nd Trends in Sustainable Corporate Finance: A Bibliometric Systematic Review. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110264
Camilleri, M. A. (2017). The integrated reporting of financial, social and sustainability capitals: a
critical review and appraisal. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 9(4), 311–326. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2017.090523
Carolina, Y., Maryana, M., & Yunianti, N. (2020). Sustainability Report Disclosure and Corporate
Financial Performance (Evidence from Indonesia). Proceedings of the 2020 12th Internation
al Conference on Information Management and Engineering, 50–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3
430279.3430288
Chabachib, M., Irawan, B. P., Hersugondo, H., Hidayat, R., & Pamnngkas, I. D. (2020). Corporat
e governance, finn performance and capital structure: Evidence from Indonesia. Research
in World Economy, 11(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v11n1p48
Chanatup, S., Aujirapongpan, S., & Ritkaew, S. (2020). The influence of corporate governance
mechanism on the integrated financial reporting and investment risk of thai listed compa
nies. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2818–2831. https://doi.org/10.9770/jes
i.2020.7.4(16)
Chaudhry, A. A., Ramakrishnan, S. A. / L., & Sharif, A. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility on
Shareholder Value with Leverage as Moderating Variable. International Journal of Recent T
echnology and Engineering (IJRTE), 2277–3878. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.C12511083S219
Chen, G. Q., Wu, X. D., Guo, J., Meng, J., & Li, C. (2019). Global overview for energy use of the w
orld economy: Household-consumption-based accounting based on the world input-outp
ut database (WIOD). Energy Economics, 81, 835–847. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.eneco.2019.05.019
Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., & Magnan, M. (2004). Corporate Environmental Disclosure: Contras
ting Management’s Perceptions with Reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 143–165. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000015844.86206.b9
Cullen, K. L., Irvin, E., Collie, A., Clay, F., Gensby, U., Jennings, P. A., Hogg-Johnson, S., Kristman,
V., Laberge, M., McKenzie, D., Newnam, S., Palagyi, A., Ruseckaite, R., Sheppard, D. M., S
hourie, S., Steenstra, I., Van Eerd, D., & Amick, B. C. (2018). Effectiveness of Workplace Int
erventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Condit
ions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners. Journal of Occupational R
ehabilitation, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9690-x
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and impression management.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 643–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAA
J-04-2015-2044
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, E
vidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.o
rg/10.2307/258887
Dorian, J. P., Franssen, H. T., & Simbeck, D. R. (2006). Global challenges in energy. Energy Policy,
34(15), 1984–1991. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.03.010
EL-Ansary, O., & Al-Gazzar, H. (2021). Working capital and financial performance in MENA regio
n. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, 3(4), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JHASS-02-2020-0036
Fatmawati, V., & Trisnawati, R. (2022). The Effect of Leverage, Profitability, Activity, and Corpo
rate Governance on Sustainability Reporting Disclosure. Proceedings of the International C
onference on Economics and Business Studies (ICOEBS 2022), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.2991/
aebmr.k.220602.010
Financial Services Authority Regulation, Pub. L. No. 26/POJK.04/2014, Otoritas Jasa Keuangan 1
(2014). https://www.ojk.go.id/en/regulasi/Documents/Pages/FSA-Regulation-Securities-Ex
change-Transaction-Sattlement-Guarantee/1.%2012TerjemahanPOJKNo262014_142016570
4.pdf
García-Sánchez, I.-M., Hussain, N., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2019). Impact of d
isclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Co
rporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 832–848. https://doi.o
rg/https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1724
Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and
CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889. https://doi.or
g/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889
Gomez-Echeverri, L. (2018). Climate and development: enhancing impact through stronger link
ages in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Go
als (SDGs). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En
gineering Sciences, 376(2119), 20160444. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0444
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, tre
nds, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Produc
tion, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, Climate Change, and Transpar
ency: Reviewing the Literature on Carbon Disclosure. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 8
0–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575542
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance. Busines
s Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41967821
Hasan, M. H., Mahlia, T. M. I., & Nur, H. (2012). A review on energy scenario and sustainable en
ergy in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 2316–2328. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.007
Hediger, W. (2010). Welfare and capital-theoretic foundations of corporate social responsibility
and corporate sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(4), 518–526. https://doi.or
g/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.02.001
Helfaya, A., & Moussa, T. (2017). Do Board’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Orien
tation Influence Environmental Sustainability Disclosure? UK Evidence. Business Strategy a
nd the Environment, 26(8), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1960
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P., & Reid, R. S. (2009). Livestock, livelihoods and the envi
ronment: understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1
(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performan
ce: Analysis of Triple Bottom Line Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411–432.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5
Iatridis, G. E. (2013). Environmental disclosure quality: Evidence on environmental performanc
e, corporate governance and value relevance. Emerging Markets Review, 14, 55–75. https://
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2012.11.003
Ika, S. R., Rahayu, R., Elrifi, M. Y., & Widagdo, A. K. (2021). Environmental reporting, ownership
structure and corporate characteristics of Indonesian listed companies. IOP Conference Se
ries: Earth and Environmental Science, 724(1), 012095. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/724/
1/012095
Jamali, D. (2008). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspect
ive into Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.10
07/s10551-007-9572-4
Kaur, K. (2021). The Early Impact of COVID-19 on Textile Industry: An Empirical Analysis. Manag
ement and Labour Studies, 46(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X21991018
Kay, I., Brindisi, C., & Martin, B. (2020, September 14). The Stakeholder Model and ESG. Harvard
Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/09/14
/the-stakeholder-model-and-esg/
Kostyuk, A., Kostyuk, H., & Shcherbak, A. (2016). Board of directors and corporate sustainabilit
y – outlining the effective profile of the board. Risk Governance and Control: Financial Mark
ets & Institutions, 6(3), 80–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22495/rcgv6i3art12
Kurniawan, P. S., Devi, S., & Astawa, I. G. P. B. (2020). Sustainability Reporting Practice in Indon
esian Public University: How to Support the Reporting Process? Proceedings of the 3rd Int
ernational Conference on Innovative Research Across Disciplines (ICIRAD 2019), 151–158. http
s://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200115.025
Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm val
ue: Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 27–3
9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.153
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That
Moves Us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630832
4322
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An integrative framework of stak
eholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. Jo
urnal of Business Research, 119, 245–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.20
18.11.054
Liu, R., Chen, H., Xia, Y., & Wang, Z. (2020). Analysis on Long-Term Mechanism for Energy Cons
ervation and New Mechanism of China. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sci
ence, 526(1), 012118. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/526/1/012118
López-Santamaría, M., Amaya, N., Grueso Hinestroza, M. P., & Cuero, Y. A. (2021). Sustainabilit
y disclosure practices as seen through the lens of the signaling theory: A study of compani
es listed on the Colombian Stock Exchange. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128416. htt
ps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128416
Madkour, K. M. (2022). Monitoring the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on climate change and t
he environment on Egypt using Sentinel-5P Images, and the Carbon footprint methodolo
gy. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 25(1), 205–219. https://doi.or
g/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2021.07.003
Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical
evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Managemen
t, 18(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.255
Muhmad, S. N., & Muhamad, R. (2021). Sustainable business practices and financial performan
ce during pre- and post-SDG adoption periods: a systematic review. Journal of Sustainable
Finance & Investment, 11(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1727724
Ng, A. C., & Rezaee, Z. (2015). Business sustainability performance and cost of equity capital. Jo
urnal of Corporate Finance, 34, 128–149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.201
5.08.003
Ngu, S. B., & Amran, A. (2018). Materiality disclosure in sustainability reporting: fostering stake
holder engagement. Strategic Direction, 34(5), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-01-2018-0002
Nguyen, T. N. L., & Nguyen, V. C. (2020). The Determinants of Profitability in Listed Enterprises:
A Study from Vietnamese Stock Exchange. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Busines
s, 7(1), 47–58.
Nisak, K., & Yuniarti, R. (2018). The effect of profitability and leverage to the carbon emission d
isclosure on companies that registered consecutively in sustainability reporting award per
iod 2014-2016. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 164(1), 012026. https:
//doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/164/1/012026
Olajide, O. S., Funmi, S. R., & A., O. K. (2020). Corporate Governance-Firm Performance Relatio
nship: Empirical Evidence from African Countries. A Principal Components Analysis. Europ
ean Journal of Business and Management, 12(17), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.7176/ejbm/12-17-0
7
Orazalin, N., & Mahmood, M. (2020). Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting: evide
nce from an emerging economy. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 140–1
64. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2018-0137
Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new
corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business Strategy and the Envir
onment, 15(5), 296–308. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.538
Purnama, Y., Yulia, P. ;, Meri, S. ;, & Anggraini, D. (2021). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Manajerial dan
Kepemilikan Publik Terhadap Pengungkapan Lingkungan. Pareso Jurnal, 3(1).
Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A., & Tharyan, R. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corpo
rate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 48(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.007
Ramadhani, R., & Maresti, D. (2021). Pengaruh Leverage dan Ukuran Dewan Direksi Terhadap P
engungkapan CSR. Ekonomis: Journal of Economics and Business, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.33
087/ekonomis.v5i1.262
Romadhona, D. W., & Wibowo, D. (2020). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Leverage, Profitabilit
as, Likuiditas dan Kepemilikan Institusional terhadap Pengungkapan CSR. Ilmu Dan Riset A
kuntansi, 9, 1–23.
Saptowinarko Prasetyo, M. (2023). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional, Kepemilikan Manajeria
l, Kepemilikan Asing Terhadap Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility. Jurnal Ekon
omi Dan Bisnis, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.55049/jeb.v15i2.224
Saragih, A. E., & Sembiring, Y. C. Br. (2019). Pengaruh Corporate Governance, Profitabilitas, Lev
erage, dan Ukuran Perusahaan Terhadap Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility p
ada Perusahaan Industri Dasar dan Kimia yang Terdaftar di BEI. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi & Ke
uangan. https://doi.org/10.54367/jrak.v5i2.183
Shahnia, C., Purnamasari, E. D., Hakim, L., & Endri, E. (2020). Determinant of profitability: Evide
nce from trading, service and investment companies in Indonesia. Accounting, 6(5), 787–7
94. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2020.6.004
Shalaeva, D. S., Kukartseva, O. I., Tynchenko, V. S., Kukartsev, V. V, Aponasenko, S. V, & Stepan
ova, E. V. (2020). Analysis of the development of global energy production and consumpti
on by fuel type in various regions of the world. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science an
d Engineering, 952(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/952/1/012025
Sharvini, S. R., Noor, Z. Z., Chong, C. S., Stringer, L. C., & Yusuf, R. O. (2018). Energy consumptio
n trends and their linkages with renewable energy policies in East and Southeast Asian co
untries: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainable Environment Research, 28(6), 257–266.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2018.08.006
Singh, A. P., & Rahman, Z. (2021a). Integrating corporate sustainability and sustainable develo
pment goals: towards a multi-stakeholder framework. Cogent Business & Management, 8
(1), 1985686. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1985686
Singh, A. P., & Rahman, Z. (2021b). Integrating corporate sustainability and sustainable develo
pment goals: towards a multi-stakeholder framework. Cogent Business & Management, 8
(1), 1985686. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1985686
Sternberg, E. (1997). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An Internation
al Review, 5(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00034
Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: from the ‘stakeholder theory of the fir
m’ to three perspectives on business–society relations. Business Strategy and the Environ
ment, 15(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.467
Taha, R., Al-Omush, A., & Al-Nimer, M. (2023). Corporate sustainability performance and profit
ability: The moderating role of liquidity and stock price volatility - evidence from Jordan. C
ogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2162685. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.21626
85
Tasrip, E. N., Husin, N. M., & Alrazi, B. (2017). The Energy Disclosure Among Energy Intensive C
ompanies in Malaysia: A Resource Based Approach. SHS Web Conf., 36, 14. https://doi.org/1
0.1051/shsconf/20173600014
Traxler, A. A., & Greiling, D. (2019). Sustainable public value reporting of electric utilities. Baltic
Journal of Management, 14(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-10-2017-0337
Velte, P., Stawinoga, M., & Lueg, R. (2020). Carbon performance and disclosure: A systematic r
eview of governance-related determinants and financial consequences. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 254, 120063. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120063
Vera, I., & Langlois, L. (2007). Energy indicators for sustainable development. Energy, 32(6), 87
5–882. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.08.006
Wu, J., & Yuan, F. (2020). Corporate Performance, Agency Costs and Non-financial Information
Disclosure. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1634(1), 012081. https://doi.org/10.1088/17
42-6596/1634/1/012081
Wu, X. F., & Chen, G. Q. (2017). Global primary energy use associated with production, consum
ption and international trade. Energy Policy, 111, 85–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.enpol.2017.09.024
Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and gover
nance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Envir
onment, 28(2), 286–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2224
Yuliandhari, W. S., & Mustikasari, K. A. (2021). Pengaruh Kinerja Lingkungan, Slack Resources,
Dan Ukuran Dewan Direksi Terhadap Pengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility Pada
 Perusahaan Sektor Pertambangan Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2018-2
020. SEIKO : Journal of Management & Business, 4(2).
Ziaei, S. M. (2021). The impact of corporations and banking system leverage on renewable ener
gy: Evidence from selected OECD countries. Renewable Energy Focus, 37, 68–77. https://do
i.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2021.04.002
Zong, J., Li, P., Chen, L., Sun, L., Liu, M., Ding, Q., & Guan, J. (2020). Requirements for enterpris
e information disclosure on green and low-carbon. E3S Web Conf., 194, 5046. https://doi.or
g/10.1051/e3sconf/202019405046