From Disclosure to Accountability: Integration Mechanisms in ESG Reporting and Implications for Malaysia's Transition to Mandatory Sustainability Disclosure

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting has moved from voluntary communication to regulated corporate accountability, yet the quality of adoption varies sharply. Many organisations, particularly in emerging economies, produce disclosures that satisfy formal requirements without altering strategy, governance or resource allocation, a pattern described as symbolic reporting. This concept paper asks how organisations with mature ESG practice couple reporting to management, and what that implies for firms entering mandatory regimes such as Malaysia's National Sustainability Reporting Framework. Guided by stakeholder, legitimacy and institutional theory, the study adopts a qualitative multiple-case design based on documentary analysis of Ørsted (Denmark), Microsoft (United States), Unilever (United Kingdom) and SD Guthrie, formerly Sime Darby Plantation (Malaysia), compared across seven dimensions spanning strategy, reporting design, environmental and social practice, governance, challenges and impact. The comparison yields a framework in which five integration mechanisms, namely board ownership, materiality discipline, target architecture, internal economic linkage and verification, determine whether disclosure becomes consequential or remains ceremonial. The Malaysian case is analytically distinctive because a foreign enforcement agency adjudicated both the initial failure and its remediation, supplying external verification that voluntary disclosure settings rarely provide. The paper contributes a mechanism-level account of when ESG reporting produces accountability, with guidance for boards, preparers and regulators moving to ISSB-aligned reporting.

ESG reporting; sustainability disclosure; accountability; decoupling; legitimacy theory; IFRS S1 and S2; Malaysia

1. Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87-103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78-94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1176-1248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures, a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deegan, C. M. (2019). Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and relevance, time is right for a necessary makeover. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2307-2329. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fianko, S. K., Amoah, N., Addo, A., Agyemang, K., Gbadago, F. Y., Adjaye-Gyamfi, O., Agbemava, E., Agropah, F., Zaglago, L., Atiase, D. D., & Nooni, I. K. (2025). IFRS S1 and S2 implementation readiness in emerging markets: A multi-dimensional assessment framework and market readiness index. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-12-2024-0921 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI universal standards 2021. GRI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS S1 general requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information and IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures. International Sustainability Standards Board. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. KPMG. (2024). The move to mandatory reporting: Survey of sustainability reporting 2024. KPMG International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223-249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483-504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Microsoft. (2020, January 16). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. Microsoft Corporate Blogs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Microsoft. (2025). 2025 environmental sustainability report. Microsoft Corporation. https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/msc/documents/presentations/CSR/2025-icrosoft-Environmental-Sustainability-Report.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mohammad, W. M. W., & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Ørsted. (2024, February 7). Annual report for 2023: Strong underlying results and strategic progress in a challenging year [Company announcement]. Ørsted A/S. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Ørsted. (2025, August 11). Ørsted announces plan for a rights issue with support from the Danish State as majority shareholder and gross proceeds of DKK 60 billion [Company announcement]. Ørsted A/S. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. (2022, November 14). RSPO concludes verification assessment at Sime Darby Plantation Berhad [News release and decision letter]. RSPO. https://rspo.org/rspo-concludes-verification-assessment-at-sime-darby-plantation-berhad/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Securities Commission Malaysia. (2024). National sustainability reporting framework. Securities Commission Malaysia. https://www.sc.com.my/nsrf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sime Darby Plantation. (2023, February 3). Sime Darby Plantation's palm oil exports to United States given greenlight after review by US Customs [Press release]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2020, December 30). CBP issues Withhold Release Order on palm oil produced by forced labor in Malaysia [Press release]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-issues-withhold-release-order-palm-oil-produced-forced-labor [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2023, February 2). CBP modifies Finding on Sime Darby Plantation Berhad in Malaysia [Press release]. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-modifies-finding-sime-darby-plantation-berhad-malaysia [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. World Bank & Securities Commission Malaysia. (2024). ESG disclosure assessment of Malaysia's listed companies and recommendations for policy development. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors