Pengaruh Ketidakseimbangan dan Kompleksitas Informasi Laporan Keberlanjutan terhadap Niat Perilaku Pro-Lingkungan: Studi Eksperimen

Arya Aji Aditya, I Made Narsa



This study aims to investigate the effect of information imbalance and information complexity on intentions to engage in pro-environmental behavior. This research employed a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design. Participants in this study were undergraduate and master's level accounting students who acted as employees reading the company's sustainability reports. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data in this study. The results of the analysis indicate that information imbalance has no significant effect on pro-environmental behavioral intentions, while information complexity has a significant positive effect on such intentions. The interaction results indicate that information imbalance variables and information complexity do not interact to produce any effect. According to the findings of the analysis, information imbalance in the form of only presenting negative information can be eliminated with the ability, effort, and access to a wide range of information as well as the surrounding environment. In addition, the complexity of information that is easy to read is preferred by readers because it is simple to comprehend and encourages more actions based on prioritized values. The lack of interaction between the two independent variables demonstrates that they move by mutually inhibiting each other.

Keywords: Information complexity; Information imbalance; Pro-environmental behavior intentions.


Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji pengaruh ketidakseimbangan informasi dan kompleksitas informasi terhadap niat berperilaku pro-lingkungan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode eksperimen faktorial 2 × 2. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa sarjana dan magister akuntansi yang berperan sebagai karyawan yang membaca laporan keberlanjutan perusahaan. Teknik analisis data dalam penelitian ini menggunakan two way-ANOVA. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada pengaruh utama pada ketidakseimbangan informasi terhadap niat perilaku pro-lingkungan, sedangkan terdapat pengaruh utama yang positif pada kompleksitas informasi terhadap niat perilaku pro-lingkungan. Adapun hasil interaksi menunjukkan tidak ditemukan pengaruh interaksi antara variabel ketidakseimbangan informasi dan kompleksitas informasi. Berdasarkan hasil analisis, ketidakseimbangan informasi berupa penyajian informasi negatif saja dapat dieliminasi dengan kemampuan dan usaha dalam diri serta aksestabilitas informasi yang beragam dan lingkungan. Selain itu, jenis kompleksitas informasi yang mudah terbaca lebih disukai oleh pembaca karena mudah untuk dipahami sehingga meningkatkan tindakan berdasarkan nilai prioritas yang dipercayai. Adapun tidak ditemukannya interaksi antar dua variabel independen membuktikan kedua variabel bergerak dengan saling menghambat.

Kata kunci: Ketidakseimbangan informasi; Kompleksitas informasi; Niat perilaku pro-lingkungan.


Adhariani, D., & du Toit, E. (2020). Readability of sustainability reports: evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), 621–636.

Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 109–125.

Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The teaching of ethics in management accounting: progress and prospects. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(1), 52–61.

Barone, C., Assirelli, G., Abbiati, G., Argentin, G., & De Luca, D. (2018). Social origins, relative risk aversion and track choice: A field experiment on the role of information biases. Acta Sociologica (United Kingdom), 61(4), 441–459.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.

Boiral, O., & Henri, J. F. (2017). Is Sustainability Performance Comparable? A Study of GRI Reports of Mining Organizations. Business and Society, 56(2), 283–317.

Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2020). Sustainability reporting assurance: Creating stakeholder accountability through hyperreality? Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 1–17.

Brunk, K. H., & de Boer, C. (2018). How do Consumers Reconcile Positive and Negative CSR-Related Information to Form an Ethical Brand Perception? A Mixed Method Inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(2), 443–458.

Chang, M.-C., & Wu, C.-C. (2015). The effect of message framing on pro-environmental behavior intentions: An information processing view. British Food Journal, 117(1), 339–357.

Crnković, B., Pekanov StarÄević, D., & Zrnić, A. (2020). Recent trends in sustainability reporting: Literature review and implications for future research. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 33(1), 271–283.

de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conservation Letters, 1–6.

Dienes, D., Sassen, R., & Fischer, J. (2016). What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(2), 154–189.

Du Toit, E. (2017). The readability of integrated reports. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4), 629–653.

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108.

Endenich, C., & Trapp, R. (2020). Ethical Implications of Management Accounting and Control: A Systematic Review of the Contributions from the Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(2), 309–328.

Fitriasari, D., & Kawahara, N. (2018). Japan investment and Indonesia sustainability reporting: an isomorphism perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(4), 859–874.

Garcia-Torres, S., Rey-Garcia, M., & Albareda-Vivo, L. (2017). Effective disclosure in the fast-fashion industry: From sustainability reporting to action. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(12).

Greaves, M., Zibarras, L. D., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120.

Hąbek, P., & Wolniak, R. (2016). Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Quality and Quantity, 50(1), 399–420.

Hoozée, S., Maussen, S., & Vangronsveld, P. (2019). The impact of readability of corporate social responsibility information on credibility as perceived by generalist versus specialist readers. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(3), 570–591.

Huang, H. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206–2212.

Jahn, J., & Brühl, R. (2019). Can bad news be good? On the positive and negative effects of including moderately negative information in CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Research, 97(December 2017), 117–128.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution Theory and Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.

Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61.

KPMG. (2020). The time has come! The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020.

Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 27–39.

Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137.

Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR ( corporate social responsibility ) reports in Europe . Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186–200.

Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361–367.

Malcolm, S., & Taffler, R. (1992). Readability and Understandability: Different Measures of the Textual Complexity of Accounting Narrative Malcolm. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journa, 5(4).

Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). Negativity bias in consumer price response to ethical information. Business Ethics, 21(2), 198–208.

Nagel, P. J. F. (2013). Studi Eksploratori Pola Atribusi Keberhasilan Dan Kegagalan Bisnis : Sebuah Persepsi Dari Pengusaha Kecil Dan Mikro Pribumi Dan Tionghoa Di Surabaya. Proceeding Seminar Nasional Dan Call for Papers SANCALL, 978–979.

Nazari, J. A., Hrazdil, K., & Mahmoudian, F. (2017). Assessing social and environmental performance through narrative complexity in CSR reports. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 13(2), 166–178.

Nilipour, A., De Silva, T. A., & Li, X. (2020). The readability of sustainability reporting in new zealand over time. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 14(3), 86–107.

Ones, D. S., Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., & Klein, R. (2015). Pro-Environmental Behavior. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (Second Edi, Vol. 19). Elsevier.

Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2020). Pro-environmental organizational culture: Its essence and a concept for its operationalization. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(10).

Raza, A., Farrukh, M., Iqbal, M. K., Farhan, M., & Wu, Y. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(3), 1104–1116.

Rezaee, Z., Rezaee, J., & Homayoun, S. (2016). Integration of Business Sustainability Education into the Business Curriculum. International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting, 1(2), 1–8.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.

Searcy, C., & Buslovich, R. (2014). Corporate Perspectives on the Development and Use of Sustainability Reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 149–169.

Sethi, S. P., & Schepers, D. H. (2014). United Nations Global Compact: The Promise-Performance Gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 193–208.

Shah, S. H. A., Cheema, S., Al-Ghazali, B. M., Ali, M., & Rafiq, N. (2021). Perceived corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behaviors: The role of organizational identification and coworker pro-environmental advocacy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 366–377.

Shields, D., Verga, F., & Blengini, G. A. (2014). A study of goal frames shaping pro-environmental behaviour in university students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(4), 390–403.

Smith, N. K., Larsen, J. T., Chartrand, T. L., Cacioppo, J. T., Katafiasz, H. A., & Moran, K. E. (2006). Being bad isn’t always good: Affective context moderates the attention bias toward negative information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 210–220.

Steg, L. (2016). Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 277–292.

Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant Attitudes, Preferences, and Actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163–192.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.

van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., & van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5541–5549.

Wang, Z., Hsieh, T. S., & Sarkis, J. (2018). CSR Performance and the Readability of CSR Reports: Too Good to be True? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 66–79.

Wu, D., & Pupovac, S. (2019). Information overload in csr reports in China: An exploratory study. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 13(3), 3–28.

Yang, X., Chen, L., Wei, L., & Su, Q. (2020). Personal and media factors related to citizens’ pro-environmental behavioral intention against haze in China: A moderating analysis of TPB. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7).



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Lisensi Creative Commons Web Analytics Web Analytics

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

Lt. 2 Gedung Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati Jalan Pemuda No.32, Sunyaragi, Kesambi, Kota Cirebon, Jawa Barat 45132