Integrasi Environmental, Social, dan Governance (ESG) dalam Pengukuran Efisiensi Operasional dan Kinerja Saham: Analisis pada Sektor Pertanian, Consumer Goods, dan Pariwisata

Abstract

Keberlanjutan telah berkembang dari sekadar pelengkap tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan menjadi bagian strategis dalam pengambilan keputusan bisnis dan investasi. Dalam konteks Indonesia, penguatan regulasi pelaporan keberlanjutan, meningkatnya perhatian investor terhadap ESG, serta pentingnya sektor pertanian, consumer goods, dan pariwisata bagi perekonomian nasional menempatkan ESG sebagai isu yang relevan untuk dianalisis dari sisi kinerja internal maupun respons pasar. Namun, implementasi ESG di Indonesia masih menghadapi tantangan berupa keterbatasan data, belum tersedianya skor ESG domestik yang luas, serta kemungkinan ketidakcocokan pembobotan global dengan karakteristik sektor dan konteks nasional. Berangkat dari kondisi tersebut, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan gambaran umum penerapan keberlanjutan pada perusahaan terbuka di Indonesia, mengukur efisiensi operasional dan return saham, mengukur skor environmental, social, dan governance beserta skor agregatnya melalui adaptasi model global yang dikontekstualisasikan untuk Indonesia, serta menganalisis pengaruh faktor-faktor finansial dan nonfinansial terhadap efisiensi dan return saham. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan sequential mixed methods. Unit analisis terdiri atas 75 perusahaan publik yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia selama periode 2019–2024, yang mencakup 25 perusahaan sektor pertanian, 25 perusahaan sektor consumer goods, dan 25 perusahaan sektor pariwisata. Data sekunder diperoleh dari laporan tahunan, laporan keberlanjutan, dan data harga saham, sedangkan data primer untuk pembobotan ESG diperoleh dari 45 responden pakar yang mewakili akademisi, pelaku pasar, dan regulator. Analisis dilakukan melalui content analysis untuk penyusunan scoreboard ESG, metode Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) berorientasi input dengan single bootstrap untuk mengukur efisiensi teknis, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) untuk memperoleh bobot indikator ESG, serta Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) untuk menguji pengaruh faktor finansial, karakteristik perusahaan, dan ESG terhadap efisiensi serta return saham. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa praktik keberlanjutan pada emiten sektor pertanian, consumer goods, dan pariwisata telah berkembang, tetapi struktur ESG belum seimbang. Sebelum pembobotan, pola pilar menunjukkan urutan S > G > E, sedangkan setelah pembobotan berubah menjadi S ˜ G > E, yang menandakan bahwa pilar lingkungan tetap menjadi dimensi yang paling tertinggal. Pada tingkat indikator, pembobotan menggeser prioritas dari S.1 Workforce–G.1 Management–S.3 Community menjadi G.1 Management–S.1 Workforce–E.2 Resource Use, sehingga isu manajemen, tenaga kerja, dan efisiensi penggunaan sumber daya tampil sebagai fokus paling menonjol dalam konteks Indonesia. Penelitian ini juga berhasil membangun scoreboard ESG berbasis 10 indikator Refinitiv yang dikontekstualisasikan melalui pembobotan AHP, sehingga menghasilkan matriks penilaian yang lebih peka terhadap yurisdiksi Indonesia dibanding penggunaan skor global secara langsung. Hasil pengukuran efisiensi menunjukkan bahwa median skor efisiensi terkoreksi bias sektor gabungan meningkat dari 0,910 pada 2019 menjadi 0,944 pada 2024, meskipun sempat menurun pada 2021. Secara sektoral, consumer goods merupakan sektor yang paling stabil dan efisien, sedangkan pariwisata mengalami kontraksi efisiensi paling tajam sebelum pulih kembali pada akhir periode observasi. Sementara itu, median return saham sektor gabungan bergerak dekat nol dan cenderung sedikit negatif, yaitu dari -0,018 pada 2019 menjadi -0,026 pada 2024, dan secara agregat tidak menunjukkan perbedaan median yang signifikan antartahun (?² = 10; p = 0,08). Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa perbaikan efisiensi operasional selama periode penelitian tidak selalu diikuti oleh penguatan return saham yang konsisten. Hasil estimasi GEE menunjukkan bahwa pada model efisiensi, variabel finansial yang konsisten berasosiasi dengan efisiensi yang lebih tinggi adalah return on equity, current ratio, dan earnings growth rate. Dari dimensi ESG, hanya pilar tata kelola yang berpengaruh signifikan terhadap RBCES, sedangkan pilar lingkungan, pilar sosial, dan skor agregat ESG tidak signifikan. Karena RBCES merupakan kebalikan dari skor efisiensi, temuan ini mengindikasikan bahwa penguatan tata kelola berkaitan dengan efisiensi teknis yang lebih rendah dalam jangka pendek, yang dapat dijelaskan oleh biaya penyesuaian, penguatan pengawasan, dan meningkatnya kompleksitas proses internal pada fase awal implementasi tata kelola yang lebih kuat. Pada model return saham, asset turnover ratio dan current ratio berpengaruh positif, sedangkan price-to-book ratio dan price-to-sales ratio berpengaruh negatif. Dari sisi ESG, hanya pilar lingkungan yang signifikan ketika masing-masing pilar diuji secara terpisah, sedangkan pilar sosial dan tata kelola tidak signifikan. Namun, skor ESG agregat tetap berpengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap return saham serta tetap konsisten setelah pengendalian faktor makroekonomi. Secara keseluruhan, hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa pasar cenderung lebih cepat merespons dimensi lingkungan, sedangkan tata kelola lebih bekerja melalui kanal internal perusahaan. Implikasi manajerial penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan tidak cukup hanya meningkatkan pengungkapan ESG secara umum, tetapi perlu memfokuskan strategi keberlanjutan sesuai kanal pengaruh tiap dimensi. Perbaikan kinerja lingkungan perlu diprioritaskan untuk memperkuat respons pasar dan persepsi investor, terutama pada sektor dengan intensitas sumber daya dan risiko lingkungan yang tinggi. Pada saat yang sama, penguatan tata kelola tetap penting untuk membangun disiplin proses, kontrol internal, dan ketahanan jangka panjang, meskipun manfaat efisiensinya belum tentu langsung terlihat dalam jangka pendek. Bagi investor, hasil ini menegaskan pentingnya membaca ESG tidak hanya sebagai skor agregat, tetapi juga sebagai kombinasi antarpilar dengan implikasi yang berbeda. Bagi regulator dan pembuat kebijakan, temuan ini menegaskan perlunya penguatan infrastruktur pelaporan dan pemeringkatan ESG domestik yang lebih kontekstual, transparan, dan berbasis materialitas spasial.

Sustainability has evolved from being merely a complement to corporate social responsibility into a strategic component of business and investment decision-making. In the Indonesian context, the strengthening of sustainability reporting regulations, growing investor attention to ESG, and the importance of the agriculture, consumer goods, and tourism sectors to the national economy have positioned ESG as a relevant issue to be examined from both the perspective of internal corporate performance and market response. However, ESG implementation in Indonesia still faces several challenges, including limited data availability, the absence of a widely established domestic ESG score, and the possibility that global weighting schemes may not fully align with sectoral characteristics and the national context. Against this background, this study aims to describe the general state of sustainability implementation among publicly listed companies in Indonesia, measure operational efficiency and stock returns, assess environmental, social, and governance scores as well as the aggregate ESG score through an adaptation of a global model contextualized to Indonesia, and analyze the effects of financial and non-financial factors on efficiency and stock returns. This study employs a sequential mixed-methods approach. The unit of analysis consists of 75 publicly listed companies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange during the 2019–2024 period, comprising 25 firms from the agriculture sector, 25 from the consumer goods sector, and 25 from the tourism sector. Secondary data were obtained from annual reports, sustainability reports, and stock price data, while primary data for ESG weighting were collected from 45 expert respondents representing academics, market participants, and regulators. The analysis was conducted through content analysis for the development of the ESG scoreboard, input-oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with single bootstrap to measure technical efficiency, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to derive ESG indicator weights, and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to test the effects of financial factors, firm characteristics, and ESG on efficiency and stock returns. The results show that sustainability practices among listed firms in the agriculture, consumer goods, and tourism sectors have progressed, yet the ESG structure remains unbalanced. Before weighting, the pillar pattern was S > G > E, whereas after weighting it shifted to S ˜ G > E, indicating that the environmental pillar remains the most lagging dimension. At the indicator level, weighting shifted the priority from S.1 Workforce–G.1 Management–S.3 Community to G.1 Management–S.1 Workforce–E.2 Resource Use, suggesting that management, workforce, and resource-use efficiency have emerged as the most prominent issues in the Indonesian context. This study also successfully developed an ESG scoreboard based on 10 Refinitiv indicators contextualized through AHP weighting, thereby producing an assessment matrix that is more sensitive to the Indonesian jurisdiction than the direct use of global ESG scores. The efficiency measurement results indicate that the median bias-corrected efficiency score for the combined sectors increased from 0.910 in 2019 to 0.944 in 2024, although it temporarily declined in 2021. At the sectoral level, consumer goods was the most stable and efficient sector, whereas tourism experienced the sharpest contraction in efficiency before recovering by the end of the observation period. Meanwhile, the median stock return for the combined sectors remained close to zero and tended to be slightly negative, moving from -0.018 in 2019 to -0.026 in 2024, and overall did not show a statistically significant difference in median across years (?² = 10; p = 0.08). These findings indicate that improvements in operational efficiency over the study period were not always followed by a consistent strengthening of stock returns. The GEE estimation results show that, in the efficiency model, the financial variables consistently associated with higher efficiency were return on equity, current ratio, and earnings growth rate. Among the ESG dimensions, only the governance pillar had a significant effect on RBCES, whereas the environmental pillar, the social pillar, and the aggregate ESG score were not significant. Because RBCES is the inverse of the efficiency score, this finding suggests that stronger governance is associated with lower technical efficiency in the short run, which may be explained by adjustment costs, tighter monitoring, and greater internal process complexity during the early phase of stronger governance implementation. In the stock return model, asset turnover ratio and current ratio had positive effects, whereas price-to-book ratio and price-to-sales ratio had negative effects. From the ESG perspective, only the environmental pillar was significant when each pillar was tested separately, whereas the social and governance pillars were not significant. However, the aggregate ESG score remained positive and significant in relation to stock returns and remained robust after controlling for macroeconomic factors. Overall, these results indicate that the market tends to respond more quickly to the environmental dimension, whereas governance operates more strongly through the firm’s internal channel. The managerial implications of this study suggest that companies should not merely improve ESG disclosure in general, but should focus their sustainability strategies according to the influence channel of each dimension. Improvements in environmental performance should be prioritized to strengthen market response and investor perception, particularly in sectors with high resource intensity and environmental risk. At the same time, stronger governance remains important for building process discipline, internal control, and long-term resilience, even though its efficiency benefits may not be immediately visible in the short term. For investors, these findings underscore the importance of interpreting ESG not only as an aggregate score, but also as a combination of pillars with different implications. For regulators and policymakers, these findings underscore the need to strengthen a domestic ESG reporting and rating infrastructure that is more contextual, transparent, and grounded in spatial materiality.