Sustainability Reporting: Framing Theory and Rhetoric Theory Perspectives

Authors

  • Endah Kurniawati

    Indonesian College of Economics, Indonesia

  • Budiyanto

    Indonesian College of Economics, Indonesia

  • Ikhsan Budi Raharjo

    Indonesian College of Economics, Indonesia

How to Cite

Kurniawati, E., Budiyanto, & Budi Raharjo, I. (2025). Sustainability Reporting: Framing Theory and Rhetoric Theory Perspectives. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4), 399-411. https://doi.org/10.14419/nmyz3j97

Received date: July 8, 2025

Accepted date: August 11, 2025

Published date: August 15, 2025

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14419/nmyz3j97

Keywords:

Sustainability Reporting, Framing Theory, Rhetoric Theory, Legitimacy, Stakeholder Engagement, Greenwashing, ESG Communication

Abstract

This study explores the use of framing and rhetoric strategies in PT. X’s sustainability reporting from 2021 to 2023, analyzed through the lenses of Framing Theory, Rhetoric Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and Stakeholder Theory. As a major player in Indonesia’s digital economy, PT. X faces significant scrutiny regarding its environmental and social responsibilities. The findings reveal that the company employs a dominant framing strategy that highlights innovation and progress, portraying sustainability as a long-term vision rather than an immediate responsibility. Through selective data presentation and optimistic narratives, PT. X constructs a positive public image, often downplaying operational challenges and trade-offs. Rhetorical elements—Logos, Pathos, and Ethos—are extensively used to build legitimacy and trust. Quantitative data and references to global standards (Logos), emotional storytelling (Pathos), and the inclusion of third-party certifications and partnerships (Ethos) are central to their approach. These strategies help reinforce the company’s reputation among investors, regulators, and other stakeholders. However, the findings also indicate a risk of greenwashing, as transparency is occasionally compromised in favor of strategic communication. The study contributes theoretically by linking narrative construction with legitimacy and stakeholder engagement. Practically, it suggests that a more balanced reporting approach—one that includes transparent disclosures of both achievements and limitations—would enhance credibility. Ultimately, the research underlines the need for sustainability reports to evolve beyond branding tools toward instruments of genuine accountability.

References

  1. Achmad, F., Prambudia, Y., dan Rumanti, A. A. (2023). Sustainable Tourism Industry Development: A Collaborative Model of Open Innovation, Stakeholders, and Support System Facilities. IEEE Access, 11, 83343–83363. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3301574
  2. Afolabi, H., Ram, R., dan Rimmel, G. (2022). Harmonization of Sustainability Reporting Regulation: Analysis of a Contested Arena. Sustainability, 14(9), 5517. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095517
  3. Ahi, P., dan Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.018
  4. Alawattage, C., Jayathileka, C., Hitibandara, R., dan Withanage, S. (2023). Moral economy, performative materialism, and political rhetorics of sus-tainability accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 95, 102507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102507
  5. Allen, M. W., dan Craig, C. A. (2016). Rethinking corporate social responsibility in the age of climate change: a communication perspective. Inter-national Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0002-8
  6. Ardiana, P. A. (2023). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting by Fortune Global 500 companies: a call for embeddedness. Meditari Ac-countancy Research, 31(2), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-12-2019-0666
  7. Ardiyanto, I. (2023). Komunikasi Keberlanjutan: Strategi untuk Membangun Hubungan yang Berkelanjutan (1st ed.). Simbiosa Rekatama Media.
  8. Argenti, P. A. (2023). Corporate Communication. (8th Editio). McGraw-Hill Education.
  9. Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press.
  10. Arvidsson, S., dan Dumay, J. (2022). Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to know for environmental policy and practice? Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937
  11. Badullovich, N., Grant, W. J., dan Colvin, R. M. (2020). Framing climate change for effective communication: A systematic map. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7
  12. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.
  13. Baumgartner. (2022). Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profi les and Maturity Levels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(1), 79–89.
  14. Bebbington, J., dan Unerman, J. (2020). Advancing research into accounting and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(7), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4556
  15. Bennetch, R., Owen, O., & Keesey, Z. (2021). Effective Professional Communication: A Rhetorical Approach. University of Saskatchewan.
  16. Beske, F., Haustein, E., dan Lorson, P. C. (2020). Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports. Sustainability Accounting, Manage-ment and Policy Journal, 11(1), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0343
  17. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  18. Blak Bernat, G., Qualharini, E. L., Castro, M. S., Barcaui, A. B., dan Soares, R. R. (2023). Sustainability in Project Management and Project Suc-cess with Virtual Teams: A Quantitative Analysis Considering Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Management. Sustainability, 15(12), 9834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129834
  19. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., dan Brotherton, M. C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ per-spective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 703–721. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
  20. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036– 1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998
  21. Boons, Frank dan Lüdeke-Freund, Florian. (2013). Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State of the Art and Steps Towards a Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, pp. 9-. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2103495
  22. Bowen. (2009). Analisis Dokumen Sebagai Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Jurnal Penelitian Kualitatif, 9(2), 27–40.
  23. Braun, V., dan Clarke, V. (2023). Is thematic analysis used well in health psychology? A critical review of published research, with recommenda-tions for quality practice and reporting. Journal Health Psychology Review, 17(4), 695–718.
  24. Brockhaus, J., Buhmann, A., dan Zerfass, A. (2023). Digitalization in corporate communications: understanding the emergence and consequences of CommTech and digital infrastructure. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 28(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2022-0035
  25. Burke, K. (1969). Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
  26. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., dan Iyengar, S. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Com-munication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
  27. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., dan Rodrigue, M. (2018). The Frontstage and Backstage of Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 865– 886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3375-4
  28. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., dan Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and So-ciety, 35(4), 431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.002
  29. Choi, Y. J., dan McNeely, C. L. (2020). Rhetorical Framing of Organizational Identity; Corporate Social Responbility in the Modern World Polity. Journal Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/0sf.io/x3fvd
  30. Chong, D., dan Druckman, N. J. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
  31. Cooke, S. J., Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J. J., Nyboer, E. A., Nguyen, V. M., Bennett, J. R., Young, N., Aitken, S., Auld, G., Lane, J. F., Prior, K. A., Smokorowski, K. E., Smith, P. A., Jacob, A. L., Browne, D. R., Blais, J. M., Kerr, J. T., Ormeci, B., Alexander, S. M., … Smol, J. P. (2020). On “success” in applied environmental research — what is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environ-mental Reviews, 28(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0045
  32. Coombs, W. T. (2019). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding (5th ed). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  33. Cornelissen, J. P. (2023). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. Sage Publications.
  34. Cornelissen, J. P., dan Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669
  35. Creswell, J. W., dan Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/creswe ll.pdf
  36. Creswell, W. J. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
  37. Creswell, W. J., & Poth, N. C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  38. Crilly, D., Hansen, M., & Zollo, M. (2016). The Grammar of Decoupling: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective on Firms’ Sustainability Claims and Stakeholders’ Interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 705– 729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0171
  39. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
  40. Delmas, M. A., dan Burbano, V. C. (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review.
  41. Dessart, L., dan Standaert, W. (2023). Strategic storytelling in the age of sustainability. Business Horizons, 66(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2023.01.005
  42. Dimes, R., dan Molinari, M. (2023). Non-financial reporting and corporate governance: a conceptual framework. Journal Management and Policy, 7(1), 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2022-0212
  43. Diouf, B. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective. Journal Accounting, Auditing & Ac-countability, 03(3), 35–74.
  44. Du, S., Bhattacharya, B. C., dan Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing bussines returns to corporate social responbility (CSR): The role of CSR Communica-tion International. Journal Of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
  45. Du, S., dan Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Oil Companies. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 110(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4
  46. Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., dan Demartini, P. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.001
  47. Dyllick, H. (2023). Corporate Social Responsibility , Enviromental Accounting , Enviromental Management System dan Enviromental Capabilities. JEBISKU: Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Islam IAIN Kudus, 1(4), 494–513. http://103.35.140.53/index.php/JEBISKU/article/view/1286%0Ahttp://103.3 5.140.53/index.php/JEBISKU/article/download/1286/117
  48. Eakin, J. M., dan Gladstone, B. (2020). “Value-adding” Analysis: Doing More With Qualitative Data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920949333
  49. Eccles, G. R., dan Krzus, P. M. (2012). The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainbility on Corporate Behavior and Performance. Harvard Bus-sines Review.
  50. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., dan Serafeim, G. (2014). the Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes. Nber Working Paper Series, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
  51. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Tripple Botton Line in 21st Century Bisnis. Capstone Publishing Ltd.
  52. Ellerup Nielsen, A., dan Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: a legitimacy perspective. Corporate Com-munications: An International Journal, 23(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0042
  53. Emeka-Okoli, S., Nwankwo, T. C., Otonnah, C. A., dan Nwankwo, E. E. (2024). Communication strategies for effective CSR and stakeholder en-gagement in the oil & gas industry: A conceptual analysis. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(3), 091–099. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0663
  54. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.1993.tb01304.x
  55. Eriyanto. (2002). Analisis Wacana:Pengantar Analisis Teks Media. LKIS.
  56. Esa, E., Mohamad, N. R., dan Zahari, A. R. (2024). Balancing Green and Gold: The Link Between Sustainability Reporting and Corporate Reputa-tion in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(1–12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2024.v13n1p12
  57. Eyman, D. (2015). Digital Rhetoric. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swm2
  58. Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhectorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion. Oxford University Press.
  59. Ferng, J. (2010). French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States by François Cusset, translated by Jeff Fort, with Josephine Berganza and Marlon Jones. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A., 2008. Leonardo, 43(2), 190–191. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2010.43.2.190
  60. Fisher, J., dan Hopp, T. (2020). Does the Framing of Transparency Impact Trust? Differences Between Self-Benefit and Other-Benefit Message Frames. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2020.1770767
  61. Fombrun, Gardberg, dan Barnett. (2005). Corporate Reputation and Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2014-0003
  62. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.
  63. Freeman, R. E., dan Dmytriyev, S. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory: Learning From Each Other. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.4468/2017.1.02freeman.dmytriyev
  64. Friede, G., Busch, T., dan Bassen, A. (2015a). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
  65. Friede, G., Busch, T., dan Bassen, A. (2015b). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
  66. Gamson, A. W., dan A, M. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of So-ciology, 95(1), 1– 37.
  67. García-Perdomo, V., Harlow, S., dan Brown, D. K. (2024). Framing the Colombian Peace Process: Between Peace and War Journalism. Journalism Practice, 18(4), 991–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2062428
  68. Gill, R. (2011). An integrative review of storytelling: Using corporate stories to strengthen employee engagement and internal and external reputa-tion. PRism, 8(1), 11 s/d 16.
  69. Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. University of California Press.
  70. Global Reporting Initiative, (GRI). (2021). GRI Standarts. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards
  71. Goffman, dan Erving. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
  72. Green, S. E. (2004). A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.14497653
  73. Greenwood, M., Jack, G., dan Haylock, B. (2019). Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports. Journal Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 798–827. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118765942 Gross, A. (1996). The Rhetoric of Sci-ence. Harvard University Press.
  74. Haack, P., dan Rasche, A. (2021). The Legitimacy of Sustainability Standards: A Paradox Perspective. Organization Theory, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211049493
  75. Haffar, M., dan Searcy, C. (2017). Classification of Trade-offs Encountered in the Practice of Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2678-1
  76. Hahn, R., dan Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Dis-closure Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4
  77. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., dan Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sensemaking with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
  78. Halkos, G., dan Nomikos, S. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Trends in global reporting initiative standards. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.11.008
  79. Haryanti, A. D., dan Setyawan, S. (2025). Disclosure analysis of Pt Pupuk Indonesia (Persero) sustainability report based on the global reporting initiative for economic and energy development. Economic Sustainability and Social Equality in the Technological Era, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003534495-30
  80. Heath, R. (2012). Handbook of Public Relations. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220727
  81. Heras‐Saizarbitoria, I., Urbieta, L., dan Boiral, O. (2022). Organizations’ engagement with sustainable development goals: From cherry‐ pick-ing to SDG‐washing? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2202
  82. Higgins, C., Tang, S., dan Stubbs, W. (2020). On managing hypocrisy: The transparency of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Research, 11(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.041
  83. Higgins, C., dan Walker, R. (2012). Ethos , logos , pathos : Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003
  84. Holmberg, J., dan Sandbrook, R. (2019). Sustainable development: what is to be done?. In Policies for a small planet. Routledge.
  85. Hölzl, K., Gollnhofer, J., dan Nückles, M. (2022). The Power of Persuasion: Rhetorical Strategies in Sustainability Reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(2), 587–602.
  86. International Institute for Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals: A Guide for Business. https://www.iisd.org/topics/sustainable-development-goals
  87. Invernizzi, A. C., Bellucci, M., Acuti, D., dan Manetti, G. (2022). Form and substance: Visual content in CSR reports and investors’ perceptions. Journal Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 974–989. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21635
  88. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
  89. Jha, M. K., dan Rangarajan, K. (2020). Analysis of corporate sustainability performance and corporate financial performance causal linkage in the Indian context. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-020-00038-z
  90. Jones, dan Wynn. (2021). Sustainable Development. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijssb.v7i4.58601
  91. Kashyap, R., Menisy, M., Caiazzo, P., dan Samuel, J. (2020). Transparency versus Performance in Financial Markets: The Role of CSR Communi-cations. NBEA 2020 Conference. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.03443
  92. Kennedy, G. A. (2015). History of Rhetoric, Volume I. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400875726
  93. Kinneavy, J. L. (1972). A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse (5 (3)). Prentice-Hall.
  94. Kochkina, N., Macchia, S., dan Floris, M. (2024). Strategic Language Use in Sustainability Reporting: An Empirical Study. Sustainability, 16(23), 10229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310229
  95. KPMG. (2020). The Time Has Come: The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2020/12/The_Time_Has_ Come_KPMG_Survey_of_Sustainability_Reporting_2020.pdf
  96. KPMG. (2022). Big shifts,small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/se/pdf/komm/2022/Global- Survey-of-Sustainability-Reporting-2022.pdf
  97. Lecheler, S., dan De Vreese, C. H. (2019). News framing effects: Theory and practice. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208077
  98. Lopez, Cisneros-Montemayor, M., A., dan Blythe, J. (2019). Economics of Sustainability. Journal of International Economic Law, 25(4), 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac047
  99. LPEM FEB UI. (2023). Kontribusi X Terhadap Perekonomian Nasional Capai Hingga Rp428 triliun atau Setara 2,2% PDB Tahun 2022.
  100. Manetti, G., dan Becatti, L. (2019). Assurance services for sustainbility reports:Standarts and Empiricial Evidence. Journal of Business Ethnics, 159(3), 61–71.
  101. Manetti, G., Bellucci, M., dan Bagnoli, L. (2017). Stakeholder Engagement and Public Information Through Social Media: A Study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016649260 Manning, P., dan Smith, G. (2009). Symbolic interactionism. In A. Elliott (Ed.), The Routledge com-panion to social theory (1st Editio). Routledge.
  102. Maxwell. (2012). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  103. McLeod, M. S., Sears, J. B., Chandler, G. N., Payne, G. T., dan Brigham, K. H. (2022). Rhetoric, risk, and investment: Letting the numbers speak for themselves. Journal of Management Studies, 59(7), 1657–1687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12812
  104. Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., dan Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental sci-ence research. MethodsX, 7, 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777
  105. Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., dan Romi, A. M. (2019). Creating Legitimacy for Sustainability Assurance Practices: Evidence from Sustainability Restatements. European Accounting Review, 28(2), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1469424
  106. Mio, C., Agostini, M., dan Scarpa, F. (2024). Materiality in Sustainability Reporting (pp. 103–151). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58449-7_5
  107. Mitchell, R. K., dan Lee, J. H. (2019). Stakeholder identification and its importance in the value creating system of stakeholder work (pp. 53–73). The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory.
  108. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., dan Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
  109. Morsing, M., dan Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
  110. Nakao, Y., Ishino, A., Kokubu, K., dan Okada, H. (2024). Exploring visual communication in corporate sustainability reporting: Using image recognition with deep learning. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(4), 3210–3234. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2735
  111. Neill, M. S. (2017). Book Review: Excellence in Internal Communication Management , by Rita Linjuan Men and Shannon A. Bowen (Eds.). Jour-nalism & Mass Communication Educator, 72(3), 366–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695817709586
  112. Orazalin, N., dan Mahmood, M. (2019). Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Ac-counting in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2018-0137
  113. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2017). No. 51/POJK.03/2017.
  114. Penerapan Keuangan Berkelanjutan bagi Lembaga Jasa Keuangan, Emiten, dan Perusahaan Publik, (2017). https://ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Pages/Penerapan- Keuangan-Berkelanjutan-bagi-Lembaga-Jasa-Keuangan%2C-Emiten%2C- dan-Perusahaan-Publik.aspx
  115. Patton, Q. M. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Intergrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
  116. Perelman, C., dan Tyteca, L. O. (1969). The new rhetoric : a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
  117. Poulakos, J. (1995). Sophistical rhetoric in classical Greece (1st ed). Columbia, South Carolina : University of South Carolina Press.
  118. Prebanić, K. R., dan Vukomanović, M. (2023). Exploring Stakeholder Engagement Process as the Success Factor for Infrastructure Projects. Build-ings, 13(7), 1785. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071785
  119. Prior, L. (2003). Using Document in Social research. Sage Publications.
  120. Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Journal Socio-logical Bulletin, 70(1), 94–110.
  121. PT X. (2021). Laporan Keberlanjutan 2021. https://assets.Xy.net/asts/X/X 2021 Sustainability Report - Bahasa Indonesia.pdf
  122. PT X. (2022). Laporan Keberlanjutan 2022. https://www.Xcompany.com/our-commitments
  123. PT X. (2023). Laporan Keberlanjutan 2023. https://www.Xcompany.com/our-commitments
  124. PT Unilever. (2023). Sustainable Living Report. https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/)
  125. PwC. (2023). Sustainability Reporting in Indonesia: Trends and Insights. https://www.pwc.com/id/en/publications/sustainability-reporting.html
  126. Rafiee, A., Spooren, W., dan Sanders, J. (2023). Framing similar issues differently: a cross-cultural discourse analysis of news images. Journal So-cial Semiotics, 33(3), 515–538. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2021.1900719
  127. Rahmawati, E. (2013). The Rhetoric In Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting: A Frame Analysis on Sustainability of PT Indosat Tbk. Program Sarjana Universitas Brawijaya.
  128. Rajah, V., Thomas, C., Shlosberg, A., dan Chu, Sarah PRajah, V., Thomas, C., Shlosberg, A., dan Chu, S. P. (2023). Enhancing the tellability of death-row exoneree narratives: Exploring the role of rhetoric. Punishment & Society, 25(1), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211016304
  129. Reese, D. S. (2001). Prologue—Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In S. D. Reese (J. G. H. O & G. E. A (eds.)). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  130. Republika. (2023). Nilai Transaksi X Sepanjang Tahun 2022 Tumbuh 33 Persen.
  131. Riduwan, A., dan Andayani, A. (2020). Simulacra Dan Retorika Dalam Sustainability Report: Adakah Kontribusi Peran Akuntansi? Jurnal Riset Keuangan Dan Akuntansi, 5(2), 52–80. https://doi.org/10.25134/jrka.v5i2.2007
  132. Rijal, S. (2023). The Importance of Community Involvement in Public Management Planning and Decision-Making Processes. Journal of Contem-porary Administration and Management (ADMAN), 1(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v1i2.27
  133. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., dan Boulianne, E. (2013). Stakeholders’ influence on environmental strategy and performance indicators: A managerial perspective. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.004
  134. Ryan, C., dan Gamson, A. W. (2006). The art of reframing political debates. Journal Contexts, 5(1), 13–18.
  135. SASB. (2020). SASB Standards. https://www.sasb.org/standards/
  136. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Farming as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.1999.tb02784.x
  137. Scheufele, D. A., dan Iyengar, S. (2014). The State of Framing Research (K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (eds.); Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.47
  138. Sebrina, N., Taqwa, S., Afriyenti, M., dan Septiari, D. (2023). Analysis of sustainability reporting quality and corporate social responsibility on companies listed on the Indonesia stock exchange. Cogent Business and Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2157975
  139. Sergeeva, N., dan Kapetanaki, E. (2022). Corporate social responsibility as a strategic narrative: The cases of UK project-based organisations. Pro-ject Leadership and Society, 3, 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100073
  140. Shoaib, M., dan Pathan, K. (2023). Assessing the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational culture and employee commitment. International Research Journal of Education and Innovation, IV(1), 1–11. www.irjei.comwww.irjei.com
  141. Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001
  142. Stocker, F., de Arruda, M. P., de Mascena, K. M. C., dan Boaventura, J. M. G. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A clas-sification model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2071–2080. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1947
  143. Strömberg, E., dan Rørvig, P. (2021). Framing Sustainability A case study of Sveaskong’s Annual Reports of 2010 and 2020. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/69716
  144. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
  145. Suddaby, R., dan Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative science quarterly. Journal Communication, 50(1), 35–67.
  146. Suparno, B. A. (2022). Dramatisme Retorika Politik Kenneth Burke. (1st ed.). PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  147. Syakur, A., Susilo, T. A. B., Wike, W., dan Ahmadi, R. (2020). Sustainability of Communication, Organizational Culture, Cooperation, Trust and Leadership Style for Lecturer Commitments in Higher Education. Budapest International
  148. Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(2), 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i2.980
  149. Talbot, D., dan Boiral, O. (2018). GHG Reporting and Impression Management: An Assessment of Sustainability Reports from the Energy Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2979-4
  150. Tregidga, H., Milne, M., dan Kearins, K. (2014). (Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations.’ Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.006
  151. Tuan, A., Corciolani, M., dan Giuliani, E. (2024). Being Reassuring About the Past While Promising a Better Future: How Companies Frame Tem-poral Focus in Social Responsibility Reporting. Business & Society, 63(3), 626–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231182627
  152. Turner, B. L. (2022). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8074–8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100
  153. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  154. van Dijk, T. A. (2023). Analyzing frame analysis: A critical review of framing studies in social movement research. Discourse Studies, 25(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231155080
  155. Van Riel, C. B. M., dan Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of Corporate Communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203390931
  156. Voci, D. (2022). Logos, Ethos, Pathos, Sustainabilitos? About the Role of Media Companies in Reaching Sustainable Development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052591
  157. Weder, F. (2023). The Evolution of the Sustainability Story: Strategic Sustainability Communication as Niche Construction. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(3), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2023.2229304
  158. Whittle, A., Vaara, E., dan Maitlis, S. (2023). The Role of Language in Organizational Sensemaking: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and an Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management, 49(6), 1807–1840. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221147295
  159. Wicaksono, A. P. N. (2023). Eksplorasi Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Disclosure Di Indonesia. Jurnal Akademi Akuntansi, 6(1), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.22219/jaa.v6i1.26448
  160. World Economic Forum. (2021). The Future of Sustainable Capitalism: A Global Agenda. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-sustainable- capitalism-a-global-agenda
  161. Xie, Y., Wu, D., Li, X., dan Tian, S. (2023). How does environmental regulation affect productivity? The role of corporate compliance strategies. Economic Modelling, 126, 106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106408
  162. Yusa, I. M. M., Priyono, D., Anggara, I. G. A. S., Anom, I. N. A., Setiawan, F.,
  163. Yasa, I. W. A., Yasa, N. P. D., , Novitasari, D., Mutiarani, R. A., Rizaq, M. C., Jayanegara, I. N., Trisemarawima, I. N., Setiawan, I. K., Pertiwi, A. B., Anggakarti, D. M., & Sutarwiyasa, I. K. (2023). Buku Ajar Desain Komunikasi Visual (DKV). PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia.
  164. Zappen, J. P. (2009). Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10
  165. Zhou, Y., dan Moy, P. (2007). Parsing Framing Processes: The Interplay Between Online Public Opinion and Media Coverage. Journal of Commu-nication, 57(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00330.x

Downloads

How to Cite

Kurniawati, E., Budiyanto, & Budi Raharjo, I. (2025). Sustainability Reporting: Framing Theory and Rhetoric Theory Perspectives. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4), 399-411. https://doi.org/10.14419/nmyz3j97

Received date: July 8, 2025

Accepted date: August 11, 2025

Published date: August 15, 2025