Pengaruh Ukuran Dewan, Independensi Dewan, Kepemilikan Institusi, Dan Kualitas Hukum Terhadap Kinerja ESG Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Negara ASEAN Dan China Tahun 2021-2024

https://doi.org/10.22146/abis.v14i1.110105

Farhan Ari Setiawan(1*)

(1) Master in Accounting, Faculty Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Tujuan – Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki pengaruh ukuran dewan, independensi dewan, kepemilikan institusi, dan kualitas hukum terhadap kinerja ESG pada perusahaan manufaktur negara ASEAN dan China tahun 2021-2024.

Metode penelitian – Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kuantitatif. Data sekunder diambil dari database Refinitiv, World Justice Project, dan Heritage Foundation. Kriteria sampel adalah perusahaan manufaktur publik di negara ASEAN dan China yang memiliki kelengkapan informasi selama 2021-2024. Sampel penelitian sebanyak 357 perusahaan dari sebelas negara. Pengujiannya adalah uji asumsi klasik, analisis statistik deskriptif, dan pengujian hipotesis.

Temuan – Ukuran dewan tidak memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap kinerja ESG. Independensi dewan, kepemilikan oleh institusi keuangan, dan kualitas hukum memiliki pengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap kinerja ESG.

Batasan/Implikasi – Para stakeholder di negara ASEAN dan China dapat menerapkan hasil penelitian ini untuk mengatasi masalah rendahnya kinerja ESG perusahaan manufaktur. Pemerintah Myanmar, Laos, dan Kamboja dapat meningkatkan kualitas hukum. Pasar modal dapat menerapkan berbagai kebijakan untuk mengatur tata kelola perusahaan yang terdaftar seperti batas minimum independensi dewan dan batas minimum kepemilikan oleh institusi keuangan.

Orisinalitas – Penelitian ini mengisi kesenjangan yang terjadi pada literatur melalui beberapa cara. Pertama, belum ada penelitian yang menyelidiki variabel yang dapat mempengaruhi kinerja ESG melalui variabel tingkat perusahaan (tata kelola) dan variabel tingkat negara (kualitas hukum).

 


Keywords


Tata kelola;Ukuran Dewan;Kepemilikan Institusi;Kualitas Hukum;Kinerja ESG.

Full Text:

PDF


References

ACECF. (2021). Framework of ASEAN-China Environmental Cooperation Strategy and Action Plan Framework of ASEAN-China Environmental Cooperation Strategy and Action Plan (2021-2025). http://www.chinaaseanenv.org/ Agnese, P., Arduino, F. R., Bruno, E., & Vento, G. A. (2024). On the road to sustainability: The role of board characteristics in driving ESG performance in Africa. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101994 Ali, Q., Parveen, S., Yaacob, H., Zaini, Z., Nur, &, & Sarbini, A. (2021). COVID-19 and dynamics of environmental awareness, sustainable consumption and social responsibility in Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14612-z/Published Alkurdi, A., Bataineh, H., Al Tarawneh, E. M., & Khatib, S. F. A. (2024). Institutional investors’ impact on sustainability disclosure: exploring the moderating role of financial performance. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-02-2024-0112 Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future Towards Sustainable Development. Buchetti, B., Arduino, F. R., & Perdichizzi, S. (2024). A literature review on corporate governance and ESG research: Emerging trends and future directions. International Review of Financial Analysis, 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103759 Casciello, R., Maffei, M., & Meucci, F. (2024). Board characteristics and Sustainable Development Goals disclosure: evidence from European state-owned enterprises. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-06-2023-0099 Daas, A., & Alaraj, R. (2019). The complementarity between corporate social responsibility disclosure and institutional investor in Jordan. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 12(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-10-2017-0272 DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields (translated by G. Yudin). Journal of Economic Sociology, 11(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56 Erin, O. A., & Ackers, B. (2024). Corporate board, assurance and sustainability reporting practices: a focus on selected African countries. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 20(6), 85–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-07-2023-0123 Freeman, E. (1984). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/management-faculty-publications Girella, L., Zambon, S., & Rossi, P. (2022). Board characteristics and the choice between sustainability and integrated reporting: a European analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(3), 562–596. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2020-1111 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 83, Issue 2). http://www.jstor.orgURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 Mudiyanselage, N. (2018). Board involvement in corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from Sri Lanka. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 18(6), 1042–1056. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-10-2017-0252 Oliveira, M. C. (2022). The mirror effect: influence of national governance on environmental disclosure in coordinated economies. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(4), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2022-0009 Pinheiro, A. B., dos Santos, J. I. A. S., Cherobim, A. P. M. S., & Segatto, A. P. (2024). What drives environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance? The role of institutional quality. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(2), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2023-0091 Porta, R. La, Lopez, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy. Seneca. (2023). Tinjauan Singkat Tentang Inisiatif Manufaktur Hijau Tiongkok. Seneca. Simon, H. (2025). Strategic Adaptation In ASEAN–China Economic Relations: Balancing Growth With Resilience. EurasiaReview. Velte, P. (2024). Institutional ownership and board governance. A structured literature review on the heterogeneous monitoring role of institutional investors. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 24(2), 225–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-10-2022-0414 Yadav, P., & Jain, A. (2023). Sustainability disclosures and corporate boards: a stakeholder approach to decision-making. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 24(5), 1027–1047. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2022-0279 Yang, F., & Li, C. (2024). Tstatus quo, dilemma, and transformation path of the carbon neutrality-related policy of the ASEAN. Sustainability (Vol. 16, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031348



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/abis.v14i1.110105

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 269 | views : 228

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats

 

 Creative Commons License

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

2302 - 1500