A Systematic Literature Review: Determinants of Sustainability Reporting in Developing Countries

: This study aimed to ﬁnd out how the development of sustainability reporting is seen from the theoretical and practical perspectives and how the solutions are solved. This study used a systematic literature review approach. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method, 24 selected articles were obtained that matched the criteria. The results show that research related to sustainability reporting currently focuses on nine aspects (variables): ﬁrm size, proﬁtability, ﬁnancial leverage, corporate governance structure, ownership structure, ﬁrm age, industrial sector, corporate posture, and board qualiﬁcation and experience. However, from these studies, it was found that there were inconsistencies in the results. Some results showed that a determinant is signiﬁcant in inﬂuencing the company’s sustainability, whereas other studies indicated that the relationship between the two variables was not signiﬁcant. Research related to sustainability reporting has been carried out jointly in developed and developing countries. However, research focusing on sustainability reporting in developing countries has not been widely carried out; therefore, this study is expected to be a reference for further research on this topic, especially in the decision-making process related to setting priorities in SDG planning and funding allocation. This study focused on companies in developing countries.


Introduction
The 17 goals in "The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" were finally inaugurated at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in December 2015 in New York (United States). A few months later, in April 2016, an international agreement to prevent human-caused global warming and climate changes was successfully signed. This agreement is known as the "Paris Climate Agreement". These two agreements are inseparable, functioning as a unified, comprehensive global cooperation framework to achieve sustainable development goals. Three important aspects exist in the basic concept of sustainable development to achieve all the goals: economic, social, and environmental. The important point is introducing the sustainable development concept guiding companies to carry out their business activities according to the triple bottom line or 3Ps (profit, people, and planet). In optimizing profits, companies are required to maintain balance on Earth (planet), as well as care about humans (people) [1].
Through their activities and networks, all organizations make positive and negative contributions to sustainable development goals. Therefore, organizations or companies have a key role in achieving the goals. One way to apply the 3Ps (profit, people, and planet) and implement the sustainable development concept is to conduct sustainable reporting [2]. Sustainable reporting is an organization's practice of reporting publicly on its economic, environmental, and/or social impacts, thus indicating its contribution-positive or negative-toward the goals of sustainable development [3]. Sustainable reporting is 2. Literature Review 2.1. Sustainability Reporting Disclosure The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) defines sustainability reporting as a reporting system enabling all companies and organizations to measure, understand, and communicate responsibly economic, environmental, and social information to stakeholders, both internal and external, related to the organizational performance of achieving the targets of sustainable development [4] Sustainability reporting is identified according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework consisting of three categories, namely, the economic, environmental, and social indicators, all of which are measured on the basis of content analysis to get the disclosure score [17].
Sustainability reporting is an organization's practice of reporting publicly on its economic, environmental, and/or social impacts, thus indicating its contribution, positive or negative, toward SDGs [3]. Sustainable reporting is practically the measurement, disclosure, and accountability of organizational performance in achieving sustainable development goals to internal and external stakeholders [4].
Some advantages of sustainable reporting according to several previous studies are that companies voluntarily provide information about the economic, environmental, and social impacts of corporate activities [5]. This reduces the information asymmetry and increases the transparency of the corporate sustainability activities [6]. Moreover, the increased transparency of the information provided will make it easier for investors to evaluate and direct their investments to companies with positive impacts [5]. Furthermore, it can make companies more competitive and gain advantages in the market or industry [7]. Through sustainability reporting, an organization can identify its significant impacts on the economy, environment, and/or society and disclose them according to globally accepted standards.

Systematic Literature Review
A systematic literature review (SLR) refers to a specific research or research methodology and development undertaken to collect and evaluate studies related to certain topics. Systematic literature reviews are conducted for various purposes, including identifying, reviewing, evaluating, and interpreting all existing studies in the area of interest with relevant research questions. A systematic literature review is also often required to define a research agenda, as part of a dissertation or thesis, and as a complementary part of a research grant application. A systematic literature review is widely used by researchers and academics in reviewing the scientific literature because it can avoid bias and a subjective understanding of the research [18]. SLR has proven to be a method that can provide an overview of research trends and their effectiveness, as well as coverage of field research in previous studies [19,20].

Research Methods
A Systematic Literature Review was carried out in May 2021 using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. According to Liberati et al. [21], this method consists of several stages as follows: 1.
Data item selection, For IC1, only research written in English was selected because researchers commonly use English. Meanwhile, IC2 refers to the definition of sustainable development according to the World Commission on Environment and Development, i.e., "development that meets the current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" [22]. To achieve this goal, companies must also consider the economic, social, and environmental impacts on the community in general and stakeholders in particular. Elkington [1] introduced the triple bottom line and then also added the concept of corporate governance to environment and social, governance, which are all related to the sustainability concept [16]. Meanwhile, the category of developing countries in this research was based on the "World Economic Situation and Prospect".
Exclusion criteria for sustainability reporting in this research refer to all reporting types including only one or two elements, such as CSR. Likewise, reports combining sustainability reporting with financial reports (integrated reporting) were also excluded. As for IC3, this research focused on journal articles using a quantitative or mixed (qualitative and quantitative) method. In other words, journal articles using a qualitative method were excluded in this research.

Information Source
The search for information was carried out on an online database with large repositories of academic studies, namely, Elsevier (SCOPUS), with more than 23,500 peer-reviewed journals. Not fully accessible articles were also excluded in this research.

Study Selection
Study selection was conducted in three stages as follows: 1.

2.
Exploring and selecting the article titles, abstracts, and keywords on the basis of the eligibility criteria.

3.
Exploring and selecting all articles not eliminated in the previous selection by fully reading all articles while adhering to the eligibility criteria.

Data Collection Process
The data were collected manually by content analysis-based data extraction, including the article type, journal name, year of publication, topic, title, research methodology, respondents/research data, country of research location, variables related to determinants of sustainability reporting, indicators of sustainability reporting, and research results in the form of the effects of determinant variables on sustainability reporting.

Data Items
Data items extracted from each article were summarized as follows: year of publication, researchers, country and sample, research objectives, research variables, determinants of sustainability reporting, and research results of the effect of determinant variables on respondents/research data, country of research location, variables related to determinants of sustainability reporting, indicators of sustainability reporting, and research results in the form of the effects of determinant variables on sustainability reporting.

Data Items
Data items extracted from each article were summarized as follows: year of publication, researchers, country and sample, research objectives, research variables, determinants of sustainability reporting, and research results of the effect of determinant variables on sustainability reporting. The stages of the systematic literature review are presented comprehensively in Figure 1.

Research Results and Qualitative Synthesis
The search results in the SCOPUS databases through the keywords ("factor*" OR "challenge*" OR "motivation*" OR "driver*" OR "drive* factor" OR "critical factor*" OR "critical success factor*" OR "success factor*" OR "key factor*" OR "CSF" OR "determinant*") AND ("sustainability report*" OR "sustainable report*" OR "global report*" OR "GRI" OR "TBL report*" OR "triple* report*") resulted in 1254 articles published in the period 1949-2021 written in English. The articles were then explored and selected on the basis of IC2 and IC3 by considering the titles, abstracts, and keywords, resulting in 102 articles. At the next stage, the remaining 102 articles were screened again on the basis of IC2 and IC3 by reading them fully. One article could not be accessed, which was

Research Results and Qualitative Synthesis
The search results in the SCOPUS databases through the keywords ("factor*" OR "challenge*" OR "motivation*" OR "driver*" OR "drive* factor" OR "critical factor*" OR "critical success factor*" OR "success factor*" OR "key factor*" OR "CSF" OR "determinant*") AND ("sustainability report*" OR "sustainable report*" OR "global report*" OR "GRI" OR "TBL report*" OR "triple* report*") resulted in 1254 articles published in the period 1949-2021 written in English. The articles were then explored and selected on the basis of IC2 and IC3 by considering the titles, abstracts, and keywords, resulting in 102 articles. At the next stage, the remaining 102 articles were screened again on the basis of IC2 and IC3 by reading them fully. One article could not be accessed, which was categorized among those we eliminated or did not research. Finally, following this process, 24 articles were left to be further analyzed.
Several journals on sustainability reporting disclosure were published every year, mostly in 2020. These journals used qualitative and quantitative approaches. The process indicated that studies related to sustainability reporting disclosure were still relevant in the last few years, as depicted in Figure 2 below. categorized among those we eliminated or did not research. Finally, following this process, 24 articles were left to be further analyzed.
Several journals on sustainability reporting disclosure were published every year, mostly in 2020. These journals used qualitative and quantitative approaches. The process indicated that studies related to sustainability reporting disclosure were still relevant in the last few years, as depicted in Figure 2 below. Furthermore, a qualitative synthesis was performed on the 24 selected articles, as shown in Table 1.  Furthermore, a qualitative synthesis was performed on the 24 selected articles, as shown in Table 1. Examining SR in public listed companies in Sri Lanka, as well as its extent, nature, and possible drivers, particularly the use of KPIs

Systematization of Determinants
From the 24 selected articles, the determinants of sustainability reporting were further analyzed with the following additional criteria:

1.
Sustainability reporting was used as the dependent variable; 2.
As the dependent variable, Sustainability reporting was measured or calculated in various forms, such as disclosure, quality, extent, or score; 3.
Determinants included as research results were those studied at least in three articles and used as independent variables. In other words, determinants included or studied in 1-2 articles only were excluded as research results; 4.
Research focused on companies or holding companies; 5.
Research with determinants related to the country was excluded; 6.
Research with determinants related to industrial groups was excluded.
On the basis of the criteria above, the determinants, indicators, results, conclusions, and references of sustainability reporting are presented in Table 2 (containing 37 indicators). The company size determinant was used in 10 studies [5,11,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Tauringana [24] and Dissanayake et al. [27] found a positive relationship between company size and sustainability reporting using the number of employees as an indicator, while Giron et al. [5] found the opposite result (negative relationship). On the other hand, using the total asset calculation indicator, Giron et al. [5], Sharma et al. [25], Orazalin and Mahmood [26], and Kuzey and Uyar [11] found a positive relationship between company size and sustainability reporting, while Haladu and Nashwan [23] found the opposite result (negative relationship). Moreover, using the market capitalization indicator, Giron et al. [5] found a negative relationship between company size and sustainability reporting. A positive relationship between company size and sustainability reporting was also found by Sharma et al. [25] and Amran and Haniffa [30] using total sales as an indicator. Meanwhile, Chang et al. [28] found an insignificant effect of company size on sustainability reporting using the number of regions as an indicator.

Profitability
The profitability determinant was used in eight studies [5,11,23,[25][26][27]31]. Sharma et al. [25], and Embuningtias et al. [31] found a positive relationship between return on assets (ROA) and sustainability reporting, while Giron et al. [5] found no significant relationship between the two. Giron et al. [5] also showed no significant effect of EBITDA on sustainability reporting but found a positive correlation between profit margin and sustainability reporting. Furthermore, Haladu and Nashwan [23] and Orazalin and Mahmood [26] found a positive relationship between return on equity (ROE) and sustainability reporting, while Giron et al. [5] and Dissanayake et al. [27] found no significant relationship between the two. Sharma et al. [25] found a positive correlation between return on capital employed (ROCE) and sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, Dissanayake et al. [27] found no significant effect on sustainability reporting using the revenue indicator.

Financial Leverage
The financial leverage determinant was used in six studies [5,8,11,23,26,32]. Using the ratio of total liabilities to total assets as an indicator, Giron et al. [5], Orazalin and Mahmood [26], and Kuzey and Uyar [11] found a negative relationship between financial leverage and sustainability reporting, while Siahaan et al. [32], using the same indicator, found a positive relationship between the two. On the other hand, Haladu and Nashwan [23], using the debt-to-equity ratio as an indicator, found a negative relationship between financial leverage and sustainability reporting, while Kholis et al. [8] did not find a significant relationship between the two.

Corporate Governance Structure
The corporate governance structure determinant was used in nine studies [5,23,30,[33][34][35][36][37]. Using the gender diversity indicator, Giron et al. [5] found a positive relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting, while Amran et al. [38] found no significant relationship. Similarly, using the average age of BOD as an indicator, Giron et al. [5] showed no significant effect of corporate governance structure on sustainability reporting. Furthermore, using the board size indicator, Correa-Garcia et al. [33], Raquiba and Ishak [34], Bae et al. [36], and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between Corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting, Haladu and Nashwan [23] found a negative relationship between the two, and Amran et al. did not find a significant relationship.
Using the proportion of independent directors on board as an indicator, Raquiba and Ishak [34], Bae et al. [36], and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting, while Correa-Garcia et al. [33] and Amran et al. [38] did not find a significant relationship between the two. As for the number of board meetings held in a year as an indicator, Raquiba and Ishak [34], Yanto et al. [35], and Hu and Loh [37] found a positive relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting. Likewise, Raquiba and Ishak [34] and Amran et al. [38] found a positive relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting through the number of subordinate committees of board as an indicator. Meanwhile, Hu and Loh [37], using the CEO duality indicator, did not find a significant relationship between corporate governance structure and sustainability reporting.
Kholis et al. [8], using the majority of shareholder as an indicator, found a positive relationship between ownership structure and sustainability reporting, while Correa-Garcia et al. [33] found a negative relationship between the two. The three studies using the government ownership indicator had different results. Raquiba and Ishak [34] obtained a positive relationship between ownership structure and sustainability reporting. In contrast, Chang et al. [28] found a negative relationship, while Amran and Haniffa [30] did not find a significant relationship between the two. Using the management ownership indicator, Raquiba and Ishak [34] found a positive relationship between management ownership and sustainability reporting. Bae et al. [36] found a negative relationship between the two. Amidjaya and Widagdo [39], using the family ownership indicator, found a positive relationship between family ownership and sustainability reporting. On the other hand, Kuzey and Uyar [11], using the dispersed ownership structure indicator, did not find a significant relationship between the two.

Firm Age
The firm age determinant was used in six studies [23,24,26,27,32,33]. Haladu and Nashwan [23] found that the level of sustainability reporting was very low, whereas Siahaan et al. (2020) and Correa-Garcia et al. [33] found a positive relationship between company age and sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, Tauringana [24] found that GRI efforts had a limited impact on increasing SR in developing countries, Orazalin and Mahmood [26] found that determinants such as independent reporting, reporting language, firm profitability, firm size, and type of auditor substantially affected the level, nature, and quality of Kazakstan's corporate sustainability reporting practices, and research conducted by Tauringana [24] and Dissanayake et al. [27] found a size effect on the basis of market capitalization and number of employees being very significant, supporting H1A, finding no positive relationship between the two.

Industrial Sector
Industrial sector indicators were used in seven studies [5,11,25,27,29,30,40]. Oleiwi et al. [40], Giron et al. [5], and Sharma et al. [25] found that financial and market performance had a positive and significant relationship with the level of ESG disclosure, while FII's stock and leverage had a negative and significant relationship with the level of ESG disclosure. Kuzey et al. [11] found that firm size is a significant determinant of sustainability reporting; therefore, larger companies are more likely to publish sustainability reports than smaller companies. Further research conducted by Amran and Haniffa [30] found that only large government-linked companies in the plantation industry have a significant amount of sustainability reporting, showing a positive relationship between the industrial sector and sustainability reporting. In contrast, Dissanayake et al. [27,29] did not find a significant relationship between the two.

Corporate Posture
Determinants of corporate posture were used in four studies [28,30,34]. Chang et al. [28], Amran et al. [38], and Amran and Haniffa [30] found a significant relationship (at the 5% level) between the two corporate governance variables (i.e., the chairman who is a nonexecutive director and the dominance of family members on the board) and the level of voluntary disclosure. These studies indicated a positive relationship between corporate posture and sustainability. Meanwhile, Raquiba and Ishak [34] found that the energy sector in any country has an important role in economic development, while it is also important to maintain responsibility for employees, the environment, and society in general. Breadth reporting on sustainability by working companies in Bangladesh's energy sector is bleak. Nevertheless, it is significantly affected by the number of subordinate committees of the board, number of board meetings held during the year, board independence, board size, and ownership structure company. This study did not find a significant relationship between the two.

Board Qualification and Experience
The board qualification and experience determinant was used in three studies [17,24,30]. Using the board expertise indicator, Tauringana [24] found that board qualification and experience are positively correlated with sustainability reporting. Similarly, using the director's education level indicator, Umukoro et al. [17] discovered that board qualification and experience are positively correlated to sustainable reporting. Using the board experience and qualification indicator, Amran and Haniffa [30] did not find a significant effect of board qualification and experience on sustainability reporting. Meanwhile, using the director's expertise and nonexecutive director's expertise, Umukoro et al. [17] did not find a significant relationship between the two.

Discussion
According to the 24 selected articles describing the determinants of the sustainability reporting variable as presented in Tables 1 and 2, there were a total of nine determinants, namely, company size, profitability, financial leverage, corporate governance structure, ownership structure, company age, industrial sector, corporate posture, and board qualification and experience. The nine determinants are shown below.
The first determinant, firm size, refers to an important factor influencing sustainability reporting because a larger company with a bigger impact will make it more visible in the eyes of stakeholders. In other words, the company will be more supervised by stakeholders, have more potential to be regulated, and get more attention from the media [27]. A study conducted by Sumiani et al. [41] on the sustainability reporting of large companies in Malaysia concluded that company size is one of the factors influencing sustainability reporting due to the increasing stakeholder demand for information on large companies and the increasing external pressure faced companies. This is consistent with the previous studies finding an increase in environmental disclosure in large companies [27].
The second determinant, profitability, refers to a company's ability to earn a profit within a certain period. Similarly, Husnan [42] defines profitability as a company's ability to generate a profit at a certain level of sales, assets, and share capital. Haladu and Nashwan [23] and Orazalin and Mahmood [26] found a positive relationship between corporate profitability and sustainability reporting.
The third determinant, financial leverage, refers to the use of external sources of funds (debts) by a company to acquire additional assets; as a consequence, the company must bear a fixed cost in the form of interest and installment debt [43]. Leverage also reflects the company's ability to meet its obligation to bear the corporate fixed costs and debts.
In this case, a company's financial leverage can affect sustainability reporting, ultimately influencing the corporate performance [23].
The fourth determinant, corporate governance structure, refers to a set of regulations for the relationship between shareholders, corporate management, creditors, government, employees, and other internal and external stakeholders related to their rights and obligations, or, in other words, a system regulating and controlling a company. Corporate governance structure can play an important role in sustainability reporting behavior [27,29]. The indicators mostly used in this determinant include the proportion of independent directors on board [44], the number of subordinate committees of board, the number of board meetings held in a year, the CEO duality, and the ratio of the number of directors representing the interests of active divided shareholders to directors on board [16,45].
The fifth determinant, ownership structure, is generally calculated using proxies, including the percentages of government ownership, foreign ownership, institutional ownership, and concentrated or dispersed ownership [34]. Ownership structure is the proportion of managerial ownership, institutional ownership, and public ownership, representing a mechanism to reduce conflicts between management and shareholders [46]. The structure of share ownership can influence a company's operation, which affects the company's performance in achieving its goal of maximizing corporate values.
The sixth determinant, company age, refers to a company's maturity level. A company improves the information disclosed over time. An increasing company age is in line with the company's growing disclosure. A longer existence in business will motivate a company's corporate disclosure (stakeholder theory), as well as more extensive disclosure of financial information. Companies with a longer existence or age also have more experience disclosing annual reports. Accordingly, it can be concluded that companies with a long life can be considered mature and more extensive in making disclosures.
The seventh determinant, industrial sectors, refers to the type of industry run by a company. According to Ahmad [47], the industry has a positive and significant effect on sustainability reporting. Trencansky et al. [48] found the opposite result with the same variables, whereby the type of industry did not significantly affect the disclosure of sustainability activities and was negatively correlated with sustainability reporting. The legitimacy theory supports this statement that disclosures made by companies depend on environmental factors, including social, economic, and political [49].
The eighth determinant, corporate posture, applies to companies that continuously monitor their relationship with key stakeholders and manage the interdependence relationship at the optimum level. Chan and Kent [50] measured corporate strategic posture through the existence of a social and/or environmental reporting committee in the company and through the existence of corporate responsibility for social and/or environmental factors contained in the corporate vision and mission [34].
The ninth determinant, board qualification and experience, refers to the corporate director's ability level. However, this determinant is not observable in most cases; thus, it is typically measured as a function of educational qualifications. Further research concluded that a high level of managerial ability and performance is often consistent with a high educational level of directors [51].
On the basis of the discussion above, the nine determinants obtained from the 24 selected articles (previous studies) had inconsistent results, representing the novelty of this research. The results indicated both consistent and inconsistent results on the determinants of sustainable reporting according to previous studies. The results indicated inconsistencies in the company size, financial leverage, and ownership structure determinants, whereas the research results of corporate posture and board qualification and experience tended to show positive results. However, research focusing on these determinants remains rare; thus, these inconsistencies become challenges to be further studied in Indonesia's companies.

Conclusions
On the basis of the designed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 studies were selected and identified. The analysis of the main study revealed that research related to sustainability reporting focuses on nine topics and trends: company size, profitability, financial leverage, corporate governance structure, ownership structure, company age, industry sector, company posture, and board qualifications and experience. The results of this study highlight innovations that refer to previous relevant studies, which adds insight into sustainability reporting. However, the results of the selected articles showed inconsistencies. Some results showed a significant relationship between the determinants and company sustainability, while others showed the opposite result (insignificant relationship between the two variables). This inconsistency is expected to be investigated further by further researchers.