Invisible Sustainability: Decoupling ESG Sustainability Reporting from Tri Hita Karana Practices in Rural Banks in Bali

I Putu Edy Arizona; Anantawikrama Tungga Atmadja; Lucy Sri Musmini; I Made Pradana Adiputra; I Gusti Ayu Purnamawati

doi:10.61132/iceat.v3i1.212

Authors

I Putu Edy Arizona Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Anantawikrama Tungga Atmadja Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Lucy Sri Musmini Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
I Made Pradana Adiputra Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
I Gusti Ayu Purnamawati Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61132/iceat.v3i1.212

Keywords:

Bali Rural Bank, Cultural Accounting Gap, Decoupling, Sustainability Reporting, Tri Hita Karana

Abstract

This study investigates the decoupling phenomenon between ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) sustainability reporting and communal Tri Hita Karana (THK) sustainability practices in a Rural Bank in Bali. Through Ethnographic Content Analysis (ECA) of official documents from BPR Luhur Damai covering 2023–2025, this study identifies that the Sustainability Report (SR), prepared strictly according to Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) 51/2017, does not incorporate substantial THK practices, namely banten (ceremonial offerings) Rp131.6 million, dana punia (religious donations) Rp8.5 million, and monthly banjar (communal community unit) contributions, producing a Hindu religious expenditure to formal Social and Environmental Responsibility (SER) ratio of 10:1. Drawing on the Institutional Logics perspective, this study identifies four decoupling mechanisms: (1) cognitive, namely THK as taken-for-granted, not perceived as “sustainability”; (2) administrative, namely departmental silos between Compliance and General Affairs; (3) template, namely POJK 51/2017 provides no space for local wisdom; and (4) capacity, namely limited Human Resources (HR) and institutional capacity. These findings lead to the concept of “invisible sustainability,” that is, real sustainability contributions that are invisible to conventional reporting frameworks, and “cultural accounting gap,” that is, the absence of accounting categories for local cultural-religious contributions. The theoretical contribution is demonstrating that decoupling in Global South contexts is not merely symbolic compliance but results from structural misalignment between transnational and communal logics that renders local sustainability contributions institutionally invisible.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Amidjaya, P. G., & Widagdo, A. K. (2020). Sustainability reporting in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, ownership structure and digital banking matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-09-2018-0149

Ardiana, P. A., Sujana, I. K., Natalia, S. A. P. D., & Suryantari, K. D. (2025). Tri Hita Karana: Balinese local wisdom and its role in the triumph over corruption. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 22(1), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2024-0052

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). SAGE Publications.

Cepeda, C., & Monteiro, A. P. (2025). Decoupling in sustainability reporting: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 2988–3007.

Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40(1), 78–94.

Dewanti, A. (2021). Pengaruh penerapan green accounting terhadap corporate social responsibility di Bank Perkreditan Rakyat Sukawati Pancakanti. Jurnal Akuntansi, 5(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.30640/akuntansi45.v5i2.3342

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Eitrem, A., Meidell, A., & Modell, S. (2024). The use of institutional theory in social and environmental accounting research: A critical review. Accounting and Business Research, 54(6), 667–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2024.2328934

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Fauzi, H. (2022). The evolution of sustainability reporting practices in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 358, 131798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131798

Hampel, C. E., Lawrence, T. B., Tracey, P., & Gosselin, V. (2021). Institutional logics and practice variations in sustainability reporting: Evidence from an emerging field. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(5), 1163–1191.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). SAGE Publications.

Kvasničková Stanislavská, L., & Pilař, L. (2023). Sustainability reports: Differences between developing and developed countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1085936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1085936

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.

Naim, S. N. H. J., Ahmad, A. N., Amran, A., & Siti-Nabiha, A. K. (2022). Symbolic or substantive change? How a Malaysian palm oil company managed sustainability issues in words and deeds. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 19(4), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-10-2021-0158

Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2017). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 51/POJK.03/2017 tentang Penerapan Keuangan Berkelanjutan bagi Lembaga Jasa Keuangan, Emiten, dan Perusahaan Publik.

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

Roszkowska-Menkes, M., Aluchna, M., & Kamiński, B. (2024). True transparency or mere decoupling? The study of selective disclosure in sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 98, 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102319

Sundarasena, S., Nimsith, A., de Silva, M. R. L., & Alagiyawanna, A. (2024). Sustainability reporting and greenwashing: A bibliometrics assessment in G7 and non-G7 nations. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2320812. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2320812

Susanto, Y. K., Rudyanto, A., & Rahayuningsih, D. A. (2022). Redefining the concept of local wisdom-based CSR and its practice. Sustainability, 14(19), 12069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912069

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.