Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines how the Planet and People dimensions are represented in PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk's 2025 Sustainability Report through Roland Barthes's semiotic perspective and explores their implications for green accounting practices. An interpretive qualitative approach was employed using document analysis and multimodal semiotics. The study analysed verbal, visual, and numerical signs within the sustainability report through the levels of denotation, connotation, and myth, supported by legitimacy theory, impression management, and decoupling. The findings indicate that the report constructs the company's environmental and social identity through integrated textual, visual, and numerical representations that reinforce its sustainability commitments and organisational legitimacy. However, the analysis also reveals asymmetries between the prominence of sustainability achievements and the disclosure of reporting limitations, creating a potential risk of semiotic greenwashing through selective representation rather than explicit misinformation. This study contributes to the accounting literature by demonstrating how semiotic analysis extends conventional assessments of sustainability reporting beyond disclosure content to examine how corporate legitimacy is constructed through representational practices. The findings also provide practical insights for improving the transparency, balance, and accountability of sustainability reporting and green accounting practices.


 

Keywords

Green Accounting Sustainability Report Planet Roland Barthes’s Semiotics Greenwashing

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Anugrah, N. D., Paembonan, A. J., Ilham, Z. Y., Said, D., & Nagu, N. (2026). Planet and People Representations in PT Unilever Indonesia’s Sustainability Report: A Semiotic Analysis. Golden Ratio of Auditing Research, 7(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.52970/grar.v7i1.2458
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957).
  2. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text (S. Heath, Trans.). Fontana Press.
  3. Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D., & Manetti, G. (2019). Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting: Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(5), 1467–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2017-3158
  4. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998
  5. Boiral, O., Brotherton, M.-C., & Talbot, D. (2025). The neutralization of ESG risks by leading agri-food companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 16(3), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2023-0878
  6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  7. Cepêda, C., Monteiro, A. P., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2025). Decoupling in sustainability reporting: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 2988–3007. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3114
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
  9. Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression management in sustainability reports: An empirical investigation of the use of graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.2308/apin-10249
  10. Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreón, J., & Worrell, E. (2019). Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, Article 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498
  11. de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. da L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3
  12. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
  13. Deegan, C. M. (2019). Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2307–2329. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3638
  14. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
  15. Dhamayanti, Y., Restuningdiah, N., & Sunaryanto. (2022). Content analysis: Sustainability report at PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk. International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences, 2(1), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v2i1.236
  16. Dienes, D., Sassen, R., & Fischer, J. (2016). What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(2), 154–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050
  17. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
  18. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Global Sustainability Standards Board.
  19. GRI. (2021). Consolidated Set of the GRI Standards 2021. Global Reporting Initiative.
  20. IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information.
  21. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
  22. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
  23. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
  24. Momin, M. A., Ahmed, Z. U., & Liu, R. (2023). Use of visuals in sustainability reporting by New Zealand Stock Exchange listed companies: An impression management perspective. Asian Review of Accounting, 31(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-04-2022-0078
  25. Ningrum, A. L. S., Hendarmin, R., & Pebriani, R. A. (2026). Integration of green accounting, sustainability disclosure, and stakeholder engagement on company performance. Golden Ratio of Auditing Research, 6(2), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.52970/grar.v6i2.1855
  26. O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
  27. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
  28. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2017). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 51/POJK.03/2017 tentang penerapan keuangan berkelanjutan bagi lembaga jasa keuangan, emiten, dan perusahaan publik.
  29. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2021). Surat Edaran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 16/SEOJK.04/2021 tentang bentuk dan isi laporan tahunan emiten atau perusahaan publik.
  30. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  31. PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk. (2026). Laporan keberlanjutan 2025: Tangguh dalam perubahan, memberikan dampak bermakna.
  32. Pramukti, A. (2024). Audit and sustainability: Integrating environmental aspects in auditing. Golden Ratio of Auditing Research, 4(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.52970/grar.v4i1.388
  33. Sandberg, M., & Holmlund, M. (2015). Impression management tactics in sustainability reporting. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2013-0152
  34. Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2010). Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders? Journal of World Business, 45(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.002
  35. Šimunović, D., Murtarelli, G., & Romenti, S. (2024). Sustainability data distortions: The use of visual impression management techniques in corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Communication Management, 28(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2022-0134
  36. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  37. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
  38. Velte, P. (2022). Corporate sustainability reporting and legitimacy: A systematic literature review. Journal of Accounting Literature, 51, xx–xx.
  39. Yolifiandri, Y., Kamil, I., Anjarwati, S., Perkasa, D. H., & Parashakti, R. D. (2025). Corporate governance, carbon emission disclosure, and firm value: A study of mining companies. Golden Ratio of Auditing Research, 5(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.52970/grar.v5i2.1274
  40. Yusoff, H., & Lehman, G. (2009). Corporate environmental reporting through the lens of semiotics. Asian Review of Accounting, 17(3), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/13217340910991938.