Page 1 of 13
Archives of Business Research – Vol. 10, No. 4
Publication Date: April 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/abr.104.12097. Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual
Capital on Return on Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate
Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets
Nita Yuliana
Mercu Buana University, Jakarta, Indonesia
Wiwik Utami
Mercu Buana University, Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
This study aims to examine the effects of disclosure of sustainability, corporate
governance mechanisms, and intellectual capital on the return on assets. The
population of this study is banking companies listed on the IDX in 2016-2019. The
samples were selected based on the criteria of 27 companies over a 4-year period,
so that 108 samples were obtained. Regression analysis method on panel data using
EViews 12 The results of this study indicate that sustainability disclosure has no
significant effect on ROA, frequency of board of Commissioners meetings has a
positive and significant effect on ROA, institutional ownership has no significant
effect on ROA, and intellectual capital has a positive and significant effect on ROA.
Keywords: Sustainability Disclosure, frequency of board of Commissioners meetings,
institutional ownership, intellectual capital, Return on Assets
INTRODUCTION
Banks are business entities that collect funds from credit or other forms to improve people's
living standards. According to Hasibuan (2016:2) Commercial banks are financial institutions,
money creators, fund collectors and credit distributors, payment traffic implementers,
monetary stabilizers, and economic growth dynamics. Based on data obtained through the
IDX's official website in the 2016-2019 period, it shows that there are fluctuations in Return on
Assets in banking companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange.
Page 2 of 13
36
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Figure 1: Annual Report of Conventional banking sector (data processed)
Source: Author’s calculation
Based on the data in Figure 1.1, it is known that information on conventional banking
companies listed on the IDX in 2016-2019. In 2016 data, the Return on Assets decreased 2.23%.
In 2019 Return on Assets decreased when compared to 2017 and 2018. Return on Assets (ROA)
is a ratio that shows net income after tax with the number of assets used in the company.
Sustainability report is a report that is presented separately from the annual report and
provides information on the impact of the company's economic, social, and environmental
activities. The Financial Services Authority (OJK) in POJK No. 51 dated July 27, 2017 issued the
first regulation regarding sustainability reporting. Sustainability reports are a type of voluntary
report. This report is disclosed as part of a complementary financial report.
Study Wijayanti (2016) states that the disclosure of sustainability has an effect on return on
assets and the research conducted by Bukhori & Sopian (2017) also stated that the disclosure
of sustainability has an effect on return on assets. This is in line with research conducted by
Puspitandari & Septiani (2017). However, this contradicts the research conducted by Shinta
(2018), Desiy et al., (2018), and Muallifin & Priyadi (2016) which states that the disclosure of
sustainability has no effect on return on assets.
The mechanism of good corporate governance, according to Hamdani (2016:20) is a system
that directs and controls the company. The mechanism of good corporate governance in this
study uses the proxy of Board of Commissioners Meeting Frequency and Institutional
Ownership. Putri & Muid (2017) stated that the frequency of the Board of Commissioners'
meeting has an effect on the return on assets. In the research conducted Muchtar & Darari
(2016) also stated that the frequency of the Board of Commissioners' meeting has an effect on
the Return on Assets. This is in line with research conducted by Puni & Anlesinya (2020).
However, this contradicts the research conducted by Purwanto et al., (2018), Katutari et al.,
(2019), Makhlouf et al., (2017) and Nadila & Annisa (2021) which states that the frequency of
the Board of Commissioners' Meetings has no effect on the Return on Assets.
According to the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) intellectual capital is part of
something as part of shares or capital based on knowledge owned by the company. Public
2.00%
2.10%
2.20%
2.30%
2.40%
2.50%
2.60%
2016 2017 2018 2019
Return on Assets 2016-2019
ROA
Page 3 of 13
37
Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.104.12097
(1998) developed the Value-Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAICTM) as a model for measuring
intellectual capital. Ahmad Badawi (2018) state that Intellectual capital has an effect on return
on assets, and research conducted by Prawira & Setiawan (2019) states that Intellectual capital
has an effect on return on assets. This is in line with research conducted by Avci (2017), and
Nassar (2018). However, this contradicts the research conducted by Kuryanto., (2015) which
states that intellectual capital has no effect on return on assets.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory originated with Freeman (1984). This theory explains that stakeholders as
a benefit in running a business for groups or individuals who can influence and be influenced
as a result of their activities. Stakeholder theory explains the importance of information issued
by the company for investment decisions by investors. This information is disclosed in the
financial statements, which will be considered by investors before making investment
decisions. Therefore, a good quality company will be able to show company information to
investors to assess financial performance.
Sustainability Disclosure on Return on Assets
According to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a sustainability report is a report made by
the company to be able to measure, disclose, and account for the company's efforts to become
an accountable company for all shareholders for the purpose of sustainable development.
Disclosure of sustainability reports will increase transparency, which has an impact on investor
confidence and the company's financial performance. This disclosure is on policies, objectives,
and additional related information. A "sustainability report" is a report published by a company
or organization on the economic, environmental, and social impacts caused by daily activities
(GRI-G4). According to Wijayanti (2016), Bukhori & Sopian, (2017), Puspitandari & Septiani
(2017) Disclosure Sustainability has a positive effect on Return on Assets:
H1: Sustainability disclosure has a positive effect on Return on Assets
The frequency of the board of commissioners meeting on Return on Assets
Board of Commissioners meeting is the frequency of meetings between the board of
commissioners. The Board of Commissioners will hold meetings for meetings periodically and
may hold additional meetings or special meetings if necessary. These periodic meetings are as
determined by the board of commissioners themselves and carried out at least in accordance
with the provisions of the board of commissioners meeting as stipulated in the company's
articles of association. Researcher Utami et al., (2020) said that the frequency of the Board of
Commissioners' Meetings affects the level of Return on Assets. Similar to the research
conducted by Muchtar & Darari (2016) Sagala (2019), Supriatna & M. Kusuma (2017), and Putri
& Muid (2017) stated that the increasing number of board of commissioners meetings had a
positive effect on Return on Assets:
H2: Frequency of Board of Commissioners Meeting has a positive effect on Return on
Assets
Institutional Ownership on Return on Assets
Institutional ownership is a condition of the proportion of share ownership measured in the
percentage of shares owned by institutional investors in a company. Share ownership by
investors can be divided into various categories. Judging from the origin of investors, domestic
Page 4 of 13
38
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
investors or foreign investors can be distinguished as individual investors or institutional
investors. The type of share ownership can reflect the extent to which investors have influence
or have control over management. Darwis (2009) shows that the higher the institutional
ownership, the harder it is to control (monitor) management.
Candradewi & Sedana (2016)found that institutional ownership has the function of supervising
and controlling management. The greater the institutional ownership, the greater the owner's
authority to control the company's operations. Waluyo (2019). The stronger the supervision of
the management, the more efficient the company will be and the higher the value of its return
on assets. This is supported by research conducted by Rimardhani et al., (2016), Joesmana,
(2017) and Putra & Nuzula (2017), which states that institutional ownership has a positive
effect on the return on assets:
H3: Institutional ownership has a positive effect on Return on Assets
Intellectual Capital on Return on Assets
According to Avci (2017), intellectual capital is one of the important intangible factors of the
company and can have a significant impact on the company's overall performance even though
it is not explicitly stated on the balance sheet. Companies can have an advantage and good
financial performance if they are able to manage and utilize the intellectual capital that they
have. Several researchers have conducted research on intellectual capital. Research conducted
by Badawi (2018), Nadeem et al., (2017), Putra & Nuzula (2017) shows that intellectual capital
has a significant positive effect on return on assets:
H4: Intellectual Capital has a positive effect on Return on Assets
METHODOLOGY
The population of the data used is banking companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
(IDX) in 2016-2019. In the sampling technique, purposive sampling is used to obtain samples
in accordance with the criteria that have been set in this study. The data analysis method is a
quantitative method. The analysis technique for hypothesis testing is panel data regression.
Panel data regression analysis is a collection of data points that can be used to observe cross- sectional unit behavior over time (Ghozali, 2017:195). The panel data regression method will
be processed using EViews, which will show how much influence the independent variable has
on the dependent.
Page 5 of 13
39
Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.104.12097
Table 1: Operationalization of Variables
Panel Data Regression Analysis
Panel data regression analysis is a collection of data from time-series cross-sectional unit
behavior (Ghozali, 2017:195). The equation method in this panel data regression is to test the
effect of two or more independent variables on the dependent variable. The panel data
regression used is as follows:
YROA = a + β 1SRDI + β 2FR+ β 3FR + β 4XVAICTM+ e
YROA = Return on Assets (Y)
a = Constant
β 1- β 4 = Regression coefficient
SRDI = Sustainability Disclosure
FR = Frequency of Board of Commissioners Meetings
KI = Institutional ownership
VAICTM = Value Added Intellectual Coefficient
e = Error
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Test results Descriptive statistics on ROA, SRDI, FR, KI, and VAIC in banking sector companies,
which are the research sample from 2016 to 2019.
Variables Measurement Scale References
Sustainability
Report
Disclosure
Index
(SRDI)
SRDI = η x 100%
k
Ratio Bukhori &
Sopian, (2017),
Puspitandari &
Septiani (2017)
Frequency of
Board of
Commissioners
Meetings (FR)
FR = Σ Meetings held in 1 year Ratio Muchtar &
Darari (2016),
Putri & Muid
(2017)
Institutional
ownership (KI) KI = Σ Institutional owned shares x 100%
Σ Shares outstanding
Ratio Rimardhani et
al., (2016),
Joesmana,
(2017)
Value Added
Intellectual
Coefficient
(VAIC)
VAICTM = HCE + SCE + CEE Ratio Badawi (2018),
Nadeem et al.,
(2017)
Return on
Assets (ROA)
Profit After Tax .x 100%
Total Assets
Ratio Utami et al.,
(2020)
Page 6 of 13
40
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Table 2: Results of Descriptive Analysis
ROA SRDI FR KI VAIC
mean 0.011172 0.412190 12.90741 0.739334 2.251481
median 0.012697 0.417582 8.500000 0.802328 2.402605
Maximum 0.035862 0.516484 49,00000 0.972877 4.030591
Minimum -0.117277 0.285714 3,000000 0.000000 -13,51694
Std. Dev. 0.015405 0.050671 10.43228 0.206292 1.721468
Source: EViews 12 Descriptive Analysis Results
The Return on Assets (ROA) variable has a minimum value of -0.1172, meaning that the
company suffered a loss of -11.73% of the total assets owned. Maximum value of 0.0358 this
indicates that the company generates the highest profit of 3.59% of total assets. The mean value
is 0.0111, which means that in the research period the average profit of the banking sector
companies is 1.11% of the total assets. The value of the standard deviation is 0.0154, which
means that during the study period there was a deviation of data from the Return on Assets
(ROA) variable of 1.54%, which was greater than the average value of 1.11%. The average value
of the Return on Assets (ROA) variable is still lower than the standard deviation value. This
indicates that the Return on Assets (ROA) variable data varies or is relatively heterogeneous.
The Sustainability Report Disclosure Index (SRDI) variable has a minimum value of 0.2857,
meaning that the company discloses a Sustainability index of 28.57% of the total 91 items on
the sustainability disclosure index. The maximum value of 0.5164 indicates the highest number
on the sustainability disclosure index is 51.64% of the total Sustainability Report Disclosure
Index (SRDI). The mean value is 0.4121, which means that in the research period, the average
company disclosed SRDI as much as 41.21% of the total 91 items on the sustainability
disclosure index. The value of the standard deviation is 0.0506, which means that during the
study period there was a deviation from the Sustainability Report Disclosure Index (SRDI)
variable of 5.06%, which was smaller than the average value of 41.21%. The average value of
the Sustainability Report Disclosure Index (SRDI) variable is still greater than the standard
deviation value. This indicates that the Sustainability Report Disclosure Index (SRDI) variable
data is less varied or relatively homogeneous.
Institutional Ownership (KI) variable has a minimum value of 0.0000, meaning that there are
still companies whose share ownership is not owned by corporate entities or other institutions
in banking companies. The maximum value of 0.9728 indicates that a company whose shares
are owned by a corporate entity or other institution is 97.29% of the total outstanding shares
of a banking company. The mean value is 0.7393, which means that in the research period the
average company whose shares are owned by other institutions is 73.93% of the total
outstanding shares. The value of the standard deviation is 0.2062, which means that during the
study period there was a deviation of data from the Institutional Ownership (KI) variable of
20.62%, which was smaller than the average value of 73.93%. The average value of the
Institutional Ownership (KI) variable is still greater than the standard deviation value. This
indicates that the Institutional Ownership (KI) variable data is less varied or relatively
homogeneous.
Page 8 of 13
42
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Table 5: Lagrange Multiplier Test Results
Omitted Random Effects – Lagrange Multiplier
Random
effects models
Hypothesis Test
Cross-section time Both
Breusch- Pagan 73.71166 0.443761 74.15542
(0.0000) (0.5053) (0.0000)
Source: EViews 12 Lagrange Multiplier Test
Based on Table 5, the Lagrange Multiplier test, the probability value of 0.0000 is smaller than
the significance level of 0.05, so the selected model is the random effects model. From all the
results of the panel data test, it can be concluded that the best and most appropriate model in
this study is the random effects model.
The Classic Assumption Test
The classical assumption test in this study is panel data, so the tests carried out are only
multicollinearity tests and heteroscedasticity tests.
Table 6: Multicollinearity Test
SRDI FR KI VAIC
SRDI 1.0000000 0.428028 0.141150 0.480306
FR 0.428028 1.0000000 -0.283255 0.320797
KI 0.141150 -0.283255 1.0000000 -0.099552
VAIC 0.480306 0.320797 -0.099552 1.0000000
Source: EViews 12 Multicollinearity Test
Based on table 6, the value of the correlation coefficient between the independent variables is
below 0.80, meaning that the independent variables in the model are free from multicollinearity
problems.
Table 7: Heteroscedasticity Test
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistics Prob.
C 0.005409 0.003554 1.521894 0.1311
SRDI -0.006437 0.009468 -0.679943 0.4981
FR 1.74E-06 4.20E-05 0.041419 0.9670
KI -4.92E-05 0.001823 -0.026987 0.9785
VAIC 0.000172 0.000168 1.019823 0.3102
Source: EViews 12 Heteroscedasticity Test
Based on the table of heteroscedasticity test results, the method glacier, the probability value
is above 0.05, and the results show that there is no heteroscedasticity problem.
Page 9 of 13
43
Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.104.12097
Hypothesis testing
Table 8: Coefficient of Determination Test Results
R2
R-squared 0.953323
Adjusted R-squared 0.951510
Source: EViews 12 Coefficient of Determination Test (R2)
The effect of the independent variables (SRDI, FR, KI, and VAIC) on the dependent variable
Return on Assets (ROA) is 0.95150, or 95.15%, while the remaining 4.85% is free, explained by
other variables proposed in this study.
Table 9: Model Conformity Test Results
F Test
F-statistics 525.9152
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Source: EViews 12 Test Results (F test)
The results show a statistical value of 525.9152 with a probability of 0.000000 < 0.05, indicating
that the model hypothesis in this study is feasible to use.
Table 10: Test the significance of individual parameters (t test)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistics Prob.
C -0.008040 0.004611 -1.743711 0.0842
SRDI 0.000634 0.012047 0.052665 0.9581
FR 0.000111 5.06E-05 2.189907 0.0308
KI -0.000287 0.002109 -0.136276 0.8919
VAIC 0.007876 0.000176 44,86765 0.0000
Source: EViews 12 Test the significance of individual with random effects models
Based on the results of the t test, it shows the effect of the independent variables SRDI, FR, KI,
and VAIC on the dependent variable ROA as follows:
a) Sustainability Disclosure SRDI to ROA coefficient value is 0.000634 with a probability
value of 0.9581 > 0.05 not significant.
b) Frequency of Board of Commissioners Meeting to ROA coefficient value of 0.000111
with value on probability 0.0308 < 0.05 significant.
c) Institutional ownership to ROA coefficient value of -0.000287 with value on probability
0.8919 > 0.05 not significant.
d) Intellectual Capital to ROA coefficient value of 0.007876 with value on probability
0.0000 < 0.05 significant.
Effect of Sustainability Disclosure to Return on Assets
The first hypothesis which states that sustainability disclosure has a positive effect on return
on assets, so that H1 is rejected. The results of this study are not in line with the Stakeholder's
Page 10 of 13
44
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
theory which states that the benefits of carrying out business activities are not only paying
attention to the interests of the entity but also paying attention to the responsibilities as a result
of its activities to parties who cooperate with the company. The results in this study are in line
with research by Shinta (2018), Shinta Melzatia et al., (2018), Permata Sari & Andreas (2019)
and Desiy et al., (2018) which states that the disclosure of Sustainability does not affect the
Return on Assets (ROA). This is because the Sustainability Disclosure has an effect if the period
of time used is relatively long in disclosing the items in the Sustainability Report Disclosure
Index (SRDI).
Effect of Frequency of Board of Commissioners Meetings to Return on Assets
This result is in line with the second hypothesis, which states that the frequency of Board of
Commissioners' meetings has a positive effect on the return on assets, so that H2 is accepted.
The results of this study are in accordance with stakeholder theory, which states that the
stronger the company's relationship, the better the company will be. The supervision carried
out by the board of commissioners in the meeting of members of the board of Commissioners
functions as a coordination and communication activity between members of the board of
commissioners in carrying out their duties as management supervisors. The results of this
study are in line with Muchtar & Darari, (2016), Sagala (2019), and Yunina (2020), which state
that the frequency of Board of Commissioners' meetings affects return on assets (ROA). This is
because the more active and high frequency of meetings or meetings of the board of
commissioners can increase the effectiveness of the performance of the board of
commissioners. These results indicate that the Board of Commissioners, which has a high
frequency of meetings, is able to affect the company's financial performance, especially the
value of return on assets.
Effect of Institutional Ownership to Return on Assets
The third hypothesis, stating institutional ownership has a positive effect on return on assets,
so that H3 is rejected. The results of this study are not in accordance with stakeholder theory,
which has the function of providing confidence to shareholders regarding company supervision
and where investors will receive a return on their investment. The results of this study are in
line with Indrawati et al., (2020), Sari & Utami (2019), Rantung et al., (2019), and Princess
(2020), which state that institutional ownership has no effect on return on assets. This is
because the majority owners of institutions participate in controlling the company and tend to
act in their own interests, even if they have to sacrifice the interests of minority institutional
owners. Therefore, institutional ownership causes the process of monitoring management to
be ineffective so that it is not able to maximize company profitability as measured by return on
assets.
Effect of Intellectual Capital to Return on Assets
This result is in line with the fourth hypothesis which states that Intellectual Capital take effect
positive towards Return on Assets, so that H4 is accepted. The results of this study are in
accordance with stakeholder theory, which explains how companies are managed and
developed to maintain their competitive level. The results of this study are in line with Ahmad
Badawi (2018), Avci (2017), Nikmah & Apriyanti (2016), and Nadeem et al., (2017)that asserts
intellectual capital has an impact on asset return. This is due to the higher intellectual capital,
which means the higher the return on assets. This means that the greater the intellectual capital
of a company, the greater the profitability that will be generated. Intellectual capital is a
Page 11 of 13
45
Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.104.12097
significant factor in a company, so companies with more intellectual capital will be able to
generate better profitability.
CONCLUSION
This study aims to determine and examine the effects of independent variables, namely
sustainability disclosure, board of commissioners meeting frequency, institutional ownership,
and intellectual capital on the dependent variable, namely return on assets. Based on the results
of hypothesis testing in the research and discussion data analysis that has been carried out, it
can be concluded that Sustainability Disclosure has no significant effect on return on assets, the
frequency of board of commissioners' meetings has a significant effect on return on assets,
institutional ownership has no significant effect on return on assets, and intellectual capital has
a significant positive effect on return on assets.
The theoretical implications in this study are expected to contribute to theory development or
provide insight and understanding related to the scope of sustainability disclosure, corporate
governance mechanisms, intellectual capital, and return on assets in banking companies in
Indonesia. The development of this theory is the basis of practical implications, so that the
results of this study can be used as additional information for researchers, investors,
shareholders, and stakeholders in assessing a financial report, in particular for companies in
the banking sub-sector. There are limitations to this study. The sample is limited to the scope
of the banking company sector, the research period is only 4 years, and financial performance
is only proxied by return on assets. It is recommended for further research using samples in
different sectors, research periods with a longer period of time, and adding different variables
outside of the variables in this study.
References
Avci, E. (2017). Intellectual capital and its impact on firm performance of the Turkish financial sector before and
after the financial crisis. Pressacademia, 3(1), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2017.674
Badawi, A. (2018). The Influence of Good Corporate Governance and Intellectual Capital on Corporate Financial
Performance in Indonesian Banking (Empirical Study on the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2015-2017). JDM Journal,
1(02), 74–86.
Bukhori, MRT, & Sopian, D. (2017). The Effect of Sustainability Report Disclosure on Financial Performance.
SIKAP Journal (Information Systems, Finance, Auditing and Taxation), 2(1), 35.
https://doi.org/10.32897/jsikap.v2i1.62
Candradewi, I., & Sedana, IBP (2016). Influence of management ownership, ownership Faculty of Economics and
Business Udayana University (Unud), Bali, Indonesia INTRODUCTION Facing competitive business competition,
companies are trying to improve performance and develop businesses to seek. 5(5), 3163–3190.
Darwis, Herman. 2009. Corporate Governace Terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. Jurnal Keuangan Dan Perbankan,
Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2009, hal. 418-430.
Desiy Ema Sakiyah, M. Agus Salim, &, & Priyono, AA (2018). The Effect of Sustainability Report Disclosure on
Financial Performance in Banking Companies Listed on the IDX 2016-2018. E-Journal of Management Research,
53(9), 1689–1699.
Dwi Wahyuni, P. (2020). Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting Practices: Market Dimension of
Financial Performance. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 22(1), 1.
Ghozali, I. (2017). Analisis Multivariat dan Ekonometrika Teori Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan Eviews 10.
Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Page 12 of 13
46
Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 10, Issue 4, April-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Hamdani, 2016. Good Corporate Governance (Tinjauan Etika Dalam Praktik Bisnis), Jakarta: Mitra Wacana
Media.
Indrawati, L., Suci, M., & Andiani, ND (2020). The Effect of Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social
Responsibility on Profitability in Mining Companies. Prospects: Journal of Management and Business, 2(1), 40.
https://doi.org/10.23887/pjmb.v2i1.26188
Joesmana, WA (2017). The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility and Good Corporate Governance on
Financial Performance (Study on the Mining Sector Listed on the IDX 2013-2015). Essay.
Kartika, S., & Utami, W. (2019). Effect of Corporate Governance Mechanisms on Financial Performance and Firm
Value with Green Accounting Disclosure as Moderating Variables. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting,
10(24), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.7176/rjfa/10-24-16
Katutari, RA, Nur, E., & Yuyetta, A. (2019). The Effect of Institutional Ownership, Characteristics of the Board of
Commissioners and the Audit Committee on Profitability. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 8(3), 1–12.
Makhlouf, MH, Laili, NH, Basah, MYA, & Ramli, NA (2017). Board of Directors' Effectiveness and Firm
Performance: Evidence from Jordan. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(18), 23–34.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320130813
Muallifin, OR, & Priyadi, MP (2016). Impact of Sustainability Report Disclosure on. Journal of Accounting Science
and Research, 5(11).
Muchtar, S., & Darari, E. (2016). The Effect of Corporate Governance on the Performance of Manufacturing
Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Journal of Service Management and Marketing, 6, 109.
https://doi.org/10.25105/jmpj.v6i0.511
Nadeem, M., Gan, C., & Nguyen, C. (2017). Does intellectual capital efficiency improve firm performance in BRICS
economies? A dynamic panel estimation. Measuring Business Excellence, 21(1), 65–85.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-12-2015-0055
Nadila, DL, & Annisa, AA (2021). The Effect of GCG, Intellectual Capital, and CAR on Financial Performance Using
Islamic Social Reporting as an Intervening Variable. Al-Intaj: Journal of Islamic Banking and Economics, 7(2),
215–232. https://ejournal.iainbengkulu.ac.id/index.php/Al-Intaj/article/view/4634
Nassar, S. (2018). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Corporate Performance of IT Companies: Evidence from
the Istanbul Stock Exchange. International Journal of Business Ethics and Governance, 1(3), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.51325/ijbeg.v1i3.17
Nikmah, N., & Apriyanti, H. (2019). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Financial Performance of
Manufacturing Companies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting, 6(1), 53–74.
https://doi.org/10.33369/j.akuntansi.6.1.53-74
Permata Sari, IA, & Andreas, HH (2019). The Effect of Sustainability Reporting Disclosures on Corporate Finances
in Indonesia. International Journal of Social Science and Business, 3(3), 206.
https://doi.org/10.23887/ijssb.v3i3.20998
Porter, IH, Petersen, W., & Brown, CD (1969). Double autosomal trisomy (trisomy D+G) with mosaicism. Journal
of Medical Genetics, 6(3), 347–348. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.6.3.347
Prawira, BY, & Setiawan, R. (2019). Intellectual Capital and Firm Performance - Evidence from Indonesia. ICPs,
951–956. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007554609510956
Puni, A., & Anlesinya, A. (2020). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm performance in a developing
country. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-
2019-0076
Purwanto, Djoko, S., Wiwin, TA, & Erna, S. (2018). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance: A
Comparative Study of South East Asia's Hospitality Industries. Review of Integrative Business and Economics
Research, 7(2), 62–70.
Puspitandari, J., & Septiani, A. (2017). The Effect of Sustainability Report Disclosure on Banking Performance.
Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 6(3), 159–170.
Page 13 of 13
47
Yuliana, N., & Utami, W. (2022). The Effect of Sustainability Disclosure, Good Corporate Governance Mechanism and Intellectual Capital on Return on
Assets. Archives of Business Research, 10(04). 35-47.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.104.12097
Putra, A., & Nuzula, N. (2017). influence of corporate governance on profitability (Study on Banking Companies
Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2013-2015 Period). Journal of Business Administration S1 Universitas
Brawijaya, 47(1), 103–112.
Rantung, Y., Murni, S., Maramis, JB, Economics, F., Business, D., Management, J., Sam, U., & Manado, R. (2019). The
Effect of Institutional Ownership, Market Share, Corporate Governance on the Profitability of Manufacturing
Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2013-2017 Period. EMBA Journal: Journal of
Economic Research, Management, Business And Accounting, 7(3), 2681–2690.
https://doi.org/10.35794/emba.v7i3.23719
Rimardhani, H., Hidayat, R., & Dwiatmanto, D. (2016). The Effect of Good Corporate Governance Mechanisms on
Company Profitability (Study on State-Owned Companies Listed on the Stock Exchange in 2012-2014). Journal of
Business Administration S1 Universitas Brawijaya, 31(1), 167–175.
Shinta Melzatia, Caturida. M. Doctoralina, Dewi Anggraini, S. (2018). The Importance of Sustainability Reports In
Non-Financial Companies. Journal of Accounting, 22(3), 368. https://doi.org/10.24912/ja.v22i3.394
Supriatna, N., & M. Kusuma, A. (2017). The Influence of Good Corporate Governance on Company Performance.
ASET Journal (Research Accounting), 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v1i1.8907
Utami, W., Surjandari, D., & Akbar, T. (2020). Corporate Governance and Earnings Quality: Students Perception in
Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.26-3-2019.2290923
Waluyo, W. (2019). the Effect of Good Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance: Empirical Study of the
Indonesian Banking Company. The Accounting Journal of Business Development, 2(02), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.33062/ajb.v2i02.92
Warislan, P., Putra, WE, & Tiswiyanti, W. (2019). The Effect of Accounting Conservatism and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure on Earnings Management (Empirical Study on Mining Companies Listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange 2015-2017 Period). Journal of Accounting And Auditing, 15(2), 221–243.
https://doi.org/10.14710/jaa.15.2.221-243
Wijayanti, R., & Surakarta, UM (2016). The Effect of Sustainability Reportter Disclosure on Company's Financial
Performance. National Institute Economic Review, 59(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/002795017205900102
Yadhi George Makarios Sagala, PBH (2019). The effect of the involvement of the board of directors on the
company's performance. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 8(3), 1–11.
Yunina, F. (2020). The Influence of Good Corporate Governance on the Financial Performance of Islamic
Commercial Banks in 2015-2017. Muhammadiyah Accounting Journal, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.37598/jam.v10i1.779