ESP-4423

Published

2026-01-30

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2026): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Dian Anita Nuswantara*, Lintang Venusita, Ika Permatasari, Hariyati, Rida Perwita Sari

Creative Commons License

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

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Dian Anita Nuswantara, Lintang Venusita, Ika Permatasari, Hariyati, & Rida Perwita Sari. (2026). A Hybrid IFRS–GRI Measurement Model for Assessing Public-Sector Sustainability Reporting in Asian Governments. Environment and Social Psychology, 11(1), ESP-4423. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i1.4423

A Hybrid IFRS–GRI Measurement Model for Assessing Public-Sector Sustainability Reporting in Asian Governments

Dian Anita Nuswantara

Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Lintang Venusita

Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Ika Permatasari

Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Hariyati

Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Rida Perwita Sari

Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i1.4423


Keywords: Sustainability Reporting; IFRS S1 & S2; GRI Index; Public Sector; Asia

Abstract

This study develops a hybrid measurement framework to assess the consistency and depth of sustainability reports published by governments in four Asian countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Although global reporting standards are increasingly developing, reporting practices in the region remain diverse, the indicators used are not yet uniform, and no evaluation tools are available that can reliably produce cross-country comparisons. To bridge this gap, this study integrates IFRS S1 and S2 with GRI Standards to develop the Public Sector Sustainability Disclosure Index (PSSDI). Using a phased qualitative design, this study developed an index comprising four pillars and 32 sub-indicators. The findings show significant differences in maturity levels, institutional capacity, and the quality of information disclosed. Singapore and Hong Kong are at the most advanced level, Malaysia is at an intermediate stage, while Indonesia is still in the early phase. These results provide an empirical basis for promoting harmonization of reporting at the regional level and identifying institutional and technical barriers that hinder cross-country comparability. The study offers an analytical model for governments to strengthen national reporting systems, improve transparency, and support more targeted policy decisions on climate issues.

References

[1]. 1.C. S. De Silva Lokuwaduge and K. De Silva, “Determinants of public sector accounting reforms,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 33, no. 2/3, pp. 191–205, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-03-2019-0085.

[2]. 2.H. Q. Yasin, J. Breadsell, and M. N. Tahir, “Climate-water governance: a systematic analysis of the water sector resilience and adaptation to combat climate change in Pakistan,” Water Policy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–35, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.2166/wp.2020.113.

[3]. 3.L. Safi, M. Mujeeb, K. Sahak, H. Mushwani, and S. K. Hashmi, “Climate change impacts and threats on basic livelihood resources, food security and social stability in Afghanistan,” GeoJournal, vol. 89, no. 2, p. 85, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10708-024-11077-8.

[4]. 4.J. W. Kim, “The environmental impact of industrialization in East Asia and strategies toward sustainable development,” Sustain. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 107–114, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.1007/s11625-006-0006-5.

[5]. 5.World Meteorological Organization, “Rising temperatures and extreme weather hit Asia hard.”

[6]. 6.M. Mason, “Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: a conceptual review,” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 98–111, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1661231.

[7]. 7.L. Y. Y. Lee, J. K. P. Xia, and D. M. H. Kee, “Advancing Sustainability Reporting in ASEAN: Insights From a Systematic Review (2019–2023),” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 5238–5257, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1002/csr.3251.

[8]. 8.P. A. Ardiana, N. N. A. Diantini, I. M. S. N. Sudirman, I. P. G. Sudana, N. P. A. W. Putri, and K. D. L. Yanthi, “Institutional work in making sustainability reporting mandatory in Indonesia through sustainable finance,” Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 645–669, May 2025, doi: 10.1108/JAEE-02-2024-0088.

[9]. 9.K. Goswami, M. K. S. Islam, and W. Evers, “A Case Study on the Blended Reporting Phenomenon: A Comparative Analysis of Voluntary Reporting Frameworks and Standards—GRI, IR, SASB, and CDP,” The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 35–64, 2023, doi: 10.18848/2325-1166/CGP/v19i02/35-64.

[10]. 10.A. Amran, S. P. Lee, and S. S. Devi, “The Influence of Governance Structure and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality,” Bus. Strategy Environ., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 217–235, May 2014, doi: 10.1002/bse.1767.

[11]. 11.P. K. Biswas and R. Dygas, “ESG in Asia overview,” in Global Environmental, Social and Governance Policy, London: Routledge, 2025, pp. 100–111. doi: 10.4324/9781003582366-8.

[12]. 12.S. K. Fianko et al., “IFRS S1 and S2 implementation readiness in emerging markets: a multi-dimensional assessment framework and market readiness index,” Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1108/JFRA-12-2024-0921.

[13]. 13.A. Wagenhofer, “Sustainability Reporting: A Financial Reporting Perspective,” Accounting in Europe, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2218398.

[14]. 14.M. Abela, “‘A new direction? The “mainstreaming” of sustainability reporting,’” Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1261–1283, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2021-0201.

[15]. 15.V. Pina, L. Torres, L. Ripoll, J. García-Rayado, and N. Arias, “Assessing the suitability of climate disclosure models for local governments,” Public Money & Management, pp. 1–11, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1080/09540962.2025.2543440.

[16]. 16.D. Greiling, A. A. Traxler, and S. Stötzer, “Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 28, no. 4/5, pp. 404–428, May 2015, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-04-2015-0064.

[17]. 17.D. K. Goswami and R. Gerritsen, “Internal Sustainable Development Commitment of Public Agencies in Three Australian States: Evidence through Sustainability Reporting Practices,” The International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.18848/2325-1166/CGP/v17i01/1-18.

[18]. 18.B. Williams, T. Wilmshurst, and R. Clift, “Sustainability reporting by local government in Australia: Current and future prospects,” Accounting Forum, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 176–186, Sep. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2011.06.004.

[19]. 19.Y. M. Sellami and Y. Gafsi, “Institutional and Economic Factors Affecting the Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 119–131, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1080/01900692.2017.1405444.

[20]. 20.U. F. Saeed and T. M. Nagriwum, “Carbon Accounting and Climate Change: Leveraging Eco-digitalization and Governance Dynamics for Environmental Sustainability in Emerging Markets,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, May 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13132-025-02750-5.

[21]. 21.J. J. Wukich, E. L. Neuman, and T. J. Fogarty, “Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An institutional theory exploration of social and environmental reporting practices,” Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 673–701, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1108/JAOC-01-2023-0013.

[22]. 22.M. Farooq and H. Muhammad, “Climate Governance and Sustainability Reporting,” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 5430–5445, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1002/csr.3259.

[23]. 23.T. Izzo, A. Russo, and G. Risaliti, “Integrated Reporting, Stakeholders’ Perspective and Sustainable Disclosure: Systematic Insights From Empirical Research,” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 4978–5005, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1002/csr.3212.

[24]. 24.J. Garcia-Lacalle and L. Torres, “Financial Reporting Quality and Online Disclosure Practices in Spanish Governmental Agencies,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 2437, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13052437.

[25]. 25.A. Adebayo and B. Ackers, “Comparative sustainability disclosure in state-owned enterprises: insights from Oceania countries,” Pacific Accounting Review, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1108/PAR-12-2024-0340.

[26]. 26.L. Dhynianti, E. S. Darmawan, M. Nadjib, and P. Soewondo, “Readiness of community health centers to implement integrated primary health care services in Jakarta, Indonesia: a 2024 study,” Journal of Integrated Care, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 260–271, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1108/JICA-11-2024-0065.

[27]. 27.C. A. Botosan, “Disclosure Level and the Cost of Equity Capital,” The Accounting Review, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 323–349, 1997.

[28]. 28.V. Beattie, B. McInnes, and S. Fearnley, “A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes,” Accounting Forum, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 205–236, Sep. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.07.001.

[29]. 29.F. Farneti, F. Casonato, M. Montecalvo, and C. de Villiers, “The influence of integrated reporting and stakeholder information needs on the disclosure of social information in a state-owned enterprise,” Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 556–579, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-01-2019-0436.

[30]. 30.A. R. Domingues, R. Lozano, K. Ceulemans, and T. B. Ramos, “Sustainability reporting in public sector organisations: Exploring the relation between the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 192, pp. 292–301, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.074.

[31]. 31.D. Kim and G. Grant, “E‐government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration,” Journal of Systems and Information Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 230–244, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1108/13287261011070858.

[32]. 32.N. Adnan and N. S. Akbar, “Sustainability strategies and capital costs: A study of non-financial disclosure in the GCC agri-food industry,” Sustainable Futures, vol. 11, p. 101590, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101590.

[33]. 33.I. Shaikh and A. K. Tripathy, “Variability in sustainability reporting – A multicountry study,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 373, p. 123851, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123851.

[34]. 34.A. Tariq, “Mandatory sustainability reporting and the disclosure-performance gap: insights from the EU directive,” Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 536–567, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-02-2025-2838.

[35]. 35.M. C. Camargo, R. Sarsfield, M. Kanninen, and T. Cashore, “The Role of Private Philanthropy in Sustainability Standards Harmonization: A Case Study,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10635, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151310635.

[36]. 36.C. Depoorter and A. Marx, “Seeing the trees for the forest: Adoption dynamics of the Forest Stewardship Council,” Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1788–1806, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1002/aepp.13263.

[37]. 37.W. Qian, D. Dissanayake, S. Leong, S. Kuruppu, and C. Tilt, “Sustainability reporting in Indo-Pacific countries: an integrative response to local and global frameworks,” Meditari Accountancy Research, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 157–198, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-06-2024-2540.

[38]. 38.A. Sharma and A. K. Ray, “Collaborative Expertise in Sustainability Reporting and Assurance,” in Navigating Trust in Sustainability Reporting and Assurance, IGI Global, 2025, pp. 31–62. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0117-4.ch002.

[39]. 39.S. Lodhia, K. Jacobs, and Y. J. Park, “Driving Public Sector Environmental Reporting,” Public Management Review, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 631–647, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2011.642565.

[40]. 40.D. Giacomini, L. Rocca, D. Tonoli, and M. Decastri, “Starting right: Identifying material sustainability impacts for public sector organizations,” Public Money & Management, pp. 1–11, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1080/09540962.2025.2507155.

[41]. 41.G. Greco, N. Sciulli, and G. D’Onza, “The Influence of Stakeholder Engagement on Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Italian local councils,” Public Management Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 465–488, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.798024.

[42]. 42.R. Othman, N. Nath, and F. Laswad, “Sustainability Reporting by New Zealand’s Local Governments,” Australian Accounting Review, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 315–328, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1111/auar.12153.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com