Purpose This study examines why and how Indonesian firms engaged in voluntary sustainability reporting before the implementation of POJK 51, focusing on how internal learning and external pressures shaped whether disclosures were symbolic or substantive. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 senior executives from publicly listed firms. The data were thematically analysed through a dual-theory lens combining Institutional Theory and Organisational Learning Theory. Findings Across sectors, firms disclosed sustainability information for multiple reasons, including ethical values, investor expectations, competitive mimicry, and anticipatory regulation. However, reporting depth and the benefits obtained depended on organisational learning capacity. Symbolic compliance was prevalent where reporting was outsourced or siloed, whereas substantive integration occurred in firms that developed internal systems, cross-departmental coordination, and sustainability-literate leadership. Research limitations/implications Findings are based on self-reported practices from a purposive, multi-industry sample and may not generalise across all sectors. Future research could examine whether these patterns persist or change in the post-mandate environment. Practical implications Regulators should complement disclosure mandates with enforcement and capacity-building. Firms seeking long-term value from reporting should invest in learning mechanisms and governance structures that embed sustainability into strategy. Originality/value This paper integrates institutional and learning perspectives to explain voluntary disclosure in an ASEAN emerging-market context, offering new insight into how anticipatory compliance and internal capability jointly determine whether sustainability reporting becomes symbolic or transformative.
Putra et al. (Thu,) studied this question.