From Compliance to Reflection: Constructing Sustainability Reporting in the Public Sector through a Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach

Yunaita Rahmawati; Eko Ganis Sukoharsono; Lilik Purwanti; Zaki Baridwan; Wuryan Andayani

doi:10.48161/qaj.v6n2a2484

Authors

Yunaita Rahmawati Department of Sharia Accounting, Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Ageng Muhammad Besari Ponorogo, Ponorogo 63492, Indonesia; https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0773-2524
Eko Ganis Sukoharsono Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65300, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3293-1067
Lilik Purwanti Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65300, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7923-4170
Zaki Baridwan Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65300, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6692-1039
Wuryan Andayani Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang 65300, Indonesia. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-1294

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v6n2a2484

Keywords:

Reflective governance, Sustainability reporting, Constructivist grounded theory, Public sector accountability, Institutional legitimacy.

Abstract

Sustainability reporting in the public sector is often positioned as a technical and compliance-based governance tool; however, its practical implementation remains fragmented, inconsistent, and highly context-dependent. This study reconceptualizes public sector sustainability reporting as a socially constructed governance practice shaped by institutional pressures, ethical considerations, and interorganizational interactions. Employing a constructivist grounded theory methodology supported by an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, the study investigates how sustainability reporting is interpreted, enacted, and continuously reshaped within public organizations. The findings indicate that formal governance structures alone are insufficient to explain reporting practices. Instead, sustainability reporting emerges through iterative and interpretive processes involving moral accountability, negotiated transparency, legitimacy construction, and collaborative meaning-making among stakeholders. These processes collectively form what this study defines as reflective governance, a dynamic organizational capability characterized by reflexivity, dialogue, and continuous learning in interpreting sustainability information. Reflective governance operates as a mediating mechanism between institutional conditions and actual reporting practices, extending traditional institutional and accountability theories that often neglect interpretive and processual dimensions of governance. This study contributes to public sector accounting and sustainability literature by demonstrating that reporting quality is not solely determined by compliance with standards, but by the organization’s capacity for reflection and learning. Methodologically, it highlights the value of constructivist grounded theory in capturing the complexity of governance practices in real-world institutional settings. The study concludes that enhancing sustainability reporting requires strengthening organizational reflexivity, participatory interpretation, and learning-oriented governance rather than relying exclusively on formal disclosure frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bracci, E., Saliterer, I., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2021). Accounting for (public) value(s): Reconsidering publicness in accounting research and practice. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34.

Grossi, G., & Argento, D. (2022). The fate of accounting for public governance development. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 35.

Cappellieri, F., Lombardi, R., Pizzo, M., & Vinciguerra, R. (2025). Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research. Financial Accountability & Management, 41, 159–199.

Pozzetto, E., & Leoni, L. (2025). Communication of circular economy in the public sector in Bulgaria: A study of space, agenda, language, and tools. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 5, 5727–5748.

Vitale, S., Kulhari, D., & Caneparo, P. (2025). AI Integration in Legal Decision-Making: Innovations and Challenges. Qubahan Techno Journal, 4(4), 29-43.

Agarwal, R., Atif, M., & Hossain, M. T. B. (2025). Dual risk reporting: Bridging compliance and strategy using institutional and learning theories. The Journal of Risk Finance.

Tursunbayeva, A., Chalutz-Ben Gal, H., Santos Fonseca, S. S., Benito, P. A., Piña Ramírez, C., & Rubeis, G., et al. (2024). A spotlight on environmental sustainability in view of the European Green Deal. Sustainability, 16.

Oliver, D., Cuganesan, S., & Chung, K. S. K. (2024). Moving beyond place- and past-based identities for better stakeholder engagement. Academy of Management Perspectives, 39, 421–438.

Pizzi, S., Mastroleo, G., Venturelli, A., & Caputo, F. (2024). The digitalization of sustainability reporting processes: A conceptual framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33, 1040–1050.

Guzman, S. T. (2025). Designing Trustworthy Educational Artificial Intelligence: A Systemic Framework for Explainability, Adaptivity, and Ethical Learning Analytics. Qubahan Techno Journal, 4(3), 41-50.

Koskimies, E., & Kinder, T. (2024). Mutuality in AI-enabled new public service solutions. Public Management Review, 26.

Gulyaeva, E. E., & Felix, H. G. D. (2025). Impact of Digital Technologies on Legal Theory and Practice. Qubahan Techno Journal, 4(4), 12-22.

Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58, 268–297.

Flyverbom, M., Christensen, L. T., & Hansen, H. K. (2015). The transparency–power nexus: Observational and regularizing control. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 385–410.

Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62, 16–38.

O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49, 32–40.

Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 717–747.

Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research—Whence and whither. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28.

Bisogno, M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Manes-Rossi, F., & Peña-Miguel, N. (2024). Financial sustainability and sustainable development in local governments: Empirical insights. Public Performance & Management Review, 47, 784–811.

Cartwright, E., & Igudia, E. (2024). The case for mixed methods research: Embracing qualitative research to understand the (informal) economy. Review of Development Economics, 28.

Molina-Azorín, J. F., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2016). Mixed methods studies in environmental management research: Prevalence, purposes and designs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25.

Chelli, M., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Sustainability ratings and the disciplinary power of the ideology of numbers. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 187–203.

Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022). Co-creation for sustainability: The UN SDGs and the power of local partnership. Emerald Publishing.

Adams, C. (2017). The sustainable development goals, integrated thinking and the integrated report.

Bovens, M. (2007). New forms of accountability and EU-governance. Comparative European Politics, 5, 104–120.

Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: On opening up and closing down participatory governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 961–985.

Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic accounting for stakeholders. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7).

Plumlee, M., Brown, D., Hayes, R. M., & Marshall, R. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34, 336–361.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

Lindqvist, H., & Forsberg, C. (2023). Constructivist grounded theory and educational research: Constructing theories about teachers’ work when analysing relationships between codes. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 46.

Mäkelä, H., Apostol, O., & Vinnari, E. (2026). Coping with cognitive dissonance in critical environmental accounting research and education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 103, 102840.

de Villiers, C., & Dimes, R. (2021). Determinants, mechanisms and consequences of corporate governance reporting: A research framework. Journal of Management and Governance, 25.

Farooq, M. B., & de Villiers, C. (2020). How sustainability assurance engagement scopes are determined, and its impact on capture and credibility enhancement. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 33.

Minutiello, V., & Tettamanzi, P. (2022). The quality of nonfinancial voluntary disclosure: A systematic literature network analysis on sustainability reporting and integrated reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29.

Saha, R., & Kabra, K. C. (2020). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure: A synthesis of empirical studies. Business Perspectives and Research, 8.

Bose, S., Saha, A., & Abeysekera, I. (2020). The value relevance of corporate social responsibility expenditure: Evidence from regulatory decisions. Abacus, 56, 455–494.

Farazmand, A. (2002). Administrative ethics and professional competence: Accountability and performance under globalization. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68.

Albu, C. N., Albu, N., & Alexander, D. (2014). When global accounting standards meet the local context—Insights from an emerging economy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 489–510.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75, 647–663.

Adams, C. (2017). The sustainable development goals, integrated thinking and the integrated report.

Moore, C., Booth, S., Mangham, I. L., Alexander, N., Lockwood, A., Smith, S. S., et al. (2017). Jig-sawing: A sub-category of the grounded theory of enlightened converting. Management Decision, 16.

Mergel, I. (2012). Open collaboration in public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub. Government Information Quarterly, 1.

Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.

Heald, D. (2012). Why is transparency about public expenditure so elusive? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 30–49.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (n.d.). Institutionalized rules and formal structures.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (2021). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Institutional theory (pp. 86–110).

Ulibarri, N., Imperial, M. T., Siddiki, S., & Henderson, H. (2023). Drivers and dynamics of collaborative governance in environmental management. Environmental Management, 71, 495–504.

Fonseka, M., & Richardson, G. (2023). The effect of mandatory corporate social responsibility disclosure and performance on firms’ dividend decisions: Evidence from China. Economic Modelling, 120, 106152.

Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Administration Review, 68.

Contrafatto, M. (2014). The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 414–432.

Lodhia, S. (2015). Exploring the transition to integrated reporting through a practice lens: An Australian customer-owned bank perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 585–598.

Brown, J., & Tregidga, H. (2017). Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 61, 1–21.

Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2008). GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations. Public Money & Management, 28, 361–366.

Steccolini, I. (2018). Accounting and the post-new public management: Re-considering publicness in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32, 255–279.

Arias, N., Marco-Fondevila, M., & Yetano, A. (2025). From theory to practice: A literature review of theoretical frameworks in public sector sustainability reporting. Journal of Public Affairs, 25, e70063.

Wickramasinghe, D., Adhikari, P., Steccolini, I., & Jayasinghe, K. (2026). The recovery of public sector accounting as a site of possibility: Publicness and localized-led development. Financial Accountability & Management, 42, 3–11.

Zhang, D., Yan, B., & Zhang, H. (2025). ESG characterized industry evaluation system, factors and benefits. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhou, M., Chen, B., Liu, Y., & Cheng, B., et al. (2022). Regulatory effect of environmental information disclosure under environmental tax in China. Energy Policy, 164, 112760.

Christensen, B. E., Eilifsen, A., Glover, S. M., & Messier, W. F. (2020). The effect of audit materiality disclosures on investors’ decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 87, 101168.

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18.

Sebeelo, T. B. (2024). Methodological confluence: Weaving constructivist grounded theory and Indigenous research methods. Methodological Innovations, 17.

Koleva, P., & Ocler, R. (2018). Using constructivist grounded theory to construct a substantive theory for corporate social responsibility. In CSR, Sustainability, Ethics and Governance.

Larrinaga, C., & Bebbington, J. (2021). The pre-history of sustainability reporting: A constructivist reading. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34, 162–181.

Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 819–841.

Huang, T., Pepper, M., & Bowrey, G. (2014). Implementing a sustainability balanced scorecard. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 8.

Cohen, S., Manes Rossi, F., Caperchione, E., & Brusca, I. (2019). Local government accounting information needs: Is there a mismatch? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85.

Megawati, S., Pradana, G. W., Eprilianto, D. F., Hamsinah, H., & Syamsul, M. R. (2025). Synergistic modelling of green and digital local government. Journal of Modelling in Management.

Xue, S., Chang, Q., & Xu, J. (2023). CSR disclosure and firm profitability in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 77, 101919.

Qi, Y., & Zhang, L. (2014). Local environmental enforcement and central-local relations in China. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24.

Brink, E., Dellve, L., Hallberg, U., Abrahamsson, K. H., Klingberg, G., & Wentz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1.

Fàbregues, S., & Paré, M.-H. (2007). Review of Charmaz grounded theory book. Papers Revista de Sociologia, 86.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2006). Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25, 409–434.

Sebeelo, T. B. (2022). The utility of constructivist grounded theory in critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21.

Soares, T. C., Souza, C. J. de, Silva, L. S., & Soares, S. V. (2026). ESG: A substantive theory on implementation process. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 13, 102541.

Ograh, T., Ayarkwa, J., & Acheampong, A. (2025). Green sustainability in supplier selection: Grounded theory perspective. Business and Society Review.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Fetters, M., Curry, L., & Creswell, J. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs. Health Services Research, 48.

Babu, G. R., Mahapatra, T., Detels, R., Benítez, I., Padilla, J.-L., Carlton, J., et al. (2013). SME framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110.

Sarstedt, M., Radomir, L., Moisescu, O. I., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Latent class analysis in PLS-SEM. Journal of Business Research, 138.

Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Becker, J.-M. (2025). CB-SEM tutorial. Journal of Marketing Analytics.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory (slides).

Puddephatt, A. J. (2006). Interview with Kathy Charmaz. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2.

Plano Clark, V. L. (2019). Meaningful integration in mixed methods. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis.

Wei Yinze, X., & Chen Wuy, L. (2025). ESG investment, AI risk management, and ethical compliance. Journal Economic Business Innovation, 2.

Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 47–48, 9–27.

Wong, K. P., & Chan, A. H. S. (2021). Work-life balance determinants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18.

Aslam, M., Ahmad, B., & Rasheed, T. (2025). Green innovation and SME performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship.

Daryono. (2024). Environmental sustainability through Seyyed Hossein Nasr lens. Advances in Environmental Innovation, 1.

Indriastuti, E., & Markhumah, U. (2025). Green tax benefits and public compliance. Journal Economic Business Innovation, 2.

Henseler, J., Lee, N., Roemer, E., Kemény, I., Dirsehan, T., & Cadogan, J. W. (2024). Woozle effect in PLS-SEM. Electronic Commerce Research, 24.

Hanifah, R. U., & Safitri, C. (2025). Coastal sustainability accounting. Advances in Accounting Innovation, 2, 27–36.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (2023). Integrative model of organizational trust.

Perdana Putri, A., & Dwianto, A. (2025). Employability through digital skills. Advances in Accounting Innovation, 1, 188–198.

Dwianto, A., & Setiawati, E. (2024). ESG and Islamic banks value. ESG Research Hub Journal.

Rahmawati, et al. (2024). Digital entrepreneurship among disabled people. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4.

Dwianto, A., Puspitasari, D., A’yun, A. Q., Sulistyawati, A. I., & Pugara, A. (2024). Sustainability environmental performance future investment for company value. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3.

Nabila, K. A., Kusumawati, M., & Megawati, G. (2022). Knowledge and perception of diabetes mellitus among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in five public health centers in Karawang, West Java, Indonesia. Althea Medical Journal, 9, 12–18.

Romero, K. C. C., & Lamadrid, R. L. (2014). Rethinking corporate social responsibility within the sustainability agenda: Issues and challenges for Asian-based companies. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5.

Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Yang, F. (2020). Does environmental information disclosure contribute to improve firm financial performance? Science of the Total Environment, 714, 136855.

Wang, C.-Y., Weng, Y.-C., & Wang, L. (2021). Effect of air quality on corporate environmental disclosure: The moderating role of institutional investors. Borsa Istanbul Review, 21, S1–S12.

Dwianto, A. (2024). Sustainability environmental performance future investment for company value. Journal of Ecohumanism.

Charmaz, K. (n.d.). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).

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

Hood, C. (2010). Can we? Administrative limits revisited. Public Administration Review, 70, 527–534.

Kolzow, D. R., Smith, C. C. C., Serrat, O., Dilie, H. M., Zeeshan, S., Ng, S. I., et al. (2021). Unit 5 theories of leadership. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 1.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.

Agbodzakey, J. (2024). Building trust in collaborative governance. In Collaborative governance primer: An antidote to solving complex public problems (pp. 71–79). Springer.

Farneti, F., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Italian and Australian local governments: Balanced scorecard practices. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 12, 4–13.

Ball, I., Truong, T. P., & Warren, K. (2025). Did the New Zealand government’s move to accrual accounting meet expectations? Accounting History, 30, 556–574.

Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 47–62.

Florini, A., Laforge, G., & Sharma, S. (2023). Governance for systemic and transformational change: Redesigning governance for the Anthropocene.

Bisogno, M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Santis, S., & Citro, F. (2018). Budgetary solvency of Italian local governments: An assessment. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32, 122–141.

Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Martínez-Ferrero, J., Frías-Aceituno, J. V., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2017). The role of media pressure in promoting transparency of local governments. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13, 20–37.