Purpose This study examines the challenges of mandatory sustainability reporting and the perceptions that managers have of integrated reporting (IR) in Indonesia. Design/methodology/approach Grounded in stakeholder and institutional theories, this interpretivist study uses a qualitative methodology employing semi-structured interviews with managers from Indonesian listed companies. This study explores the experiences of managers with mandatory sustainability reporting and analyzes their views using thematic analysis. Findings Our findings extend prior research by identifying four interrelated sustainability reporting challenges: framework proliferation, materiality determination, assurance inadequacies, and resource constraints, forming a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuates symbolic reporting despite mandatory requirements. Managers expressed a split view on IR, some saw it as a tool to improve communication, while others preferred separation to meet diverse audience needs. The study shows how organizations navigate institutional pressures and stakeholder expectations. These findings have timely implications for regulators, underscoring the need for standardized frameworks, sector guidance, and capacity building for meaningful adoption. Research limitations/implications While this study offers new insights, its focus on managerial perspectives is a limitation. Incorporating views from other stakeholders such as investors and regulators could provide other understandings of sustainability reporting challenges and IR adoption. Originality/value Our contribution lies in explaining how Indonesian listed companies navigate systemic sustainability reporting challenges under POJK51, conceptualizing these challenges as interlinked rather than discrete issues. By focusing on stakeholder and institutional tensions, we offer a grounded theoretical lens that can inform the design of future IR practices in developing countries.
Suhardjo et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: