Moderation of Environmental Management Accounting in Improving Business Sustainability

Moderation of Environmental Management Accounting in Improving Business Sustainability

Muhammad Wahyuddin Abdullah¹, Nurmelani², Muhammad Sapril Sardi Juardi³, Indah Tri Hartini⁴, Hadriana Hanafie⁵

^1,2,3,4Alauddin State Islamic University of Makassar

⁵Wira Bhakti University of Makassar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12030072

Received: 08 March 2025; Accepted: 12 March 2025; Published: 15 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study aims to determine the effect of cost efficiency, profitability and productivity levels on business sustainability with environmental management accounting as a moderator. This study is a quantitative study with a causality approach. The population in this study were mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). The technique in selecting samples used the purposive sampling method with a total of 20 companies with 4 years of observation, namely 2018-2021. The data used is secondary data, which includes financial report data. The data has gone through classical assumption tests and hypothesis tests using the SPSS 25 application program. The test results show that profitability has a significant effect on business sustainability. While cost efficiency and productivity levels do not have a significant effect on business sustainability. The moderation analysis conducted proves that the environmental management accounting moderation variable is only able to moderate the effect of profitability on business sustainability but has not been able to moderate the interaction of cost efficiency and productivity levels on business sustainability.

Keyword: Cost Efficiency, Profitability, Productivity Level, Business Sustainability, Environmental Management Accounting

INTRODUCTION

The current polemic of attention to environmental issues has given rise to pros and cons for most business organizations. Water, land and air pollution are negative impacts caused by one of the company’s activities that compete to seek the highest possible profit without considering the impact on the environment (Abdullah & Amiruddin, 2020). Companies are forced to take action to protect or limit the exploitation of nature (W et al., 2018). Increasingly stringent laws are causing companies to try their best to pay attention to environmental issues (Setiawan, 2018). Law No. 4 of 1984 concerning the basic provisions for environmental management, Article 7, which explains that every person who running a business sector is required to maintain a harmonious and balanced environment to support sustainable development (Autischer, 2003).

The fact of the environmental pollution problem carried out by companies in Indonesia, especially mining companies, means that a business environment must be able to maintain its business processes by implementing appropriate strategies in order to achieve the company’s going concern and sustainable development (Rustika, 2011 in Mardikawati et al., 2014). This is the reason why the mining sector was used as a sample in this study, because in 2018-2021, not a few mining companies had their mining permits revoked due to environmental pollution, which encouraged mining companies to work hard to maintain the sustainability of their businesses by paying attention to environmental aspects.

Indonesia is the fourth largest coal producing country globally. In 2018, Indonesia’s coal production was 549 million tons, mostly produced from Kalimantan (Idris, 2020). However, in 2017 PT. Berau Coal Energy Tbk. (BRAU) and PT. Permata Prima Sakti Tbk. (TKGA) as companies engaged in coal mining were delisted from the IDX due to financial difficulties (Bareksa, 2017). Then in 2019, PT. Bara Jaya Internasional Tbk (ATPK) was also delisted from the IDX due to the company’s going concern problem (Wareza, 2019). Furthermore, in 2020, PT. Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal Tbk (BORN) also had to be delisted from the IDX due to financial difficulties (Saleh, 2020). This emphasizes that mining companies need special attention in the matter of financial difficulties that can lead to bankruptcy, plus the problem of revocation of mining permits due to environmental pollution which can also threaten business continuity.

In the current era of globalization, the level of competition in the business world is getting higher and only business entities that have good performance will survive in this competitive competition. Companies are required to be more efficient in carrying out their activities (Sari & Rimawan, 2020). Cost efficiency is one of the variables that can influence business continuity.With effective cost control, it means that the costs incurred by the company are in accordance with what the company has planned, so that effective and efficient costs will be created (Kurniawati, 2018). Production cost control is said to be efficient if the control procedures have been carried out properly (Fatimah & M, 2019).

In general, a company will always try to achieve its goals, both long-term goals, for example being able to increase the company’s value and provide prosperity for shareholders as well as maintaining business continuity, as well as short-term goals, for example maximizing the company’s profit with the resources it has (Suwardika & Mustanda, 2017). Profitability is a variable that can also affect business continuity. Astuti (2004:36) states that profitability is a company’s profit derived from sales that have been made. The greater the profit obtained by a company, the more guaranteed the company’s survival. Therefore, a company makes various efforts to increase its profits, for example by increasing productivity (Abdullah & Amiruddin, 2020).

The main determining factor in measuring the economy of both countries and businesses is productivity. Productivity is a variable that can also influence business continuity. Productivity according to Ebert et al., (2011) in Anggarini et al., (2021) is economic growth that compares how much is produced by a system with the amount of resources needed to produce it. The survival of a business is determined by the level of productivity produced by the business. If productivity is high, then the survival of the business will also be maximized (Anggarini et al., 2021).

The fact of pollution problems caused by mining companies due to the company’s production process is widely found in Indonesia. Thus, the demand for environmentally friendly products needs to be a concern in the development of sustainable industry (Mardikawati et al., 2014). Increasing awareness of environmental issues has encouraged companies, especially mining companies, to implement environmental management accounting. Environmental management accounting is a subsystem of environmental accounting that explains a number of issues regarding the measurement of the impacts of a company’s business into a number of monetary units (Hansen, 2013). By considering the above context, this research has the aim ofto determine the influence of cost efficiency, profitability and productivity levels on business sustainability with environmental management accounting as a moderator.

The theoretical benefits of this study are expected to perfect the stakeholder theory first put forward by Freeman in 1984. Stakeholder theory states that a company is not an entity that operates for its own interests, but provides benefits to its stakeholders which in this case consist of shareholders, creditors, consumers, suppliers, government, society, and other parties. This study is expected to provide useful input for the company by contributing ideas to solving problems related to business continuity that are influenced by cost efficiency, profitability and productivity levels through the application of environmental management accounting so that it can be a reference for companies in maintaining the sustainability of their companies while still paying attention to environmental risks in their operational activities. In addition, it is very important to continue to comply with government regulations so that the community is not harmed in the company’s existing operational activities. Therefore, the application of environmental management accounting is important in the company.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder theory does not focus solely on profit but also on providing benefits to stakeholders (Mandaika & Salim, 2015). Based on the basic assumption of stakeholder theory, companies cannot separate themselves from the surrounding natural environment which is one of the stakeholders’ interests. Companies need to pay attention to the environment and place it in the framework of policies and decision-making so that it can support the achievement of company goals, namely profit and going concern guarantees. Therefore, the implementation and disclosure of information on corporate responsibility towards the environment is something that needs to be considered by companies (Hadi, 2009).

Legitimacy Theory

Legitimacy is a psychological state of partiality of people and groups of people who are very sensitive to the symptoms of the surrounding environment, both physical and non-physical. Legitimacy is a potential benefit or resource for a company to survive because there is a reciprocal relationship between two entities, namely the company and the environment (O’Donovan, 2000).

Cost Efficiency

Cost efficiency is defined as the ratio between the minimum cost at which a company can produce a certain amount of output, and the actual costs incurred by the company (Hartono, 2009). The Greatest Showman (2018) explains that cost efficiency is the level of savings and economic sacrifices made to achieve predetermined goals.

Profitability

Profitability is the company’s ability to make a profit or the effectiveness of the company’s management (Wiagustini, 2010:76). Astuti (2004:36) states that profitability is the company’s profit derived from sales that have been made. Profitability plays an important role in all aspects of business because it can show the efficiency of the company and reflect the company’s performance.

Productivity Level

Productivity according to Ebert et al., (2011) in Anggarini et al., (2021) is economic growth that compares how much is produced by a system with the amount of resources needed to produce it. In short, productivity is said to increase if with certain resources but the products produced are high. According to Hasibuan (1996) productivity is the comparison between output and input. The survival of a business is determined by the level of productivity produced by the business. If productivity is high, then the survival of the business will also be maximized (Anggarini et al., 2021).

Business Continuity

Continuity in the complete Indonesian dictionary is defined as a form of verb that describes a state or condition that is ongoing and continuing, is a process that occurs and eventually leads to the existence or sustainability of a state (Sami & HR, 2014). Business continuity is concerned with ensuring the implementation of business continuity plans and keeping the organization’s activities running (Moşteanu, 2020). The sustainability of the company is how long the company can survive the development of the industrial world. A sustainable industrial area is a development plan that refers to the concept of sustainable development, namely development that integrates economic, social and environmental aspects (Agustia, 2010).

Environmental Management Accounting

In contrast to conventional accounting concepts, environmental management accounting aims to increase the amount of relevant information for those who need it, so that it can be used as an indicator for decision making (Maiti & Bidinger, 1981). Pflieger et al (2005) in Ja’far and Arifah (2006), stated that environmental conservation efforts by companies will bring a number of benefits, including the interest of shareholders and stakeholders in the company’s profits due to responsible environmental management in the eyes of the community.

The impact of cost efficiency on business sustainability

In competitive business competition, companies are required to be more efficient in carrying out their activities (Sari & Rimawan, 2020). Large companies with various types of activities have a lot of expenses. If left unchecked, these expenses can have an impact on the decline in profits generated by the company. Therefore, cost efficiency needs to be carried out in the company to reduce unnecessary expenses, so that there is no waste of costs (Meryanti, 2013). With effective cost control, it means that the costs incurred by the company are in accordance with what the company has planned, so that effective and efficient costs will be created (Kurniawati, 2018).

H1: Cost efficiency has a positive effect on business sustainability.

The influence of company profitability on business sustainability

Profitability plays an important role in all aspects of business because it can show the efficiency of the company and reflect the company’s performance. If the profitability of a company is high, it shows that the company is working efficiently and effectively in managing the company’s assets in obtaining profits each period (Suwardika & Mustanda, 2017). Companies that are able to generate higher profits indicate that the company’s performance is getting better, so that it can generate a good response from investors which has an impact on increasing the share price of a company (Kusnia, 2014). The greater the profit a company obtains, the more guaranteed the survival of the company (Abdullah & Amiruddin, 2020).

H2: Profitability has a positive effect on business continuity.

The influence of productivity levels on business continuity

The main determining factor in measuring the economy of both countries and businesses is productivity. According to Riyanto (1986) technically productivity is a comparison between the results achieved (output) with the total resources required (input). Productivity means a comparison between the results achieved with the role of labor per unit of time. Productivity can be measured by comparing output and input during the production process. In this case, companies are required to pay attention to consumer tastes by increasing the quality and quantity of their production. Upadhyaya & Singh (2019) state that to achieve productivity, what needs to be done is sustainable management or sustainable management. The survival of a business is determined by the level of productivity produced by the business. If productivity is high, then the survival of the business will also be maximized (Anggarini et al., 2021).

H3: The level of productivity has a positive effect on business continuity.

Environmental management accounting as a reinforcement between cost efficiency and business sustainability.

One important aspect of sustainable development, namely the ecological/environmental aspect, can be met if the company implements environmental management accounting. One of the benefits of environmental management accounting as stated by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) is strategic position, where environmental management accounting can provide support in the evaluation and implementation of environmentally friendly and cost-effective programs, to ensure the company’s strategic position in the long term. Competitive position can also be achieved through eco-efficiency, where environmental management accounting provides simultaneous support for reducing costs and environmental impacts through more efficient use of energy, water and materials in a company’s operations and products (Burhany, 2012).

H4: Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of cost efficiency on business sustainability.

Environmental management accounting as a reinforcement between company profitability and business sustainability

The general objective of the company is to obtain profit, maximum profit means that the profit obtained must be in accordance with what is planned, and the company must pay more attention to the factors that affect the profit. In an effort to achieve maximum profit Natural resource processing companies tend to damage the environment. Because they are the main source of environmental damage, in addition to thinking about economic benefits, companies should also be more responsible for the environment (Shrivastava & Hart, 1995).  Environmental management accountinghas a significant role in the company’s business strategy. Environmental management accountingis a new tool for management to improve the profitability and environmental performance of the company and support the long-term sustainability of the company’s business (Yudhanta, 2009).

H5: Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of corporate profitability on business sustainability.

Environmental management accounting as a reinforcement between productivity levels and business sustainability

The phenomenon of global warming and increasing environmental damage has encouraged various countries to implement strict requirements in international trade, so that some countries require environmentally friendly products. If you want to win the competition in global market conditions like this, companies must design and implement environmentally friendly competitive strategies, so that the products produced are environmentally friendly products and can compete (Burhany, 2012). Upadhyaya & Singh (2019) stated that to achieve productivity, what needs to be done is sustainable management. Abdullah & Amiruddin, (2020) explains that companies in their production processes must be able to develop sustainable concepts and environmentally friendly industries that are integrated, comprehensive and efficient.

H6: Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of productivity levels on business sustainability.

RESEARCH METHOD

The type of research used in this study is a quantitative research approach. The approach in this study is causality, meaning that the research that tests the hypothesis proposed to assess the relationship between several variables. The population used in this study is mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). The technique in selecting samples uses the purposive sampling method with a total of 20 companies with 4 years of observation, namely 2018-2021.The data used in this study is secondary data. In this case, the author analyzes the company’s annual financial report.which is obtained by accessing financial reports on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) website, namely www.idx.co.id. Research data analysis was conducted using computer software, namely SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution). Data was tested through classical assumption tests in the form of normality tests, multicollinearity tests, heteroscedasticity tests and autocorrelation tests. Hypothesis testing methods used multiple linear regression analysis and moderated regression analysis with an interaction test approach. are multiple linear regression and moderation of the interaction test approach.

Operational Definition

Table 1 :- perational Definition of Variables

Source: Processed data (2022)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Classical Assumption Test

Normality Test

The results of the normality test using the normal probability plot graph method show that the points (data) that are spread in the normal probability plot graph follow the direction of the diagonal line. This means that the data in this study meets the assumption of normality.

Multicollinearity Test

The results of the multicollinearity test show that the data obtained from the tolerance value for the cost efficiency variable is 0.656, profitability is 0.442, productivity level is 0.621 and environmental management accounting is 0.910. All of these tolerance values ​​each show >0.10. The VIF value for the cost efficiency variable is 1.525, profitability is 2.265, productivity level is 1.611 and environmental management accounting is 1.099. All of these VIF values ​​each show <10.00. So it can be concluded that the regression model in this study does not have symptoms of multicollinearity between independent variables because all variable tolerance values ​​are greater than 0.10 and all variable VIF values ​​are less than 10.00.

Heteroscedasticity Test

The results of the heteroscedasticity test show that the scatter plot graph between SRESID and ZPRED shows a distribution pattern where the points are spread randomly, spread above and below or around the 0 number axis. This shows that there is no heteroscedasticity in the regression model, so this regression model is suitable for use in predicting business sustainability based on cost efficiency, profitability, productivity levels and environmental management accounting.

Autocorrelation Test

The results of the autocorrelation test show a value of 1.7430>1.019<2.257, so it can be said that this model has autocorrelation interference so that it is not yet suitable for use in further analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to take action to overcome the occurrence of autocorrelation. The Cochrane-Orcutt method is one method that can be used to overcome the problem of autocorrelation in regression models.

The results of the Durbin Watson autocorrelation test with the Cochrane-Orcutt method show based on a significant 5% or 0.05 with the number of financial reports 80 (n), d value = 1.955 and independent variables 4 (k = 4), which is obtained is assessed dL = 1.5337 and dU value = 1.7430. So it is known that the value (4-dU) is 2.257. The results of the autocorrelation test show a value of 1.7430 <1.955 <2.257, so it can be said that this model does not experience autocorrelation interference because the DU value <D <4-DU so it is suitable for use in further analysis.

Hypothesis Testing

Multiple Linear Regression Test Results Research Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3

Determination Coefficient Test (R2)

The results of the determination coefficient test (R2) show that the R2 (Adjusted R Square) value obtained is 0.246. This means that 24.6% shows that business continuity is influenced by independent variables, namely cost efficiency, profitability, and productivity levels. The remaining 75.4% is influenced by other variables that have not been studied in this study.

Simultaneous Regression Test (F Test)

The results of the F test show that the effect of cost efficiency, profitability and productivity levels on business sustainability has an F-count value of 9.579 with a significance level of 0.000. The level of significance obtained is less than 10% (α = 0.10) and the F-count value of 9.579 is greater than the F table value of 2.16 (df1 = 3 and df2 = 76) which means that H1, H2, and H3 are accepted so that it can be concluded that cost efficiency, profitability and productivity levels together have an effect on business sustainability.

Partial Test (t-Test)

Figure I Results of t-Test – Partial Test

Source: Processed secondary data (2023)

Cost efficiency has a significant positive effect on business continuity (H1)

The table above shows that the cost efficiency variable has a t count of 0.453 while the t table is 1.665 (sig = 0.10 and df = nk, which is 80-4 = 76) with an unstandardized beta coefficient of 0.789 and a significance level of 0.651 which is greater than 0.10, it can be concluded that H1 is rejected which means there is no significant influence between X1 and Y. So for the first hypothesis which states that cost efficiency has a significant positive effect on business continuity is not proven. The results of this study indicate that the better the cost efficiency carried out by mining companies does not guarantee the sustainability of their businesses.

Profitability has a significant positive effect on business continuity (H2)

The table above shows that the profitability variable has a t count of 3.487 while the t table is 1.665 (sig = 0.10 and df = nk, which is 80-4 = 76) with an unstandardized beta coefficient of 17.868 and a significance level of 0.001 which is smaller than 0.10, it can be concluded that H2 is accepted which means there is a significant positive influence between X2 and Y. So for the second hypothesis which states that profitability has a significant positive effect on business sustainability is proven. The results of this study indicate that the higher the profitability generated by a mining company, the better its business sustainability.

The level of productivity has a significant positive effect on business continuity (H3)

The table above shows that the productivity level variable has a t count of 0.770 while the t table is 1.665 (sig = 0.10 and df = nk, which is 80-4 = 76) with an unstandardized beta coefficient of 1.445 and a significance level of 0.444 which is greater than 0.10, it can be concluded that H3 is rejected which means there is no significant influence between X3 and Y. So for the third hypothesis which states that the productivity level has a significant positive effect on business continuity is not proven. The results of this study indicate that the higher the level of productivity carried out by mining companies does not guarantee the sustainability of their businesses is getting better.

Results of Moderation Regression Test Results with Interaction Test Approach on Research Hypotheses H4, H5, and H6

Hypothesis testing H4, H5, and H6 was conducted by means of absolute difference moderation regression analysis between the effects of cost efficiency, profitability, and productivity levels on business sustainability interacted with environmental management accounting. The test results are presented as follows.

Determination Coefficient Test (R2 Test)

The results of the determination coefficient test (R2) show that the R2 (Adjusted R Square) value obtained is 0.248. This means that 24.8% shows that business continuity can be influenced by independent variables, namely cost efficiency, profitability, and productivity levels which are strengthened by environmental management accounting variables. The remaining 75.2% is influenced by other variables that have not been studied in this study.

Simultaneous Regression Test (F Test)

The results of the F Test in the moderation regression test show the calculated F result of 4.727 which is greater than the F table of 1.80 (df1=7 and df2=72) with a significance level of 0.000 which is smaller than 0.10. This means that the variables of cost efficiency, profitability, productivity level and environmental management accounting together or simultaneously can affect business sustainability.

Partial Regression Test (t-Test)

Figure II Regression Test Results – Partial Test

Source: Processed secondary data (2023)

Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of cost efficiency on business sustainability (H4)

The test results in the table above show that the moderating variable X1_M has a t count of -0.593 smaller than the t table of 1.665 with a significance level of 0.555 which is greater than 0.10. The unstandardized beta coefficient value of moderation between the cost efficiency variable and environmental management accounting is -101.047. This shows that the environmental management accounting variable is not a moderating variable that can strengthen or weaken the relationship between the cost efficiency variable and business continuity. So the fourth hypothesis which states that environmental management accounting significantly strengthens the relationship between the influence of cost efficiency on business continuity is not proven or rejected.

Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of profitability on business sustainability (H5)

The test results in the table above show that the moderating variable X2_M has a t count of 1.752 which is greater than the t table of 1.665 with a significance level of 0.084 which is smaller than 0.10. The unstandardized beta coefficient value of moderation between the profitability variable and environmental management accounting is 746.302. This shows that the environmental management accounting variable is able to significantly moderate the relationship between profitability and business sustainability and the hypothesis is accepted.

Environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of productivity levels on business sustainability (H6)

The test results in the table above show that the moderating variable X3_M has a t count of -0.823 smaller than the t table of 1.665 with a significance level of 0.413 which is greater than 0.10. The unstandardized beta coefficient value of moderation between the cost efficiency variable and environmental management accounting is -65.856. This shows that the environmental management accounting variable is not a moderating variable that can strengthen or weaken the relationship between the productivity level variable and business continuity. So the sixth hypothesis which states that environmental management accounting significantly strengthens the relationship between the influence of productivity levels on business continuity is not proven or rejected.

DISCUSSION

The first hypothesis (H1) proposed in this study is that cost efficiency has a positive effect on business continuity. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that cost efficiency does not have a significant effect on business continuity. This shows that the better the cost efficiency carried out by mining companies in this study does not guarantee better business continuity, thus the first hypothesis is rejected. The rejection of the first hypothesis in this study shows a big difference from several previous studies that show the effect of cost efficiency on business continuity. In the study ofSari & Rimawan (2020) it is explained that in the current era of globalization, the level of competition in the business world is getting higher and to maintain their business, companies are required to be more efficient in carrying out their activities. The facts obtained from the results of the analysis in this study show that cost efficiency with a significance value greater than 0.10 does not have a significant effect on business continuity. This is possible because no matter how good the company is in its efforts to carry out cost efficiency, if the cost savings are not in line with revenue optimization, it will still not achieve the desired profit target in order to maintain business continuity. In addition, this study also shows the value of the unstandardized beta coefficient for the cost efficiency variable of 0.789, which means that cost efficiency actually has an influence, although small, but does not reach the level of significance. This is possible because cost efficiency is only one factor that is thought to be able to influence business continuity. While there are many factors that can influence business continuity and are not measured in this study. As explained in Ligthelm’s research, (2010) that the sustainability of a business is supported by several factors.

The second hypothesis (H₂) proposed in this study is that profitability has a positive effect on business continuity. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that profitability has a significant effect on business continuity. This shows that the better the profitability generated by the mining company in this study, the better the sustainability of its business, thus the second hypothesis is accepted. The acceptance of the second hypothesis in this study shows the similarities of several previous studies. Generally, a company will always try to achieve its goals, both long-term goals, for example, being able to increase the value of the company,providing welfare for shareholders also maintains business continuity and short-term goals, for example maximizing company profits by owned resources. If a company’s profitability is high, it shows that the company is working efficiently and effectively in managing the company’s assets in obtaining profits each period (Suwardika & Mustanda, 2017).

The third hypothesis (H3) proposed in this study is that the level of productivity has a positive effect on business continuity. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that the level of productivity does not have a significant effect on business continuity. This shows that the higher the level of productivity of the mining company in this study does not guarantee better business continuity, thus the third hypothesis is rejected. The results of the study which show that the level of productivity does not have a significant effect on business continuity are very different from the qualitative study by Anggraini et, al (2021) which revealed that the survival of a business is determined by the level of productivity produced by the business. If productivity is high, then the survival of the business will also be maximized. The difference in the results of this study is possible due to differences in the methods and data used. The inability of the productivity level variable to influence business continuity in this study is suspected to be largely related to the lack of production activity during the observation year due to the Covid-19 outbreak which hampered the company’s operations. The unstable level of productivity during the observation year makes the data obtained and tested in this study most likely unable to show the actual situation.

The fourth hypothesis (H4) proposed in this study is that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of cost efficiency on business sustainability. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that the interaction between environmental management accounting and cost efficiency does not have a significant effect on business sustainability. This means that the fourth hypothesis stating that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of cost efficiency on business sustainability is rejected. The use of environmental management accounting in this study is included in the category of moderation homologizers, which means that the variable Environmental management accounting is not included as independent and moderate, because it does not have a direct influence on business continuity and cannot moderate the interaction between cost efficiency and business continuity.The results of this study differ from Burhany’s (2012) study which states that environmental management accounting provides simultaneous support for reducing costs and environmental impacts through more efficient use of energy, water and materials in the company’s operations and products. The rejection of the fourth hypothesis in this study is possible because the application of environmental management accounting will create environmental costs that can increase the costs that must be incurred by the company. However, companies still need to pay attention to the environment and place it in the framework of policies and decision-making so that it can support the achievement of company goals, namely profit and going concern guarantees. The results of Yudhanta’s (2009) study revealed that environmental management accounting is a new tool for management to increase the profitability and environmental performance of the company and support the sustainability of the company’s business in the long term. The results of this study explain the influence of environmental management accounting on long-term business sustainability. Seeing these conditions, it can be assumed that although the application of environmental management accounting will create environmental costs that can increase the costs that must be incurred by the company, the application of environmental management accounting can provide long-term benefits for business sustainability. This is in line with research by Ja’far and Arifah (2006) which states that environmental conservation efforts by companies will bring a number of benefits, including shareholder interest, avoiding claims from the community and government which can ultimately increase economic profits.

The fifth hypothesis (H5) proposed in this study is that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of profitability on business sustainability. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that the interaction between environmental management accounting and profitability has a significant effect on business sustainability. This means that the fifth hypothesis stating that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of profitability on business sustainability is accepted. The results of the analysis conducted indicate that in this study the environmental management accounting moderation variable is able to act as a pure moderation, which means moderating the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable where the pure moderation variable interacts with the independent variable without becoming an independent variable in the relationship model formed. The acceptance of the fifth hypothesis in this study is in line with Yudhanta’s research (2009) which states that environmental management accounting is a new tool for management to improve the profitability and environmental performance of the company and support long-term business sustainability.

The sixth hypothesis (H6) proposed in this study is that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of productivity levels on business sustainability. Based on the results of the analysis, it shows that the interaction between environmental management accounting and productivity levels does not have a significant effect on business sustainability. This means that the sixth hypothesis stating that environmental management accounting strengthens the influence of productivity levels on business sustainability is rejected. The use of environmental management accounting in this study is included in the category of moderation homologizers, which means that environmental management accounting variables are not independent and moderating, because they do not directly affect business sustainability and cannot moderate the interaction between productivity levels and business sustainability. The rejection of the sixth hypothesis is possible because the application of environmental management accounting is thought to be less effective. This condition can occur because social costs have less economic consequences, where the form, type, and strategy of social costs carried out by the company are more indirect effects. Although the costs of social and environmental responsibility have been incurred, the economic benefits of the sacrifice of these costs are not directly felt (Waddock and Graves, 1997). In terms of increasing production, companies experience many problems that arise in the dimensions of corporate sustainability, namely economic, technological, social, and environmental, starting from the level of efficiency and effectiveness of production costs as well as the waste production process. Research by Abdullah & Amiruddin, (2020) explains that companies in their production processes must be able to develop sustainable concepts and environmentally friendly industries that are integrated, comprehensive, and efficient.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the analysis and discussion that have been carried out to determine the influence of independent variables, namely cost efficiency, profitability, and productivity levels on the dependent variable, namely business continuity and the interaction of moderating variables, namely environmental management accounting in mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange, it is concluded that Profitability has a positive and significant effect on business continuity. However, cost efficiency and productivity levels do not have a significant effect on business continuity. In addition, environmental management accounting can strengthen the influence of profitability on business continuity. However, environmental management accounting cannot strengthen the influence of cost efficiency and productivity levels on business continuity.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, MW, & Amiruddin, H. (2020). The Effect of Green Accounting on Material Flow Cost Accounting in Improving Company Sustainability. EKUITAS (Journal of Economics and Finance), 4(2), 166–186.
2. Agustia, D. (2010). Environmental Cost Reporting as a Tool for Decision Making Related to Environmental Management. ACCRUAL: Journal of Accounting, 1(2), 190.
3. Anggarini, DR, Nani, DA, & Aprianto, W. (2021). Institutional Strengthening in the Framework of Increasing Coffee Farmer Productivity at GAPOKTAN Sumber Murni Lampung (SML). Sricommerce: Journal of Sriwijaya Community Services, 2(1), 59–66.
4. Astuti, Dewi. (2004). Corporate Financial Management. First Edition. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
5. Autischer, W. (2003). Corporate social responsibility. Papier Aus Osterreich, 12–1, 17.
6. Bareksa. 2017. “BRAU and TKGA Shares Officially Delisted in November, Here is the Historical Movement.” Bareksa.com. 2017.
7. Burhany, DI (2012). Environmental Management Accounting, A Tool to Improve Environmental Performance in Sustainable Development. 80, 279–298.
8. Fatimah, F., & M, S. (2019). Production Cost Efficiency as Production Cost Control at PDAM Parepare City. Economos: Journal of Economics and Business, 2(1),
9. Hadi, N. (2009). Social Responsibility: A Study of Theoretical Framework, and Its Role in Research in the Field of Accounting. Journal of Economics and Business, 4(8), 88–109.
10. Hansen/Mowen. 2007. Managerial Accounting. Book 2. Edition 8. Salemba Empat. Jakarta.
11. Hansen, DR & MMM (2013). Environmental Management Accounting. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
12. Hartono, EDY (2009). Cost Efficiency Analysis of Indonesian Banking Industry Using Parametric Tochastic Fronter Analysis Method.
13. Hasibuan, Malayu SP, (1996). Organization and Motivation: The Basis for Increasing Productivity. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara Publisher.
14. Idris, Muhammad. (2020). “List of 10 Largest Coal Producing Countries in the World, What is the Rank of Indonesia?” Kompas.com. 2020.
15. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2005). International Guidance Document: Environmental Management Accounting. New York, USA.
16. Ja’far, Muhammad and Dista Amalia Arifah (2006) The Influence of Environmental Management Encouragement, Proactive Environmental Management and Environmental Performance on Public Environmental Reporting. Paper of the 9th National Accounting Symposium in Padang.
17. Kurniawati, E. (2018). The Influence of Management Accounting, Information Quality, Cost Efficiency and Timeliness on the Financial Performance of PT. Surya Sukses. Profita Journal, 11(1), 020.
18. Kusnia, G. (2014). The Influence of Company Growth and Leverage on Company Profitability and Value. E-Journal of Management Unud, 3(5), 1441.
19. Ligthelm, AA,(2010), Southern African Business Review, Volume 14 Number 3
20. Mahmudi. (2010). Analysis of Regional Government Financial Reports, Second Edition. Yogyakarta: UPP STIM YKPN
21. Mandaika, Y., & Salim, H. (2015). The Effect of Company Size, Financial Performance, Industry Type, and Financial Leverage on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2011-2013. Journal of Accounting, 8(2), 181–201.
22. Mardikawati, SI, Widianingsih, LP, & Magdalena, R. (2014). Evaluation of the Implementation of Environmental Management Accounting at PT. II. Gema Aktualita Journal, 3(2), 98–108.
23. Meryanti, G. (2013). Analysis of Operational Cost Efficiency Through Management of Meal Allowances and Health Care Guarantees in Outsourcing Service Companies. EMBA, 1(4), 1868–1879.
24. Moşteanu, N. R. (2020). Management of disasters and business continuity in a digital world. International Journal of Management, 11(4), 169–177.
25. O’Donovan, G. (2000). Legitimacy Theory as an Explanation For Corporate Environmental Disclosures. Accounting and Finance, February, 1–441.
26. Prihadi, Toto, (2010), Financial Report Analysis, Jakarta: PPM Samsudin
27. Riyanto J. (1986). Productivity and labor. Jakarta (ID): SIUP
28. Rustika, N. (2011). Analysis of the Influence of the Implementation of Environmental Management Accounting and Strategy on Company Innovation (Manufacturing Companies in Central Java). Scientific Journal 2(1): 1-13
29. Saleh, Tahir. 2020. “Official Delisting! Sayonara Borneo Lumbung Energy”. cnbcindonesia.com.
30. Sami, A., & HR, MN (2014). The Impact of Shadaqah on Business Sustainability. Journal of Islamic Economics Theory and Application, 1(3), 205–206.
31. Sari, N., & Rimawan, M. (2020). Operational Cost Efficiency Towards Increasing Net Profit. Journal of Finance and Banking Sciences (JIKA), 9(2), 107–116.
32. Setiawan, T. (2018). Implementation of Environmental Management Accounting in Twenty-Five Companies Listed in the Sri Kehati Index 2013. Journal of Accounting, 9(2), 110–129.
33. Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating Sustainable Corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4(3), 154–165.
34. Suwardika, INA, & ​​Mustanda, IK (2017). The Influence of Leverage, Company Size, Company Growth and Profitability on Company Value in Property Companies. E-Journal of Management Unud, 6(3), 1248–1277.
35. Upadhyaya, A., & Singh, A. (2019). Land and Water Management Strategies for Improving Agricultural Productivity of Farmers. Journal of Agrisearch, 05(01), 1–3. (1984). Law Number 4 of 1984 Concerning Basic Provisions for Environmental Management.
36. W, ES, Zamzami, & Yudi. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Green Accounting Implementation (Case Study in Coal Industry and Metal Industry 2014-2016). Journal of Accounting & Finance Unja, 3(4), 9–18.
37. Waddock, S. & Graves, S. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance-Financial 25 Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4): 303–319
38. Wareza, Monica. (2019). “3 Issuers Will Delist, What’s Happening?” cnbcindonesia.com.
39. Wiagustini, Ni Luh Putu. (2010). Basics of Financial Management. Denpasar. Udayana University Press.
40. Yudhanta, S. (2009). Environmental Accounting and Environmental Management Accounting: A Basic Component of Business Strategy. Journal of Infestation, 5(1), 1–21.