The Influence of Company Characteristics and Corporate Governance
Toward Environmental Disclosures and The Effects on Environmental
Performance
CAECILIA LIDYA SUPIANTO
Ernst & Younge-mail:caecilia.supianto@id.ey.com

INUGRAH RATIA PRATIWIHarapan Bangsa Business School
Institut Teknologi Harapan Bangsa
e-mail: inugrah@ithb.ac.id

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research is to investigate the influence of company characteristics and corporate
governance toward environmental disclosures and the effects on environmental performance. The samples arecompanies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange and participated in Company’s Environmental Rating Program(PROPER). The research method used is path analysis. Exogenous variables researched are size, leverage,
independent commissioner proportion, number of audit committee meeting, and environmental disclosure.
Variable endogenous researched is environmental performance.
This research shows only size (total asset) that has significant influence. The total contribution fromcompany’s size toward environmental performance is 11.97% from direct and indirect influence. It means if
total asset increases and company does environmental disclosures, the environmental performance will
improve. Company must disclose their total asset and environmental activity to get better assessment ofenvironmental performance by stakeholders and to get better reporting.
Keywords: company characteristics, corporate governance, environmental disclosure, environmental
performance.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Public awareness about the global issue of environment has been increased. It ismarked with the increasing number of assessment conducted to know how good wasenvironmental performance in every country in the world. Based on Environmental
Performance Index (EPI) by Yale University (2014), Indonesia got 112th rank for its
environmental performance with score 44.36 from 100 and 16th rank from 24 countries in the
East Asia and Pacific. This fact proved that Indonesia still had much work to improve its
environmental performance to obtain a better rank.
The need for improved environmental performance in Indonesia led to theGovernment's efforts to promote the management of the environment. The Government madean assessment of the company's performance by launching Company’s Environmental Rating
Program (PROPER) in management of the environment area for every two years. PROPER’s
objective is to encourage company's environmental performance through the compliancetoward environmental regulation and law. The company that participated in PROPER must
provide access of information, transparency, and public participation in its environmental
management activity. This is in accordance with the Decision of the Minister of theEnvironment Number 18 year 2010 about PROPER in management of the environment.
In order to assess the company’s environmental performance in Indonesia, every
activity of environmental management must be reported through environmental disclosure.
Sometimes there are companies who do not explain completely all of their environmental
management activities. It will impact on the result of environmental performance assessmentthat become unsatisfactory. There are also several companies that have explained1environmental activities completely but they still do not get satisfactory result ofenvironmental performance assessment.
The disclosure of environmental information can be influenced by company
characteristic (Mirfazli and Nurdiono 2007) and also corporate governance (Eng and Mak
2001). Every company has different characteristic and it causes the level of information
disclosure being performed is also different. Company characteristic can be associated withthe company size and leverage. Company who has high leverage will reduce its information
disclosure because information disclosure affects to cost and reduce company’s income(Rusdianto 2013).
Besides company characteristic, every public company has to do corporate
governance. Board of commissioner is a part of company that is in charge of conducting
control and ensure company has done corporate governance. One of commissioners’
principles in doing their tasks is they must be effective, accurate, fast, and independent inmaking decision (National Committee of Governance Regulation 2006). Independent
commissioner and audit committee are functions for increasing control toward management
behavior to do voluntary disclosure in corporate annual report (Rosenstein and Wyatt 1990).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Accounting Theory
Agency theory developed by Jensen and Meckling 1976 that defined agency theory as
a contract between one or more principal with other parties (agent) to run principal’s businessand make decision for principal. (Deegan and Unerman 2011) mentioned that company needs
control mechanism so the management will act according to the needs of principal. Based on
the two opinions, agency theory can be concluded that it is a contract between principal andagent which agent is given a privilege to run and make decision in the business of principal
and the privilege followed by control mechanism for management (agent).
Legitimacy theory occurred between organization and community where company getprivilege for operating business (Forst and Wilmshurst 1999). According to (Deegan and
Unerman 2011), organizations will search for a support from external parties so theorganizations can operate and do their business activity so the organization must implement
sufficient ethics of environment. Therefore, legitimacy theory can be concluded as a privilege
permission from community to organizations so the organizations can operate their businessactivity and operation within community’s environment.
Social contract theory is a theory about company and community where company andcommunity do gives and takes or have mutual benefit for each other. (Deegan and Unerman2011) mentioned that social contract related to community which is give operational
legitimation to company for using their natural and human resources in exchange with getting
benefit from company. Therefore, company and community will have mutual relationshipbecause company get the legitimation for operating and community get benefit fromcompany.
2.2 Environmental Performance
To assess environmental economic practice, Ministry of the Environment launched
Assessment of Company Performance Program in environmental management that is known
as PROPER. PROPER has purpose to encourage the increasing of environmental
management by spreading information of company’s environmental management
performance (Ministry of the Environment 2010). Assessment of PROPER can bedifferentiated into two categories: compliance assessment and beyond compliance. There are
five rating from PROPER assessment that can be used to determine company’s

2environmental performance: gold (excellent), green (very good), blue (good), red (bad), andblack (very bad).
2.3 Environmental Disclosure
Environmental disclosure is information reported and related to environment incorporate’s annual report (Suhardjanto 2010). Environmental disclosure is a form ofcorporate social responsibility and a way to achieve company’s sustainability (Rusdianto2013). Environmental disclosure gives information of activity performed by company related
to environment and the uses of natural resources to the stakeholder.
Assessment of environmental disclosure can be standardized using Global Reporting
Initiatives (GRI) standard that has been used in many companies in the world. Indicators usedin GRI standard consists financial, environmental, and social aspects. There are 34
environmental aspect indicators to measure environmental disclosure in this research.
2.4 Company Characteristic
2.4.1 Size
(Rusdianto 2013) defined that size can influence the scope of information disclosurein the corporate annual report. Large company will disclose more information than small
company. On the other hand, small companies will not disclosure too many information
because they are in a situation which have tight competition with other companies. The
company size can be measured with natural logarithm from total assets.
2.4.2 Leverage(Rusdianto 2013) defined leverage as a comparison between liabilities and equity thatis used by company to support company’s activity from external parties. Information
disclosure can increase cost to the company and reduce income. Based on agency theory andits relation to company’s management, high disclosure of information will affect expenditureand reduce company’s income. High leverage will reduce social responsibility disclosure
because it will add cost to the company or reduce company and affect creditor opinion toward
company (Sembiring 2005). Therefore, leverage can be measured with total liabilities divided
by total equity.
2.5 Corporate Governance2.5.1 Independent Commissioner Proportion
The board of commissioner responsible to control and give advice to director toensure company has done GCG (National Committee of Governance Regulation 2006).
Independent commissioner is parties that they do not have business and family relationshipwith controlling shareholder, member of director, other commissioner, and the company
itself. The number of independent commissioner must guarantee company’s control run
effectively and the same with regulation or law. One of the independent commissioners musthave accounting or finance background.
The larger number of commissioner, it make the easier to control CEO and do
effective control. The pressure toward management will be huge to do social responsibility
disclosure. Agency theory said that the board of commissioner is the highest mechanism ofcompany’s internal control which has responsibility to monitoring top management conduct(Rusdianto 2013). The board of commissioner can also control management to increase
voluntary information disclosure in company’s annual report (Suhardjanto 2010).
Independent commissioner can control the implementation of corporate governanceobjectively than general commissioner. Therefore, this research will analyze independent3

commissioner proportion using total independent commissioner divided by totalcommissioner.
2.5.2 Number Of Audit Committee Meeting
The board of commissioner can perform their function of controlling assisted by audit
committee. Audit committee is a committee which assisted the board of commissioner toensure several things (National Committee of Governance Regulation 2006) such as financial
report has been fair disclosed according to standard, company’s structure of internal control
has been performed correctly, internal and external audit implementation has been performed
according to audit standard and follow up of audit findings that has been performed bymanagement.
Based on company corporate governance regulation, audit committee meeting must
be done four times in a year (Suhardjanto 2010). The objective is to increasing audit
committee performance according to their tasks and functions. The frequent meeting occurs,
audit committee is expected to improve their performance in implementing company’s
corporate governance control. The number of audit committee meeting can be measured bycounting the number their meeting in a year.
2.6 Previous ResearchThis research is performed with previous research conducted as references.
(Sembiring 2005) performed an analysis of company characteristic toward social
responsibility disclosure. The result were size, profile, and commissioner size had positive
influence toward CSR. Profitability and leverage had negative influence toward CSR.
(Suhardjanto 2010) performed an analysis of corporate governance and company
characteristic toward environmental disclosure. The result was ethnic background ofpresident com-missioner, leverage, and profitability were influencing factor of environmental
disclosure. Ethnic background of president commissioner and size had positive influence
toward environmental disclosure, leverage had negative influence.
(Pagalung, et al. 2014) performed an analysis of financial resources capability, andcompany characteristic toward environmental performance through corporate disclosure. The
result was capability was an important variable in achieving environmental performance.
Company characteristic had an effect on environmental performance.
2.7 Hypothesis Formulation
Based on the research background, problems, previous research, theories, literature
review, and research model, these are the formulated hypothesis in this research:
H1: Size influences environmental disclosure
H2: Leverage influences environmental disclosure
H3: Independent commissioner proportion influences environmental disclosure
H4: Number of audit committee meeting influences environmental disclosure
H5: Environmental disclosure influences environmental performance
H6: Size influences environmental performance
H7: Leverage influences environmental performance
H8: Independent commissioner proportion influences environmental performanceH9: Number of audit committee meeting influences environmental performance
3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Method And Variables
Research method in this research is using path analysis. Path analysis is used toanalyze the path relationship between variables with a purpose to know direct influence or4

indirect influence a group of exogenous variable toward endogenous variable (Riduwan andKuncoro 2014). Path analysis can also observe influencing path mechanism between
exogenous variable toward endogenous variable. The exogenous variable is equivalent of
independent variable which had an arrow to outside of the model. The endogenous variable isequivalent to dependent variable, have one or more arrows into the model (Hair et al. 2014).
Size (X1), leverage (X2), independent commissioner proportion (X3), number of audit
committee meeting (X4), and environmental disclosure (Y) are exogenous variables withscale ratio. Environmental performance (Z) is endogenous variables with scale ratio. Because
every variable used scale ratio, the variables can be used for hypothesis testing with multiple
regression.
3.2 Population, Sample, And Data
This research population used public companies that are listed in Indonesia Stock
Exchange (ISE) within 2011-2013 as the population. The total number of this population in2013 is 459 companies. Sample collection technique that is chosen is purposive sampling
using several criteria, such public companies that published annual and financial reports
consistently and completely within 2011-2013 in ISE, public companies participated in
PROPER within 2011-2013, and public companies participated consistently in PROPER
within 2011-2013 period. The number of this research sample is 29 public companies(Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014; Ministry of the Environment 2011-2013). Data collection
techniques that are used in this research are seconder data from annual report Indonesia Stock
Exchange 2011-2013.
3.3 Data Analysis Method
Data analysis method in this research is used path analysis. Path analysis is used toanalyze the result from hypothesis test to know the direct and indirect influence between
exogenous and endogenous variables.
There are two sub path diagrams from this research model that are used in hypothesis
test. The first path diagram will test size, leverage, independent commissioner proportion, andnumber of audit committee meeting toward environmental disclosure. The second path
diagram will test size, leverage, independent commissioner proportion, number of audit
committee meeting, and environmental disclosure toward environmental performance
directly. The second path diagram will also test size, leverage, independent commissioner
proportion, and number of audit committee meeting toward environmental performancethrough environmental disclosure as indirect influence.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Result Of Data Analysis
4.1.1 Correlation Test Result
The correlation test result in this research varied from weak and very weak correlation
between the variables researched. Even though the correlations between variables are weak,the variables still can be used in path analysis. The correlation test results are as thefollowings Table 1 and Table 2.
4.1.1.1 Correlation Of Size And Leverage
The relationship between size and leverage is very weak with correlation (r) = 0.009.
Contribution of size toward leverage is 0.0081% and vice versa. It means the rest contributionthat cannot be explained in this research is 99.9919%. (Byoun 2007) found that company size
had a relationship with leverage. Small firms preferred to use equity financing than debt
financing. Large firms used more leverage than small firms because large firms are more

5

transparent and have lower asset volatility. Therefore, company size has a correlation withcompany leverage even though the correlation between size and leverage is very weak with
contribution 0.0081%.
4.1.1.2 Correlation Of Size And Independent Commissioner Proportion
The relationship between size and independent commissioner proportion is very weakwith correlation (r) = 0.161. Contribution of size toward independent commissioner
proportion is 2.59% and vice versa. It means the rest contribution that cannot be explained inthis research is 97.41%. Large firm has many board of commissioner and between the boardsof commissioner there is independent commissioner. Number of independent commissioner
must be proportioned to total commissioner (National Committee of Governance Regulation
2006). If there are many commissioners then the number of independent commissioner will
increase. Therefore, there is a correlation between size and independent commissioner
proportion even though the correlation between size and independent commissioner
proportion is very weak with contribution 2.59%.
4.1.1.3 Correlation Of Size And Number Of Audit Committee Meeting
The relationship between size and number of audit committee meeting is weak withcorrelation (r) = 0.204. Contribution of size toward number of audit committee meeting is
4.16% and vice versa. It means the rest contribution that cannot be explained in this researchis 95.84%. (Hasanah et al. 2014) said that company size had a relationship with audit
committee because large firms needed many resources to maintain the company properly.
Many activities were also performed by large firms than small firms so the large
company needed more audit committee to monitor company’s activities. If there are many
audit committee then the meeting will be performed will increase so the audit committee cangive their best performance. Therefore, company size has a correlation with the number ofaudit committee meeting. This research result shows that the correlation between size andnumber of audit committee meeting is weak but they have a relationship with contribution
4.16%.
4.1.1.4 Correlation Of Leverage And Independent Commissioner Proportion
The relationship between leverage and independent commissioner proportion is very
weak with correlation (r) = 0.106. Contribution of leverage toward independent
commissioner proportion is 1.12% and vice versa. It means the rest contribution that cannot
be explained in this research is 98.88%. Leverage policy will be determined by company’s
policy that also made by the board of commissioner as company’s controller. Independent
commissioner is expected to help decision making about financing source that meetcompany’s purpose and need (National Committee of Governance Regulation 2006).
Therefore, leverage and independent commissioner proportion has a correlation. This
research result shows that the correlation between leverage and independent commissioner
proportion is very weak with contribution 1.12%.
4.1.1.5 Correlation Of Leverage And Number Of Audit Committee Meeting
The relationship between leverage and number of audit committee meeting is very
weak with correlation (r) = -0.112. Contribution of leverage toward number of audit
committee meeting is 1.25% and vice versa. It means the rest contribution that cannot be
explained in this research is 98.75%. Leverage has a relationship with audit committee
because audit committee has a responsibility to monitor company’s financial activity such as
leverage (Hasanah et al. 2014). The number of audit committee meeting can influence theboard of commissioner decision toward leverage or company’s financing sources. Leverage

6has a correlation with number of audit committee meeting even though the correlation
strength is very weak with contribution 1.25%.
4.1.1.6 Correlation Of Independent Commissioner Proportion And Number Of Audit
Committee Meeting
The relationship between leverage and independent commissioner proportion is very
weak with correlation (r) = -0.196. Contribution of leverage toward independent
commissioner proportion is 3.84% and vice versa. It means the rest contribution that cannot
be explained in this research is 96.16%. Commissioner task is supported by audit committee(Hermawan 2011). The audit committee policy will determine the frequency of meeting thatwill be performed by audit committee. To achieve best performance objectively, independent
commissioner can increase the frequency of audit committee meeting from minimum
standard. Therefore there is a correlation between independent commissioner and number ofaudit committee meeting. The strength of correlation between independent commissioner andnumber of audit committee meeting is very weak with contribution 3.84%.
4.2 Hypothesis Test
4.2.1 t-Test (Partial Test) Result
4.2.1.1 First Path Diagram
This research hypothesis will be accepted if significance from table coefficient < 0.05
and – calculated t < –t table or calculated t > t table value. Calculated t can be seen from
Table IV.1 and t table can be achieved from table t distribution with df = 82, sig.0.05 that
resulted in t table value is 1.9893. The result of first path diagram testing is only size that has
significance influence toward environmental disclosure.
The evidence are calculated t of size variable from Table 3 is 3.504 and significanceof size variable is 0.001. Because significance = 0.001 < 0.05 and calculated t value > t table(3.504 > 1.9893), Ha is accepted or size influences environmental disclosure. This result is
supported by previous research (Sembiring 2005; Almilia 2008; Suhardjanto 2010; Lucyanda
and Siagian 2012).
Other variables such as leverage, independent commissioner proportion, and numberof audit committee meeting have significance above 0.05 and – t table ≤ calculated t value ≤ ttable. Therefore, Ha2-4 are declined or leverage, independent commissioner proportion, andnumber of audit committee meeting do not influence environmental disclosure. This results
are supported by previous result.
4.2.1.2 Second Path Diagram
This research hypothesis will be accepted if significance from table coefficient < 0.05
and – calculated t < –t table or calculated t > t table value. Calculated t can be seen from
Table IV.2 and t table can be achieved from table t distribution with df = 81, sig.0.05 that
resulted in t table value is 1.9897. The result of second path diagram testing is only size thathas significance influence toward environmental performance.
The evidence are calculated t of size variable from Table 4. is 2.594 and significanceof size variable is 0.011. Because significance = 0.011 < 0.05 and calculated t value > t table(2.594 > 1.9897), Ha is accepted or size influences environmental performance. Other
variables such as leverage, independent commissioner proportion, number of audit committee
meeting, and environmental disclosure have significance above 0.05 and – t table ≤calculated t value ≤ t table. Therefore, Ha5,7-9 are declined or leverage, independent
commissioner proportion, number of audit committee meeting, environmental disclosure, anddo not influence environmental performance.

74.2.2 Path Analysis
The result of path analysis method to identify the direct and indirect influence
between exogenous and endogenous variables is as the following Figure 1
The path diagram above is processed to know the percentage of contribution(influence) between exogenous and endogenous variables. The result of path diagram
contribution in direct and indirect influence between variable is as the following Table 5.
4.3 Research Result Analysis
4.3.1 First Path Diagram
4.3.1.1 Size Toward Environmental Disclosure
Big company will have more responsibility to give information (disclosure) tostakeholder about company’s activity. This statement is supported by Jensen and Meckling(1976) through agency theory. Size of company that measured by total asset in this research
can describe how big resources that a company had to operate business activity and makecontribution to society and environment. This research result shows that the bigger acompany has assets then the bigger they need to make environmental disclosure. The reason
is big company has more influence and impact toward environment where they run theirbusiness activity. The environmental disclosure is one of transparency aspect that needed bystakeholder to know more about the company and make decision to invest or support
company activity.
Size or company’s total asset can give contribution toward the level of environmental
disclosure. This research result has the same result as some previous study performed by(Sembiring 2005; Almilia 2008; Suhardjanto 2010; Lucyanda and Siagian 2012). This
research found that size gives contribution toward environmental disclosure about 13.25%
from direct influences. It means that 13.25% factor from size determines company disclose
environmental activity or not. The 86.75% contribution is from other factor that influences
environmental disclosure.
Environmental disclosure occurs if company has and does environmental activity. The
activity will need cost that is financed by company’s asset, such as cash, equipment, andother fixed assets. If total asset increases then 13.25% environmental disclosure is supposed
to increase. There is other factor that cannot be explained in this research that influences
86.75% of company’s environmental disclosure, such as the obligation for disclosure fromgovernment, stakeholder’s pressure, and public’s need.
The theory and previous research about the influence of total asset toward
environmental disclosure are also supported by the fact occurred in the public Indonesia
companies that participated in PROPER. Big companies tend to have environmental
disclosure above average, such as PT. Aneka Tambang Tbk., PT. Asahimas Tbk., PT. Astra
Agro Lestari Tbk., PT. Citra Tubindo Tbk., PT. Fajar Surya Tbk., PT. Holcim Tbk., PT.
Indorama Tbk., PT. Kalbe Farma Tbk., PT. Medco E&P Tbk., PT. Semen Indonesia Tbk.,
PT. Toba Pulp Tbk., and PT. Unilever Indonesia Tbk.
It means public company or big company is influenced by responsibility to makeenvironmental disclosure. The responsibility is related to how big the impact of publiccompany activity toward environment around the company operates. The impact ofenvironmental disclosure can change society perception about company’s awareness towardsustainable environment. The higher company increases its environmental disclosure, thebetter company’s image on public and shareholder’s perception.
Facts above shows that big companies are more pay attention and aware about
environmental disclosures than small companies. But the level of environmental disclosuremust be increased not only for public or big companies but also for private and small
companies. The component of environmental activity disclosed also must be added in8accordance with GRI standard that is used internationally. If the level of company’senvironmental disclosure with international standard increases then Indonesia’s rating forenvironmental disclosure will increase too.
4.3.1.2 Leverage Toward Environmental Disclosure
The higher leverage, the lower the environmental disclosure disclosed. It can becaused by the high leverage will need more interest expense that reduces environmental
activity budget. If environmental activity budget reduces then the activity that can bedisclosed will reduce. Even though the common logic is supported by Rusdianto (2013), thisresearch result cannot support it. The research result is supported by some previous researchfrom (Anggrain 2006; Almilia 2008; Lucyanda and Siagian 2012). But this result does notsupport research (Sembiring 2005, Suhardjanto 2010, and Ummami & Triyuwono 2011) thatleverage influenced environmental disclosure. This research found that the contribution ofleverage toward environmental disclosure is 1%.
It means the high and the low of company’s leverage is only influence % probability
environmental disclosure will be disclosed or not and it is not a significant factor that isdetermining. So no matter a company has debt or no debt, if they care about environment
they will disclose environmental disclosure, and if they do not care they will not disclose
environmental disclosure. The other factor that cannot be explained in this research about the
influence of leverage toward environmental disclosure is 99%. It can be regulation factor,
shareholder pressure, or company’s motivation that can determine the disclosure ofenvironmental activity in company’s annual report.
4.3.1.3 Independent Commissioner Proportion Toward Environmental Disclosure
One of the controlling tools toward management in disclosed information in annual
report was independent commissioner (Suhardjanto, 2010). The role of independent or
dependent commissioner is as the controller in company’s corporate governance. This
research cannot support previous research performed by Kurniawan (2013) that resulted
independent commissioner proportion influenced disclosure. This research result can support
research by Suhardjanto (2010) that said independent commissioner proportion did not
influence environmental disclosure. Independent commissioner proportion gives contribution
toward environmental disclosure about 0.66%. It means environmental disclosure is
influenced by 0.66% independent commissioner proportion and 99.34% contribution is fromother factors.
It also has meaning that influence of independent commissioner to control
management about making environmental disclosure is 0.66%. There is no significant impact
of independent commissioner to make the level of company’s environmental disclosure
increases. The environmental disclosure is influenced by 99.34% other factor that makes
management do environmental disclosure that cannot be explained in this research.
4.3.1.4 Number Of Audit Committee Meeting Toward Environmental Disclosure
Besides board of commissioner, audit committee is also a tool for corporate
governance control. This committee conducts several meeting, four times as a minimal
standard in a year, according to their tasks and function. This research result is consistent
with previous research by (Suhardjanto 2010) that does not found the influence between
number of audit committee meeting and environmental disclosure.
Number of audit committee meeting gives contribution 1.96% toward environmental
disclosure. It means 1.96% factor from environmental disclosure is caused by number ofaudit committee meeting even though it is not significant influence. Audit committee meetingcan make influence to make environmental disclosure about 1.96%. If the audit committee

9meeting result that management must increase environmental disclosure, it means only 1.96%
chance that management will also increase the level of environmental disclosure. Those are
more other factor that can determined management decision to make environmental
disclosure beside the result of audit committee meeting.
4.3.2 Second Path Diagram
4.3.2.1 Environmental Disclosure Toward Environmental Performance
Environmental disclosure that is done by company can be used as a tool to assesscompany’s environmental performance. The environmental activity being disclosed
frequently, the more activity being conducted by company to improve their environmental
performance. This research result is environmental disclosure does not influenceenvironmental performance. High or low environmental disclosure, a company still canreceive good rating in PROPER for good environmental performance.
There are some company that received good rating in PROPER for goodenvironmental performance even though their environmental disclosure is low, such as Citra
Tubindo Tbk., HM Sampoerna Tbk., Toba Pulp Lestari Tbk., and Chandra Asri Tbk. in 2011.
Environmental disclosure is not determining factor of environmental performance in
PROPER. But environmental disclosures give direct contribution 1.96% to environmental
performance.
It means if company does environmental disclosure, it will only affect theenvironmental performance performed about 1.96%. No significant impact from the high or
low company’s environmental disclosure toward environmental performance. Highenvironmental disclosure cannot affect the high or low company’s environmental
performance. If there is direct effect from disclosure, it will only change .96% company’senvironmental performance. So, there is other factor that has significant influence tocompany’s environmental performance beside company’s environmental disclosure.
The low level of environmental disclosure and performance in Indonesia has led theGovernment to make the disclosure as mandatory for public companies according to the
Minister of the Environment Number 18 year 2010. The participant of PROPER assessment
has increased and the ministry of the environment has tried to persuade the companies toimprove their environmental performance too every year. There is an association likes
National Centre for Sustainability Reporting (NCSR) in Indonesia that gives an award toappreciate company with excellent sustainability reporting and motivate other companies todo the same or better reporting.
4.3.2.2 Size Toward Environmental Performance
Size of a company has an influence toward environmental performance. A large scalecompany is expected to do more or high environmental performance than a small scalecompany. This research result is consistent and supported by Pagalung, Harryanto, & Pontoh(2014). The result is size influences environmental performance. Bigger company has bigger
impact toward environment.
This research result is supported by Frost & Wilmshurst 1999about legitimacy theory
that mentioned an organization such as company needs to get privilege for operating businessthrough legitimation and social contract theory by (Deegan and Unerman 2011) also support
this research result. The reason is, company must give contribution toward environment sothey can get operating legitimation to use natural and human resources from the place where
the company runs their business. Because company, community, and environment havemutual relationship, not only company will get support from society and community get a job
but also the environment will become sustainable for a long period.

10Size that is measured by company’s total asset gives direct contribution toward
environmental performance about 8.7%. It means that if company’s total asset increases, itwill increase 8.7% environmental performance. If company’s total asset decreases, it will
reduces 8.7% environmental performance. The reason is the company need asset or resources
to do environmental performance. The resources can be cash, equipment, fixed asset, andother asset that can support environmental activity. Therefore, company must increase theirasset to do better environmental performance.
The size or total asset of company has also indirect influence toward environmental
performance through environmental disclosure. The contribution of indirect influence size
toward environmental performance through environmental disclosure is 3.27%. It means if
company that has disclosed the increasing of asset, the environmental performance will
increase 3.27%. The reason is because resources (asset) which had by company increase, thestakeholder or public will get the information through disclose, they will demand moreenvironmental activity as a form of concern and awareness toward sustainable environment.
Therefore, the company will increase they environmental performance.
The total contribution from company’s size toward environmental performance is
11.97% from direct and indirect influence. It means if total asset increases and company does
environmental disclosure, the environmental performance will improve 11.97%. So, company
must disclose their total asset and environmental activity to get better assessment ofenvironmental performance by public, society, PROPER, and shareholder.
Based on social contract theory (Deegan and Unerman 2011), company andcommunity will have mutual relationship so the company will have legitimation for operatingcompany’s activity. The community will gain benefit from company’s social responsibility
through environmental performance. Because of that reason, big company need legitimation
to operate and must give big contribution through environmental performance as their
responsibility. This theory supports research results that company’s size influences
environmental performance.
4.3.2.3 Leverage Toward Environmental Performance
Leverage supposed to have a relationship with company’s environmental performance
because leverage is associated with company’s risk. Based on social contract theory, acompany must give a contribution to company’s environment (Deegan and Unerman 2011).
If the risk of company’s business activity increases, the risk will influence the company
contribution and performance to environment. The contribution or performance can become alegitimation for company’s operating activity. The theory cannot support this research result,because the result is leverage does not influence environmental performance. Leverage gives
direct contribution toward environmental performance about 0.12%. It means that if company
has more debt, they need to perform more environmental performance 0.12% to reduce theirrisk so the creditor or investor still want to support them.
If company’s leverage is disclosed then there is an increasing of environmental
performance about 0.12% as indirect influence. Leverage is associated with paying interest
expense to creditor. The creditor will also read company’s environmental disclosure. If
leverage is high then the number of creditor can increase. The company will try to increase
the environmental disclosure to impress the creditor. If environmental disclosure increases
then the company expects the environmental performance will also increase about 0.12%
higher. The total contribution from leverage toward environmental performance is 0.24%. It
means even though company has more debt and makes environmental disclosure, theresponsibility to do better environmental performance will increase about 0.24%. It is not
significant but it still has a contribution toward company’s environmental performance.

114.3.2.4 Independent Commissioner Proportion Toward Environmental Performance
Independent commissioner proportion has a relationship with company’senvironmental performance. Independent commissioner has a task to monitor the company’s
corporate governance, including corporate social responsibility and environmental
performance through responsibility guidelines (National Committee of GovernanceRegulation 2006). Because independent commissioner is related to environmental
performance, it supposed to have influence too. But this research cannot support that
hypothesis.
The research result show independent commissioner proportion does not influenceenvironmental performances. The direct contribution from independent commissioner
proportion toward environmental performance is 0.81%. It means that independent
commissioner has only 0.8 % influence to control company’s environmental performance. If
independent commissioner makes obligation to management to do better environmental
performance, the environmental performance will only increase 0.81% and not significant.
The independent commissioner proportion has also indirect influence throughenvironmental disclosure about -0.19%. If independent commissioner does not makeobligation to do environmental disclosure, it will decrease environmental performance about
0.19%. The independent commissioner decision to make environmental disclosure does nothave significant contribution to the improvement of company’s environmental performanceassess by PROPER.
The total contribution from independent commissioner proportion toward
environmental performance through environmental disclosure is 0.62%. It means that if
independent commissioner decides that company must improve their environmental activity
and make environmental disclosure, management will try to improve 0.62% theirenvironmental performance.
4.3.2.5 Number Of Audit Committee Meeting Toward Environmental Performance
Number of audit committee meeting has a relationship with company’s environmental
performance. One of audit committee’s tasks is to ensure that internal control structure of acompany is performed well through good corporate governance. One of good corporate
governance guidelines is responsibility aspect such as corporate social responsibility andenvironmental performance (National Committee of Governance Regulation 2006) Despite,
audit committee meeting supposed to have influence to company’s environmental
performance, this research result does not support it. The reason is number of audit
committee meeting does not have significant influence toward environmental performance
directly. The contribution of direct influence from number of audit committee meeting toenvironmental performance is 4.2%. It means that the more audit committee meeting, theprobability of company’s environmental performance improvement is only 4.2%.
Number of audit committee meeting has indirect influence toward environmental
performance through environmental disclosure. The indirect contribution is -0.76%. It meansthat if audit committee meeting has result to improve company’s environmental activity andmanagement makes environmental disclosure, the influence of audit committee meeting
toward environmental performance reduces into 3.44% from 4.2% (direct effect). It can beinterpreted that as long as environmental disclosure is disclosed, audit committee meeting
will not influence the improvement of environmental performance, so the influence toward
environmental disclosure will be 3.44%.

12

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the previous chapters, there are some conclusions that will answer the
problem identification in this research. The conclusions are:
1. The influence of size toward environmental disclosure in public companies listed inIndonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is 13.25%.
2. The influence of leverage toward environmental disclosure in public companies listed inIndonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is 1%.
3. The influence of independent commissioner proportion toward environmental disclosurein public companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is
0.66%.
4. The influence of the number of audit committee meeting toward environmental disclosurein public companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is
1.96%.
5. The influence of environmental disclosure toward environmental performance in publiccompanies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is 1.96%.
6. The influence of size toward environmental performance in public companies listed inIndonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is 8.7% directly, 3.27% indirectly
through environmental disclosure and total influence is 11.97%.
7. The influence of leverage toward environmental performance in public companies listed inIndonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013 period is 0.12% directly, 0.12% indirectly
through environmental disclosure, and total influence is 0.24%.
8. The influence of independent commissioner proportion toward environmental
performance in public companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013
period is 0.81% directly, -0.19% indirectly through environmental disclosure, and total
influence is 0.62%.
9. The influence of the number of audit committee meeting toward environmental
performance in public companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange within 2011-2013
period is 4.2% directly, indirectly -0.76% through environmental disclosure, and total
influence is 3.44%.
5.2 Recommendation
Based on the previous chapters and the conclusions mentioned before, there areseveral recommendations for future research such as future research can use other indicator tomeasure environmental performance, can use other determinant factor of environmental
disclosure and performance, and can expand the period observed or include private company
to be observed. There is also a recommendation for companies which are company must
increase their size (total asset) to improve their environmental disclosure and environmental
performance. The last are recommendations for government to make regulation for
mandatory environmental disclosure of public companies using GRI 4 standard to improve
the level of environmental disclosure in Indonesia’s public companies and to motivate publiccompanies to improve their environmental performance by giving other award or help on
company’s environmental activity implementation.

13

REFERENCES
Almilia, L. S. 2008. Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Sukarela "Internet
Financial and Sustainability Reporting". Jurnal Akuntansi & Auditing Indonesia Vol.
12 No. 2, Desember 2008, 117-131.
Anggraini, R. R. 2006. Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial dan Faktor-Faktor yang
Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Informasi Sosial dalam Laporan Keuangan Tahunan(Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan-Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta).
Simposium Nasional Akuntansi 9 Padang.
Byoun, S. 2007. Financial Flexibility, Leverage, and Firm Size. 1-38.
Deegan, C., & Unerman, J. 2011. Financial Accounting Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education (UK) Limited.
Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. 2001. Corporate Governance and Voluntary Disclosure. Journal of
Accounting Public Policy, ELSEVIER, 325-345.
Frost, G., & Wilmshurst, T. 1999. Corporate environmental reporting: a test of legitimacy
theory. Working Paper 02/99, University of Newcastle.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis Pearson New International Edition, Seventh Edition. London: Pearson Education
Limited.
Hasanah, F., Yanto, H., & Handayani, B. D. 2014. Model Pengembangan Good Corporate
Governance dan Sustainability Report pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia. SNA 17 Mataram, Lombok, 1-24.
Hermawan, A. A. 2011. The Influence of Effective Board of Commissioner and Audit
Committee on the Informativeness Earnings: Evidence from Indonesian Listed Firms.
Asia Pasific Journal of Accounting and Finance, Volume 2 (1), December 2011, 1-38.
Indonesia Stock Exchange. 2014. Fact Book 2014.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency
Cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, October 1976, V.3,
No.4, 305-360.
Kurniawan, L. S. 2013. The Effect of Corporate Governance Mechanism on The Corporate
Sosical Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence In Indonesia. Brawijaya International
Conference on Accounting and Business 2013.
Lucyanda, J., & Siagian, L. P. 2012. The Influence of Company Characteristic toward
Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. The 2012 International Conference on
Business & Management 6-7 September 2012, Phuket Thailand.
Ministry of the Environment. 2010. Program Penilaian Peringkat Kinerja Perusahaan dalam
Pengelolaan
Lingkungan.
Retrieved
from
PROPER:
http://proper.menlh.go.id/portal/?view=41&desc=1&iscollps=0&caption=DOWNLOADMinistry of the Environment. 2011. Program Penilaian Peringkat Kinerja Perusahaan dalam
Pengelolaan
Lingkungan.
Retrieved
from
PROPER:
http://proper.menlh.go.id/portal/?view=41&desc=1&iscollps=0&caption=DOWNLOADMinistry of the Environment. 2012. Program Penilaian Peringkat Kinerja Perusahaan dalam
Pengelolaan
Lingkungan.
Retrieved
from
PROPER:
http://proper.menlh.go.id/portal/?view=41&desc=1&iscollps=0&caption=DOWNLOADMinistry of the Environment. 2013. Program Penilaian Peringkat Kinerja Perusahaan dalam
Pengelolaan Lingkungan. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from PROPER:14http://proper.menlh.go.id/portal/?view=41&desc=1&iscollps=0&caption=DOWNLO
AD
Mirfazli, E., & Nurdiono. 2007. Evaluasi Pengungkapan Informasi Pertanggungjawaban
Sosial Pada Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan dalam Kelompok Aneka Industri yang Go
Publik di BEJ. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 12, 1-45.
National Committee of Governance Regulation. 2006. Pedoman Umum Good Corporate
Governance Indonesia.
Pagalung, M. G., Harryanto, & Pontoh, G. T. 2014. Corporate Disclosure as Mediating
Variable on Effect of Financial Resources, Capability and Characteristic of Corporate
to Environmental Performanc. International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research Vol.3, Issue 8, August 2014.
Riduwan, & Kuncoro, E. A. 2014. Cara Mudah Menggunakan dan Memaknai Path Analysis(Analisis Jalur). Bandung: Alfabeta.
Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. 1990. Outside Directors, Board Independence and Shareholder
Wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 26, 175-192.
Rusdianto, U. 2013. CSR Communications - A Framework for PR Practitioners. Yogyakarta:
Graha Ilmu.
Sembiring, E. R. 2005. Karakteristik Perusahaan dan Pengungkapan Pertanggungjawaban
Sosial (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar Bursa Efek Jakarta).
Simposium Nasional Akuntansi 8, Solo.
Suhardjanto, D. 2010, June. Corporate Governance, Karakteristik Perusahaan, dan
Environmental Disclosure. Prestasi Vol.6 No.1.
Ummami, E. H., & Triyuwono, I. (2011). Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan
Akuntansi Lingkungan dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan.
Yale University. 2014. Country Profile: Indonesia. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
Environmental Performance Index Web Site: http://epi.yale.edu/epi/countryprofile/indonesia

15

APPENDIX

Table 1. Correlation test with Pearson Product Moment*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 2. Description of Correlation Test Results
Variables

Size

Leverage

Size-

Very Weak*CD =0.0081%**

Leverage

Very Weak*CD =0.0081%**-ICP

Very Weak
CD = 2.59%

Very Weak
CD = 1.12%

NACM

Weak
CD = 4.16%

Very Weak
CD = 1.25%

ED

Weak
CD = 14.36%

Very Weak
CD = 1.44%

EP

Weak
CD = 10.30%

Very Weak
CD = 0.0289%

ICP
Very
Weak
CD =
2.59%
Very
Weak
CD =
1.12%
Very
Weak
CD =
3.84%
Very
Weak
CD =
0.36%
Very
Weak
CD =
2.76%

16

NACM

ED

EP

Weak
CD =
4.16%

Weak
CD =
14.36%Weak
CD =10.30%

Very Weak
CD =
1.44%

Very WeakCD =0.0289%Very Weak
CD =
0.36%

Very Weak
CD = 2.76%

-

Weak
CD =
5.81%

Very Weak
CD = 1.56%

Weak
CD =
5.81%

-

Weak
CD = 4.04%

Very
Weak
CD =
1.56%

Weak
CD =
4.04%

-

Very
Weak
CD =
1.25%
Very
Weak
CD =
3.84%

Table 3. Coefficient 1 t-Test

Table 4. Coefficient 2 t-Test

r12= 0.09

Size (X1)𝜀2𝜀1
𝜌𝑦𝜀1 =0.811

r23= 0.106

Leverage (X2)

r34= -0.196

r13= 0.161
r24=-0.112

r14= 0.204

Figure 1. Full Path Diagram

Environmenta 𝜌 𝑧𝑦=
0.140
l Disclosure(Y)

Independent
Commissioner Proportion(X3)
Number of
Audit
Committee
Meeting (X4)17𝜌𝑧𝜀2 =0.836
Environmental
Performance (Z)Table 5. Contribution from Path Diagram
Variables
X1 → Y
X2 → Y
X3 → Y
X4 → Y1→ Y
X1 → Z
X2 → Z
X3 → Z
X4 → Z
Y→Z
2→ Z

Influence
DirectIndirect13.25%
1%
0.66%
1.96%
81.10%
8.70%
3.27%
0.12%
0.12%
0.81%
-0.19%
4.20%-0.76%
1.96%
83.60%-

18

Total
13.25%
1%
0.66%
1.96%
81.10%
11.97%
0.24%
0.62%
3.44%
1.96%
83.60%