UNIVERSITY SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN INDONESIA
Abstract: Publication of sustainability reports among corporation significantly increase, though it is relatively at the beginning stage in the university. Also, there is a literature gap in the relationship between sustainability performance and reporting. In response to these two factors, this study aims to analyze university sustainability reporting practices in Indonesia. It involves three steps, including knowing the reporting channel used by universities, analyzing the level of sustainability reporting readiness, and examine the difference between sustainability performance and reporting. This research used secondary data, and the samples included 48 Indonesia universities in the 2018 UI Green Metric World University Rank. It combines content to analyze data quantitatively. The findings show that Indonesian universities use several channels and forms to report sustainability, and most of them cooperate in this regard. The result of the Mann Whitney test shows that there was no significant difference between Sustainability Performance and Reporting, and between public and private universities in reporting. This indicates that, to a certain extent, the institutions already practiced sustainability, though they are not aware or intent to report.
Subjects: Accounting, Corporate Governance & Business Ethics
Keywords: Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Performance, Global Reporting Initiatives, University
JEL Classifications: M14, M40, M41
About the Author
Maylia Pramono SARI is the Associate Professor of Accounting & Auditing at the Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Semarang, with interest in research on the field of Auditing, Sustainability Reporting, Fraud Academic, Financial Accounting and Public Sector Accounting.
ORCID.org/0000-0001-6856-7538
Ain HAJAWIYAH is an Accounting and Taxation lecturer at the Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia. The lecturer is Interested in research on the field of Taxation, Sustainability Reporting, Financial Accounting, and Public Sector Accounting.
ORCID.org/0000-0002-3374-1871
Surya RAHARJA is a doctor in Accounting and Accountability and a Secretary of the Master of Accounting Study Program. The area of Interest is Accountability, Management Accounting, and Auditing, and currently serves as an active lecturer in the Accounting Department, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia.
ORCID.org/0000-0003-1121-9289
Imang Dapit PAMUNGKAS is a doctor in the field of Accounting and currently serves as a lecturer Department of Accounting, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro, Indonesia. The area of interest is Accounting forensic, Financial Accounting, Sustainability Reporting.
ORCID.org/0000-0002-7218-7295
Public Interest Statement
This study examines the universities’ sustainability reporting practices in Indonesia. It involves three steps, including knowing the reporting channels, analyzing the level of sustainability reporting readiness, and examining the difference between sustainability performance and reporting. The Result shows that Indonesian universities use several channels and forms to report sustainability. Importantly, most of these institutions show readiness for sustainability reporting. There is no significant difference between Sustainability Performance and Reporting, and between public and private universities in reporting. This indicates, to a certain extent, the universities already practiced sustainability, though they are not aware or intent to report. There is a need for future studies to focus on the university’s view on sustainability reporting, and the existence of stakeholder demand for it. Further investigation is also needed to determine why sustainability performance is not necessarily followed by reporting.
1. Introduction
An evolution in entity reporting is considered ongoing in which the demand of stakeholders changes from Financial Reporting (FR) to Sustainability Reporting (SR). Ideally, Sustainability Reporting is among the tools used to assess the effectiveness of a corporate’s contribution to sustainability. Publication of the reports in a corporation significantly increased in the last decade. Nevertheless, the publication of the reports in university is relatively at the beginning stage. There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of the reporting for university in various countries (Ryan, Tilbury, Blaze Corcoran, Abe, & Nomura, 2010) in the Asia Pacific; (Sordo, Farneti, Guthrie, Pazzi, & Siboni, 2016) in Italy; (Fonseca, Macdonald, Dandy, & Valenti, 2011) in Canada; (Beringer, Wright, & Malone, 2008) and (Beringer et al., 2008) in Atlantic Canada, (Ceulemans, Lozano, & Alonso-Almeida, 2015) use Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) Database 2013-2014; (Vagnoni & Cavicchi, 2015) in Italy, (Dagilienė & Mykolaitienė, 2016); (Chatelain-Ponroy & Morin-Delerm, 2016) in France; (Dagilienė & Mykolaitienė, 2016) and (Gutierrez & Sepulveda, 2018) in Lithuania; (Gutierrez & Sepulveda, 2018) in Canada.
In Indonesia, there is a need for a study that examines sustainability reporting by universities. However, the study of universities’ sustainability reporting has already conducted by (Yasbie & Barokah, 2018); (Rofelawaty & Ridhawati, 2016) and (Mutia, 2017). Even though there is no mandatory requirement to go beyond financial reporting, universities have the same interests as business entities since they also strive for relevance in the community. The study of interest to standard regulatory bodies, both globally and locally regarding reporting guidelines to be disclosed by the company, is relevant to the ongoing debate in Indonesia (Januarti, Faisal, & Situmorang, 2019). Moreover, a university has enormous power and resources that offer excellent opportunities to improve human welfare and the ecosystem. In general, they are learning institutions for leaders now and in the future. Through research activities, they have the potential to offer innovative solutions to several global companies.
In general, little attention is given to sustainable university reporting. Nevertheless, there is a ‘gap’ in the relationship between sustainability performance and reporting. For instance, in 2018, Green Metric World University Rank published by the University of Indonesia surveyed 66 institutions for green campus and sustainability. However, only 48 presented reports related to sustainability in various forms. This indicates that universities carry out sustainability, but not all of them have made reports.
To some extent, universities have practiced sustainability, but they might not be fully aware of their reporting. It remains unknown whether institutions with higher performance are more likely to report to fulfill the information need as suggested on Stakeholder Theory. Essentially, the theory advocates for reports to fulfill stakeholders’ need for information. In this case, high sustainability performance can the needs and enhance the legitimacy of stakeholders.
In response to the phenomena and literature gap, the purpose of this study is to analyze the Indonesian university sustainability reporting practices. Additionally, up to now, there is little attention to sustainability reporting in educational institutions. This approach is vital for sustainability management by Indonesian universities. However, research for sustainability reporting in this regard is relatively at the beginning stage. Detail objectives are accomplished first by knowing the reporting channel, analyzing the sustainability reporting readiness and performance. To be effective, the study combines content and quantitative analysis to determine the readiness to report. Moreover, this study highlights the difference between performance and reporting in universities. The Green Metric UI Rank is used to select the research object while the report card (McIntosh, 2001) is utilized in identifying and classifying the object.
2. Universities and Sustainability Reporting in Indonesia
Sustainability Reporting is voluntary information given by an entity and contains financial and non-financial reports. These reports are published on the economic, environmental, and social impacts of organizations on their daily activities. Sustainability reporting has two main objectives, including assessing the progress of the organization’s effort on sustainability and communicating the progress of the organization’s business economic, environmental and social dimensions to stakeholders (Bass & Dalal-Clayton, 2012) & (Initiative, 2014). According to (Burritt & Schaltegger, 2010), two approaches encourage the need for sustainable reporting. The first one includes the external drivers, which focus on the opinions and perceptions of stakeholders on the organization, such as regulation, law, and analysis of environmental impacts. Also, there are Internal drivers related to the decisions made from within the organization concerning social and environmental issues. The aim is to strengthen the competitive position of the organization and to build the surrounding community.
A University is an educational institution that organizes higher education with a vision in Tri Dharma, including the organization of education, research, and community service. The Tri Dharma of the university allows an institution of higher learning to contribute to the economic, social, and environmental factors in which they operate. This is in line with the concept demanded in the sustainability reports. In general, sustainability reporting is one of the tools used to assess how effective universities contribute to a sustainable atmosphere. In the 1980s, only a few universities considered this concept relevant to their activities. Nowadays, many universities around the world consider it relevant and core to their activities (Lozano, 2011); (Ceulemans et al., 2015). This cannot be denied since universities are part of the society that does environmental damage from energy and material consumption (Viebahn, 2002). The aims of sustainability report is to communicate the mission and values of the university, operational and performance of the related activities that cannot be reflected by traditional reporting that only focus on research projects, patents, curriculum, graduates, publications, and financial information (Viebahn, 2002); (Garde-Sánchez, Rodríguez Bolívar, & López Hernández, 2013).
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
3. Theoretical Framework for Sustainability Reporting
Stakeholder theory is widely used in research related to ongoing reports. The theory emphasizes the importance of organizational efforts in serving and considering all stakeholders regardless of legal ownership in the organization and involving them in the organizational activities (Gilbert & Rasche, 2008). It describes which parties of the company is responsible for a certain aspect (Freeman, 2010). In this case, the sustainability report is a communication media to stakeholders, which reduces information asymmetry. In case the information presented by a university and its disclosure is in line with the sustainable reporting standards, it is perceived to have fulfilled the rights of stakeholders.
Sustainability Performance (SP) in this study uses ratings from UI Green Metric World University Rank. In 2009, University Indonesia held a national conference on the ranking of universities in the world, which became a standard reference for the development of universities based on Green Campus performance. The latest ranking methodology was developed in 2016 based on 6 criteria with 38 indicators. UI Green Metric focuses on equity, economy, and environment for greening. In 2018 there were 719 institutions worldwide registered in the UI Green Metric University Rank. The sustainability report aims to communicate the mission and value of the operational and performance activities that cannot be reflected by traditional reports. This is because these reports only focus on research projects, paten, curriculum, graduates, publication, and financial information.
GRI is an international organization that develops and disseminates sustainable reporting guidelines that can be applied globally. It was formed in Boston, the United States, by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), the Tellus Institute, and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Reporting using GRI Standards helps organizations protect the environment and build society. Apart from developing economically by improving governance systems and organizational relationships with stakeholders, it enhances the reputation and builds trust. This guide was developed through a long process involving reporters, users, and professional actors from around the world. GRI G4 provides work support relevant to globally to support reporting with the level of support and consistency needed for information to be useful and reliable. GRI G4 is designed to be universally applicable to all organizations, large or small, throughout the world, with features that are easier to use in any sector.
4. Empirical Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
According to the stakeholder theory, the existence of a company is determined by the shareholders. The congruent relationship between a company and its stakeholders is crucial. The theory states that operational activities undertaken by companies are beneficial for companies and stakeholders (Januarti, 2019). Furthermore, agency theory is beneficial in providing reasonable assurance of the reliability and fairness of the government’s financial statements that embody the accountability of agents to the principal (Pamungkas, Avrian, & Ibtida, 2019). Furthermore, signaling theory suggests that companies communicating concerns related to the surrounding are engaged in environmental strategy. They freely inform different stakeholders by voluntarily reporting more information (Mahjoub, 2019). International consultancy organizations prefer to be included in the GRI to consolidate their reporting efforts (Mahjoub, 2019).
Reporting on the social and environmental issues of firms is essential to the survival of firms, they are perceived as de facto laws for business. Organizations operating within the environment are required to be efficient by engaging in socially responsible activities. Being socially responsible requires an entity to engage in some form of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities (Cudjoe, Abdul Latiff, Abu Kasim, & Hisham Bin Osman, 2019). Therefore, sustainable financial reporting needs to be published. Ownership by managers makes the management more careful in presenting financial statements and be enthusiastic in increasing the value of the company (Ibrani, Faisal, & Handayani, 2019).
This research highlights the sustainability approach of the universities in Indonesia, which is reflected in reporting and performance. The approach is vital for sustainability management, though the research for sustainability reporting in universities is not advanced. This work is essential since the research related to sustainability reporting is relevant to current conditions. Besides, up to now, there is little attention to sustainability reporting in educational institutions. There are two novelties of this research, including assessing the level of readiness for implementing sustainability reporting, which uses grades and comparing it with performance. The study data uses a combination of quantitative and content analysis. Although most previous works used content analysis only, the quantitative approach shows whether there is a difference between Sustainability Performance (SP) as measured by the UI Green Metrics World University Rank and Sustainability Reporting (SR) determined by the GRI G4 Index. Moreover, it also answers whether there are differences between public and private universities in Indonesia in terms of reporting their sustainability aspects.
5. Research Design
This research studies sustainability reporting by universities in Indonesia. It uses secondary data available to the public on the website of universities. The samples included 48 universities of 66 listed in the 2018 UI Green Metric Rank. Content analysis was applied to the 2017 universities’ financial reporting since it was based on the data from the previous year. The analysis is based on Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) G4 and Campus Sustainability Assessment Instruments.
GRI G4 is a standard instrument for assessing sustainability reporting and consists of 53 indicators, including seven on General Standard Disclosure, 46 on Special Standard Disclosure, including 4 indicators of economic, 12 on the environment, and 30 on the social aspect. Besides, the campus Sustainability Instrument was added to cover specific information related to university characteristics (Fonseca et al., 2011). It consists of 20 indicators, including 7 for research, 6 for environmentally friendly building and procurement, and 7 for curriculum and teaching (Fonseca et al., 2011). Therefore, this study uses 73 indicators.
This study also carried out quantitative analysis using the Mann Whitney Test since the data is not normally distributed to determine whether there were significant differences between UI Green Metric World Rank (Sustainability Performance) and GRI G4 Index (Sustainability Reporting). The test was also conducted to determine the significant differences between public and private universities in reporting sustainability information.
6. Empirical Result and Discussion
Sources of research data included various university reports and documents such as Rienstra (strategic planning), Financial Statement, Performance Report, Annual Report, Lakip (performance report for a government agency), the Rector’s Report, and Websites. The findings indicate that Sustainability Reporting is not a common practice in Indonesian universities. Also, various channels and forms are used to report sustainability, including Renstra (31), Financial Statement (7), Performance Report (4), Annual Report (2), and Website (2). The least widely used are Lakip (1) & The rector’s report (1). The result of this research shows that there are many forms of university sustainability information disclosure. The authorities require both renstra and financial statements. Since most universities are state institutions, they are mandated to submit both reports to the ministry of higher education. This might indicate either that most universities are not aware of the need for sustainability reporting or their key stakeholders do not demand sustainability reporting. The list of Indonesian university channels for sustainability reporting is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Indonesian University Channel for Sustainability Reporting
No
University
Indonesian University Channel
Sustainability Performance (Rank)
Sustainability Reporting
(%)
Grade
1
Universitas Indonesia
Financial Statement
27
16%
D+
2
Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB)
Annual Report
40
58%
B+
3
Universitas Diponegoro
Renstra
78
41%
B
4
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS)
Performance Report
82
51%
B
5
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Performance Report
85
85%
A
6
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Financial Statement
91
14%
D+
7
Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret
Financial Statement
101
18%
D+
8
Universitas Padjajaran
Renstra
132
25%
C-
9
Universitas Telkom
Renstra
150
18%
D+
10
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
Renstra
184
23%
C-
11
Universitas Brawijaya
Renstra
200
21%
C-
12
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Lakip
252
18%
D+
13
Universitas Riau
Renstra
283
11%
D
14
Institut Pertanian Bogor
Financial Statement
303
15%
D+
15
Universitas Airlangga
Renstra
323
19%
D+
16
UIN Raden Intan Lampung
Renstra
337
18%
D+
17
Universitas Negeri Medan
Renstra
403
30%
C-
18
Universitas Teuku Umar
Website
432
14%
D+
19
Universitas Syiah Kuala
Renstra
447
18%
D+
20
Universitas Andalas
Renstra
467
23%
C-
21
Universitas Medan Area
Renstra
472
22%
C-
22
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Renstra
483
26%
C-
23
Universitas Hasanuddin
Financial Statement
488
3%
D-
24
Universitas Bengkulu
Annual Report
493
22%
C-
25
Universitas Mataram
Renstra
500
22%
C-
26
Universitas Sam Ratulangi
Renstra
518
21%
C-
27
Universitas Halu Oleo
Renstra
537
23%
C-
28
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional
Renstra
541
15%
D+
29
Universitas Bangka Belitung
Renstra
546
12%
D
30
Universitas Negeri Padang
Renstra
549
25%
C-
31
Universitas Nasional
Rector’s Report
562
15%
D+
32
Universitas Terbuka
Renstra
565
26%
C-
33
Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
Performance Report
571
16%
D+
34
Universitas Jember
Renstra
576
26%
C
35
Politeknik Negeri Jakarta
Performance Report
587
18%
D+
36
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Renstra
596
16%
D+
37
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Renstra
605
10%
D
38
Universitas Atmajaya
Renstra
614
22%
C-
39
Universitas Negeri Malang
Financial Statement
617
14%
D+
40
Universitas Gunadharma
Renstra
618
25%
C-
41
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
Renstra
640
23%
C-
42
Universitas Tanjungpura
Financial Statement
649
11%
D
43
UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim
Renstra
654
34%
C+
44
Universitas Lambung Mangkurat
Renstra
679
25%
C-
45
Universitas Samudra
Renstra
693
23%
C-
46
Universitas Khairun
Website
695
18%
D+
47
UIN Sumatera Utara
Renstra
696
22%
C-
48
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Renstra
699
32%
C
Source: The Processed Secondary Data (2019)
Table 1 also shows that majority of Indonesian universities are ready for sustainability reporting as indicated by percentage of GRI standard disclosure covered and the report card grades. Based on the disclosures made in their reports, about 54% of the universities are considered ‘ready, with 2% excellence, 6% good and 46% in average state.
Based on the report card (grades A to D) of McIntosh et al. (2001), only one university had the most comprehensive disclosure with the excellent category A, specifically Semarang State University (85%). The least comprehensive disclosed was Universitas Hasanuddin (3%) with Poor/Unsatisfactory category D-. Additionally, there were 3 universities classified ‘good’ (B+, B, B-), including Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB) (58%), Diponegoro University (41%), and Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS) (51%). There are also 22 universities (46%) in the average/satisfactory category (C+, C, C-) and 22 others in the poor/unsatisfactory class (D+, D, D-). Information about the level of sustainability reporting readiness of universities in Indonesia is presented in Table 2.
Based on GRI sustainability information published, universities disclose 23% of the indicators on average. This disclosure is still relatively low (37%) compared to universities in Canada by (Fonseca et al., 2011) and 48% universities in Lithuania by (Dagilienė & Mykolaitienė, 2016). The level of information disclosure is still limited in scope.
Table 2. The Level of Sustainability Reporting Readiness
Percentage of Reporting
Grade
University
Percentage of University
Total
Meaning
60-100%
A
1
2%
1 (2%)
Excellent
60-65%
A-
0
0%
54-59%
B+
1
2%
3 (6%)
Good (Above Expectation)
46-53%
B
2
4%
40-45%
B-
0
0%
34-39%
C+
2
4%
22 (46%)
Average (Satisfactory)
26-33%
C
1
2%
20-25%
C-
19
40%
14-19%
D+
17
36%
22 (46%)
Poor (Unsatisfactory)
6-13%
D
4
8%
1-5%
D-
1
2%
0%
F
0
0%
0 (0%)
Failure
Total
48
100%
100%
Source: The Processed Secondary Data (2019)
As shown in table 3, universities in Indonesia have well complied with General Standard Disclosures (58% or B+). However, the suitability of the information on indicators of Special Standard Disclosures and Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument is still relatively small (22% or C-) and (18% or D+), respectively.
The most frequent subcategory by universities in Indonesia is Environment (22%) for disclosure of Specific Standards and research, and (23%) for Campus Sustainability Assessment Instruments. Profile, strategy, and environmental performance (General Standard Disclosures) are common activities in entities. Research is the main activity of the university, and therefore it is natural for the university to disclose this subcategory broadly. The percentage shows that disclosure made by universities is still limited.
The community has begun to be aware of the environmental impact on surrounding communities since they witness a real impact on the environment and community protests related to these negative impacts. Table 3 shows the compliance level of GRI G4 by universities in Indonesia.
Disclosure related to the economy, society (human rights, society, products of accountability) is still inadequate. Although it creates new policies, cost-benefits needs to be considered. Green building indicators and curriculum are vital for universities since buildings have a pedagogical role in the lives of students, staff, and faculty (Fonseca et al., 2011). The design of buildings and tertiary institutions does not influence the educational process but instead supports it (Adomssent et al., 2007). Regarding the low level of curriculum and evaluation indicators, there is no integration of the application of sustainability principles in the material or lecture activities. This shows that universities have not contributed to sustainable development.
Table 3. The Compliance Level of GRI G4 & Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument
Category
Total of Indicator
Average Indicator Disclosed (%)
1
General Reporting Standard
7
58%
2
Special Reporting Standard
46
22%
2.1
Economic
4
18%
2.2
Environment
12
22%
2.3
Social
30
19%
a. Labour Practise
8
35%
b. Human Right
10
13%
c. Society
7
18%
d. Product Responsibility
5
8%
3
Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument
20
18%
3.1
Research
7
23%
3.2
Curriculum and Teaching
7
15%
3.3
Building Friendly
6
16%
Total
73
Source: The Processed Secondary Data (2019)
In this study, Mann Whitney was used since the distribution of research data was abnormal, as shown in table 4. On sustainability performance and reporting, the result of the Mann Whitney Test shows that there is no significant difference between UI Green Metric Word Rank (Sustainability Performance) and GRI G4 Index (Sustainability Reporting) (sig 0.8119 > sig 0.05). Also, there is no significant difference between public and private universities in reporting their sustainability information (sig 0.9889 > sig 0.05). This means that sustainability performance and reporting do not look significantly different. To a certain extent, the universities already practiced sustainability, as shown by the Green Metric World Ranking. However, they are not aware or intent to report, as shown by relatively low coverage of the GRI disclosure standard. In this regard, the findings do not support the Stakeholder Theory view that an entity with excellent performance is more likely to obtain stakeholder legitimacy and fulfilling the needs for information.
Table 4. Mann Whitney Test Sustainability reporting and performance
Test
Statistic
Category
Result
Meaning
Normality
Shapiro Wilk-Wtest
Private University
Sig 0.04882
Abnormal
State University
Sig. 0.0000
Abnormal
Sustainability Reporting
Mann Whitney
High Rank (32)
Sig. 0.7670
No Significant Differences
Low Rank (16)
Mann Whitney
State University (40)
Sig. 0.9226
No Significant Differences
Private University (8)
Source: The Processed Secondary Data (2019)
The findings show there are various channels and the readiness for implementing sustainability reporting by Indonesian universities. Moreover, the findings also show that performance and sustainability reporting were not different, and this is attributed to several things. For instance, universities only report sustainability information to the authorities with approval. It might also be due to inadequate and integrated documentation, preventing the disclosure of this information. Furthermore, the disclosure made meet the expectations of stakeholders. The low response of the shareholders to the sustainability report might lead to low disclosure by the university. Lastly, some GRI indicators are not practiced since they do not apply to universities.
7. Summary and Conclusion
Based on the first research question, the universities reporting channels and forms are diverse. The most popular channels are strategic planning (renstra). Reports generated by universities are still not integrated, with 18 of 66 not presenting financial statements.
With regard to the second research question, Indonesian University can be considered ready to implement sustainability reporting since 54% of the institutions made sustainability disclosure through their reports, with 2% excellence, 6% good, and 46% in average categories.
7.1 Conclusion
General Standard Disclosures is the most disclosed by the university. The subcategories include an environment for Special Standard Disclosure and Research for Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument. The categories that were least disclosed include Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument. However, the subcategories include Product Responsibility for Special Reporting Standard and Curriculum and Teaching for Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument. Universities in Indonesia need to make disclosures related to environmentally friendly buildings and curriculums since it is currently limited to space for discussing profiles, strategies, and organizational governance. University sustainability reporting is still relatively low compared to universities to other countries (Canada and Lithuania) due to the low willingness of stakeholders to facilitate education changes and environmental friendly policy-making. Universitas Negeri Semarang and Hasanuddin University had the highest and the lowest percentage of compliance with the GRI G4 standard and the Campus Sustainability Assessment Instrument with 73 indicators.
There are no significant differences between Sustainability Performance and Reporting. Also, there are no significant differences between the Sustainability Reporting of Public and Private University in Indonesia. This indicates that, to a certain extent, the universities already practiced sustainability, as shown by the Green Metric World Ranking. However, they are not aware or intent to report, as shown by relatively low coverage of GRI disclosure standards. In this regard, the findings do not support the view of Stakeholder Theory that an entity with good performance is more likely to obtain shareholders, legitimacy and fulfilling the needs of information
7.2 Contribution
This research provides evidence of universities’ sustainability reporting channels, which show that performance is achieved and presented differently. This answers the gap between sustainability reporting and performance discourse. The results indicate the level of readiness in which consideration for implementation of the universities’ sustainability reporting can be made.
7.3 Limitations and Suggestion
The study is limited to universities listed in the 2018 UI Green Metric Word Rank. The sustainability performance represented by the rank in this list might be subject to validity issues. Also, the sample taken from the list mostly is state universities (40 from 48). Even though the statistical test did not show the difference between private and state universities. However, the results might not represent the private university. Additionally, low coverage GRI sustainability reporting might indicate that some indicators are not applicable for university-specific characteristics.
7.4 Recommendation
It remains unclear whether the universities are not aware or willingly do not intend to report their sustainability. Therefore, the future study needs to focus on the university’s view on sustainability reporting, whether the GRI disclosure standard is entirely suitable for educational institutions, as well as the existence of stakeholder demand for reporting. Further investigation is also needed on why sustainability performance does not necessarily follow reporting.
In practice, universities in Indonesia need to consider sustainability as a dynamic tool, not only as a medium of communication but as a valuable document that can enhance stakeholder interests and relationships with local and international communities. Given the role of universities in sustainable development, authorities need to set the guidelines on sustainability reporting and its mandatory or voluntary nature. Universities need to educate the public on the impact of their activities on the environment and need to improve the performance and disclosure of sustainability information.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
References
Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., Michelsen, G., Barth, M., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Bass, S., & Dalal-Clayton, B. (2012). Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. Routledge.
Beringer, A., Wright, T., & Malone, L. (2008). Sustainability in higher education in Atlantic Canada. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 48–67.
Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R., & Alonso-Almeida, M. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: Interconnecting the reporting process and organizational change management for sustainability. Sustainability, 7(7), 8881–8903.
Chatelain-Ponroy, S., & Morin-Delerm, S. (2016). Adoption of sustainable development reporting by universities: An analysis of first-time French reporters. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 887–918.
Cudjoe, M. A., Abdul Latiff, A. R., Abu Kasim, N. A., & Hisham Bin Osman, M. N. (2019). Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) initiatives in developing economies: Challenges faced by oil and gas firms in Ghana. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1666640
Dagilienė, L., & Mykolaitienė, V. (2016). Sustainability reporting in the higher education sector–a Case study of Lithuania. ZögU Zeitschrift Für Öffentliche Und Gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, 39(1–2), 163–174.
Fonseca, A., Macdonald, A., Dandy, E., & Valenti, P. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting at Canadian universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 22–40.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Garde-Sánchez, R., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & López Hernández, A. M. (2013). Divulgación online de información de responsabilidad social en las universidades españolas.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives–a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 755–773.
Gutierrez, D. G., & Sepulveda, J. A. M. (2018). Sustainability Indicators for Universities: Revision for a Colombian Case. Global Journal of Research in Engineering.
Ibrani, E. Y., Faisal, F., & Handayani, Y. D. (2019). The determinant of non-GAAP earnings management practices and their impact on firm value. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1666642
The initiative, G. R. (2014). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, 1–97.
Januarti, I., Faisal, F., & Situmorang, R. J. (2019). Investigating the determinants of partnership and community development programs: Indonesia perspectives. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1682764
Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78.
Mahjoub, L. Ben. (2019). Disclosure of corporate social responsibility through ISO 26000 implementation made by Saudi listed companies. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1609188
McIntosh, M. (2001). State of the campus environment: A national report card on environmental performance and sustainability in higher education. National Wildlife Federation.
Mutia, G. R. (2017). Analisis Kesiapan Laporan Berkelanjutan (Sustainability Reporting) pada Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Pamungkas, B., Avrian, C., & Ibtida, R. (2019). Factors influencing audit findings of the Indonesian district governments’ financial statements. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1673102
Rofelawaty, B., & Ridhawati, R. (2016). Analisis Kemungkinan Penerapan Laporan Berkelanjutan Sebagai Laporan Tahunan Pada Perguruan Tinggi. Dinamika Ekonomi-Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 9(2), 231–251.
Ryan, A., Tilbury, D., Blaze Corcoran, P., Abe, O., & Nomura, K. (2010). Sustainability in higher education in the Asia-Pacific: developments, challenges, and prospects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(2), 106–119.
Sordo, C. Del, Farneti, F., Guthrie, J., Pazzi, S., & Siboni, B. (2016). Social reports in Italian universities: disclosures and preparers’ perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(1), 91–110.
Vagnoni, E., & Cavicchi, C. (2015). An exploratory study of sustainable development at Italian universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 217–236.
Viebahn, P. (2002). An environmental management model for universities: from environmental guidelines to staff involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(1), 3–12.
Yasbie, B., & Barokah, Z. (2018). Sustainability Reporting By Universities In Indonesia Abstract. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, 21(3).