Summary of “Corporate Responses to Sustainability Issues: Are They Rhetorical?” (Sisdyani et al., 2025, Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting)
This paper examines how large Indonesian companies use rhetorical strategies in their voluntary sustainability reports to respond to growing environmental and social accountability pressures. It explores whether these disclosures represent genuine transparency or rhetorical symbolism, and how they reflect institutional decoupling—the gap between symbolic compliance and substantive action.
The study seeks to answer two main questions:
(1) What rhetorical strategies do Indonesian companies use to navigate sustainability pressures?
(2) How do these strategies reflect the process of decoupling as explained by institutional theory?
By integrating the rhetorical frameworks of Benoit (1995), Bolino and Turnley (2003), and Shrives and Brennan (2017), the study classifies rhetorical responses into seven categories: evasion, excusing, positive image, downplaying, attack, rectification, and relationship-building. These strategies are analysed within institutional theory to understand how corporations maintain legitimacy while avoiding substantive change.
Corporate sustainability reporting in Indonesia has expanded rapidly since the early 2000s, especially after OJK Regulation No. 51/2017 mandated reporting for listed and financial companies. However, weak enforcement, cultural emphasis on harmony, and political discretion have created conditions for symbolic compliance rather than deep reform.
Many companies use sustainability reports as tools for impression management, emphasising achievements and selectively omitting failures. In emerging markets such as Indonesia, sustainability communication thus becomes a legitimacy instrument rather than a genuine accountability mechanism.
The study addresses this gap by analysing how rhetorical narratives in sustainability reports are strategically employed to project responsibility and manage reputation over a longitudinal period (2006–2023).
The analysis is grounded in institutional theory, particularly the concept of decoupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Bromley & Powell, 2012). Organisations often adopt symbolic structures that comply with institutional expectations while internal practices remain unchanged.
Rhetorical strategies act as symbolic devices—they allow firms to appear aligned with social norms and regulatory standards without committing to costly operational change. The paper links these strategies to impression management and image restoration theories, showing how corporate rhetoric supports legitimacy under pressure from regulators, investors, and society.
The study employs a mixed qualitative design combining:
Each report was coded for 19 rhetorical responses grouped into seven categories. Interviews provided interpretive depth—revealing managerial reasoning behind disclosure decisions, stakeholder engagement, and reputation management.
Ethical protocols included informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymisation (e.g., COMP1–COMP18). Triangulation and member checking strengthened reliability and validity.
(a) Dominance of Positive Image Strategies
Among all categories, bolstering was most prevalent (used in 92 reports, 64%), while simple denial appeared least (14 reports). Companies highlight achievements to offset negative performance and sustain legitimacy.
“We highlight community programs and green initiatives, especially after any negative media attention.” – COMP14
Such statements illustrate symbolic optimism—projects are emphasised to portray progress rather than disclose shortcomings.
(b) Evasion and Excusing as Defensive Rhetoric
About one-third of reports used evasion or excusing tactics. Firms often blamed external factors such as global price volatility, contractors, or regulation for poor performance:
“The price of coal sold by subsidiaries is determined by factors beyond the company’s control.” – COMP6
This reflects strategic contextualisation, where firms justify sustainability failures as consequences of uncontrollable environments.
(c) Limited Corrective and Relationship-Building Actions
While 24% of reports showed corrective actions, true admission of fault (mortification) or compensation was absent. Firms portrayed themselves as responsive but rarely self-critical, suggesting a controlled form of accountability designed to reassure stakeholders without exposing vulnerability.
“Corrective, preventive, and assistance actions were provided for impacted communities.” – COMP14
Relationship-building strategies (e.g., self-promotion, attribution) appeared in 42% of reports, showing companies’ efforts to rebuild goodwill and sustain trust.
(d) Absence of Downplaying Strategies
Interestingly, none of the companies used explicit minimisation or transcendence tactics. Managers explained that downplaying issues risks losing credibility among informed stakeholders. This indicates a shift toward managed transparency, where selective disclosure replaces overt denial.
Interviews revealed six recurring motivations behind rhetorical sustainability disclosures:
Overall, sustainability reporting in Indonesia is a carefully managed narrative process, where rhetoric mediates between external legitimacy and internal constraints.
The findings confirm that symbolic and substantive logics coexist within corporate sustainability communication. Rhetorical strategies function as decoupling mechanisms—maintaining legitimacy by projecting compliance while actual practices lag behind.
This pattern illustrates institutional isomorphism: under coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures, Indonesian firms imitate global standards (GRI, SASB) to appear credible, yet reporting remains an exercise in perception management.
Culturally, Indonesia’s collectivist orientation encourages consensus and conflict avoidance, reinforcing non-confrontational rhetoric. Rather than direct denial, companies prefer moral framing, contextual justification, and stakeholder alignment to maintain social harmony and corporate reputation.
The study focuses on large-cap Indonesian firms, limiting generalisability to smaller or private enterprises. Relying on self-reported documents and managerial interviews may underrepresent dissenting or external stakeholder views.
Future research could: