Article Sidebar

Download
PDF

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effect of audit committee size and audit committee meeting on the quality of sustainability reporting and the moderating role of institutional ownership in energy and materials companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange during 2021–2024. Sustainability reporting quality has become an important issue as it reflects a company's transparency and accountability in disclosing economic, social, and environmental information. This study employs a quantitative approach using secondary data obtained from annual reports and sustainability reports. The sample consists of 490 firm-year observations selected through purposive sampling. Data were analyzed using Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA). The results indicate that audit committee size has a positive effect on the quality of sustainability reporting, while audit committee meeting has no significant effect on the quality of sustainability reporting. Furthermore, institutional ownership has a direct effect on the quality of sustainability reporting and acts as a quasi moderator. Institutional ownership weakens the positive relationship between audit committee size and sustainability reporting quality but strengthens the relationship between audit committee meeting and sustainability reporting quality. These findings suggest that sustainability reporting quality is influenced not only by internal governance mechanisms but also by the interaction between internal and external monitoring mechanisms within the firm.

Keywords

audit committee size audit committee meeting institutional ownership quality of sustainability reporting corporate governance

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Islami, W. A., & Dianawati, W. (2026). Audit Committee Characteristics and Sustainability Reporting Quality in Energy and Material Firms: Does Institutional Ownership Matter?. Amkop Management Accounting Review (AMAR), 6(2), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.37531/amar.v6i2.3901
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alomran, A. A., & Alshali, K. F. (2023). The Role of Long-Term Institutional Ownership in Sustainability Report Assurance: Global Evidence. Sustainability, 15. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3492
  2. Al-Shaer, H. (2020). Sustainability Reporting Quality and Post‐Audit Financial Reporting Quality: Empirical Evidence From The UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29, 2355–2373. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2507
  3. Aziz, A. (2014). Analisis Pengaruh Good Corporate Governance (GCG) Terhadap Kualitas Pengungkapan Sustainability Report (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan di Indonesia Periode Tahun 2011-2012). Jurnal Audit Dan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Tanjungpura, 3, 65–84. https://www.academia.edu/download/96150411/326041453.pdf
  4. Blay, M. W., Hoeyi, P. K., Badu, E. A., & Jibril, A. B. (2024). Impact of Board Committee Characteristics on Social Sustainability Reporting in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Moderating Role of Institutional Ownership. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/7/302
  5. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M.-C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 703–721.
  6. Delfy, & Bimo, I. D. (2021). Institutional Ownership and Disclosure of Sustainability Report with Environmental Uncertainty as Moderation Variables. Accounting Analysis Journal, 10(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/DOI10.15294/aaj.v10i2.45731
  7. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
  8. Erin, O., Adegboye, A., & Bamigboye, O. A. (2021). Corporate governance and sustainability reporting quality: evidence from Nigeria. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(3), 680–707. https://www.emerald.com/sampj/article/13/3/680/338718
  9. Fatima, E., Siregar, S. V., & Diyanty, V. (2023). Auditors’ Communication with Audit Committee: Evidence from Indonesia. JIA (Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi), 7(2), 312–328. https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JIA/article/view/42482
  10. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stokcholder approach. Pitman Boston, MA.
  11. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.
  12. Handriani, E., & Robiyanto, R. (2019). Institutional ownership, independent board, the board size, and firm performance: Evidence from Indonesia. Contaduría y Administración, 64(3), 1–16. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0186-10422019000400014&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
  13. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2019). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In Corporate governance (pp. 77–132). Gower.
  14. Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 477–509.
  15. Noor, W. W. W. R., Kurniadi, N., Gunawan, V. P., & Ludji, T. R. (2024). Pengaruh Karakteristik Dewan Terhadap Kualitas Pelaporan Keberlanjutan Perusahaan di Industri Sumber Daya Alam di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Nominal Baromater Riset Akuntansi Dan Manajemen, 13(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.2183/nominal.v13il.64021
  16. Rajawat, S., & Mahajan, R. (2024). Trends and determinants of quality of sustainability reporting: an analysis of Indian banks. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 452. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-024-00634-3
  17. Ramadhan, M. A., Dp, E. N., Abdurrahman, R., & Lubis, A. (2024). The Quality of Sustainability Reporting in Indonesia: Government, Employee, Competitor, and Customer Perspectives. AKRUAL: Jurnal Akuntansi, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.26740/jaj.v16n1.p39-p54
  18. Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291–300.
  19. Sharma, V., Naiker, V., & Lee, B. (2009). Determinants of Audit Committee Meeting Frequency: Evidence from a Voluntary Governance System. Accounting Horizons, 23(3), 245–263. https://publications.aaahq.org/accounting-horizons/article-abstract/23/3/245/1917
  20. Steward, J., & Munro, L. (2007). The Impact of Audit Committee Existence and Audit Committee Meeting Frequency on the External Audit: Perceptions of Australian Auditors. International Journal of Auditing, 11(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1099-1123.2007.00356.X
  21. Sudjono, A. C., & Setiawan, A. (2024). Audit committee’s Roles & Effectiveness: Evidence from Indonesia. SRIWIJAYA INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS, 8. https://sijdeb.unsri.ac.id/index.php/SIJDEB/article/view/579
  22. Syofyan, E., Septiari, D., Dwita, S., & Rahmi, M. (2021). The Characteristics of the Audit Committee Affecting Timeliness of the Audit Report in Indonesia. Cogent Business & Management, 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1935183
  23. Utami, W., Setiany, E., Hidayah, N., & Azhar, Z. (2024). SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING QUALITY AND CORPORATE VALUE: INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA CONTEXT. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(1), 1–21.

Similar Articles

<< < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.