International Conference on Vocational Business, Logistic, Accounting, Supply Chain, Tax (ICoBLAST)

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study investigates the influence of board gender diversity, ownership concentration, and sustainable assurance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. While ESG has become central to sustainable business strategies, empirical evidence on the role of governance-related mechanisms remains mixed, particularly in emerging markets.

 

Background Problems: Global concerns over accountability and stakeholder trust have increased the demand for credible ESG practices. Investors, regulators, and the public seek not only disclosure but also assurance of its reliability. Yet, in many emerging economies, the effectiveness of governance structures in driving ESG outcomes is still debated.

 

Novelty: This study provides one of the first empirical examinations in Indonesia that positions sustainable assurance as an independent determinant of ESG performance. It contributes new evidence to global debates on ESG accountability by showing the transformative role of assurance beyond traditional governance attributes.

 

Research Methods: A quantitative design with panel data regression was applied to firms listed in the ESG Leaders Index from 2020-2024. This dataset captures companies recognized for sustainability commitment and allows robust testing of governance attributes and ESG performance.

 

Findings/Results: Results show that sustainable assurance has a significant positive effect on ESG performance, confirming its role as a credible mechanism for enhancing transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. Conversely, ownership concentration and gender diversity demonstrate no significant effects, suggesting that symbolic structural attributes may be insufficient to improve ESG outcomes in emerging markets.

 

Conclusion: Sustainable assurance emerges as a decisive driver of ESG performance, whereas ownership concentration and gender diversity alone are not. These findings extend governance literature by emphasizing that assurance mechanisms, rather than structural attributes, shape credible ESG outcomes.

 

Implementation Potential: Embedding sustainable assurance into corporate governance frameworks strengthens disclosure reliability, fosters investor confidence, and supports alignment with sustainable development goals, thereby enhancing long-term corporate resilience.

 

Keywords: Board Gender Diversity; Ownership Structure; Sustainability Assurance; ESG Performance.

 

JEL Classification: (list the relevant JEL codes separated by commas, refer to https://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php)

1. Braam, G., & Peeters, R. (2023). The Impact of Sustainability Assurance on ESG Performance:
2. Evidence from European Firms. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
3. Journal, 14(3), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2021-0405
4. Buallay, A. (2019). Is Sustainability Reporting (ESG) Associated with Performance? Evidence
5. from the European Banking Sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An
6. International Journal, 30(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2017-0149
7. Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015). Understanding and Contributing to The Enigma of
8. Assurance: What can We Learn from the Auditing Literature? Auditing: A Journal of
9. Practice & Theory, 34(2), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50929
10. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University
11. Press.
12. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence
13. from More than 2000 Empirical Studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment,
14. (4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
15. García-Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2022). Impact of
16. Board Gender Diversity on Sustainability Performance: Does Critical Mass Matter?
17. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(2), 580–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2908
18. Hodge, F. D., Subramaniam, V., & Stewart, B. (2009). Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Impact
19. on Investors’ Judgments. Accounting Review, 84(3), 939–967.
20. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.939Indonesia Stock Exchange. (2023). IDX ESG Leaders Index Fact Sheet [PDF]. IDX.
21. https://www.idx.co.id/Media/15lhcl3b/fs-idxesgl-2023-11.pdf
22. Indonesian Institute for Corporate Directorship (IICD). (2023). Research: ASEAN Corporate
23. Governance Scorecard Method. IICD. https://iicd.or.id/research
24. Khan, M., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2022). Sustainability Assurance and ESG Performance:
25. Evidence from Emerging Markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 451–469.
26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04885-9
27. Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Finance: A
28. Review of the Literature. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) Finance
29. Working Paper, 701, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3698631
30. Nadeem, M., Zaman, M., & Saleem, I. (2019). Boardroom Gender Diversity and Corporate
31. Sustainability Practices: Evidence from Australian Securities Exchange Listed Firms.
32. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237(117649).
33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117649
34. Nerantzidis, M., Filos, J., & Lazarides, T. (2022). Corporate Governance and ESG Disclosure:
35. International Evidence. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 19(1), 1–19.
36. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00140-6
37. Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate
38. Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2),
39. –297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0912-z
40. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2017). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia Nomor
41. /POJK.03/2017 tentang Penerapan Keuangan Berkelanjutan bagi Lembaga JasaKeuangan, Emiten, dan Perusahaan Publik.
42. https://www.ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Pages/POJK-Nomor-51-POJK.03-2017.aspx
43. Pacelli, V., Sica, E., & Sica, D. (2022). ESG Disclosure and Corporate Performance: The
44. Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Quality. Sustainability, 14(1), 1–19.
45. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010112
46. Rajesh, R. (2020). Exploring the Sustainability Performances of Firms using Environmental,
47. Social, and Governance Scores. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247(119600).
48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119600
49. Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of
50. Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327–
51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5
52. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An
53. International Comparison. Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.
54. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
55. Velte, P. (2019). Do Women on Management Boards Increase Fair Value Relevance? A European
56. Study. Journal of Business Economics, 89(5), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-
57. -0911-y
58. Wasiuzzaman, S., & Subramaniam, R. K. (2023). Board Gender Diversity and ESG Performance:
59. Evidence from Emerging Markets. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
60. Management, 30(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2411Yarram, S. R., & Adapa, S. (2021). Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Sustainability
61. Performance: Evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281(125891).
62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125891