← 論文一覧に戻る

ステークホルダー認識とサステナビリティ報告の橋渡し:インドネシアにおける従来型銀行とシャリア銀行の比較系統的レビュー

Bridging Stakeholder Perceptions and Sustainability Reporting: A Comparative Systematic Review of Conventional and Sharia Banks in Indonesia (原題)

(著者不明)

MAKSIMUM📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-07-17#ESG経営インパクト: 資金調達対象セクター: finance
DOI: 10.26714/mki.16.2.2026.153-170
原典: https://jurnal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/MAX/article/download/19710/9609
📄 PDF

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本論文はPRISMA 2020とWATASEを用い、インドネシアの従来型銀行とシャリア銀行におけるサステナビリティ報告(SR)とステークホルダー認識の関係を比較検討した。従来型銀行はESG準拠・リスク管理・投資家信頼を重視する制度的正当性志向を示す一方、シャリア銀行はマカシード・シャリアの価値(正義・福祉・倫理的 stewardship)を統合し社会的・精神的正当性を構築する。SRは統治手段かつ道徳的コミュニケーション媒体として機能し、規制当局と実務家に対しESG報告とイスラム統治原則の調和を示唆する。

English

This systematic review (PRISMA 2020, WATASE) compares how sustainability reporting (SR) shapes stakeholder perceptions in Indonesia's conventional vs. Sharia banks. Conventional banks frame SR around ESG compliance, risk management, and investor confidence (institutional legitimacy), while Sharia banks integrate Maqashid Syariah values—justice, welfare, ethical stewardship—building social and spiritual legitimacy. SR emerges as both a governance instrument and moral communication medium, offering regulators and practitioners guidance on harmonizing ESG reporting with Islamic governance principles.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

インドネシアの二重銀行制度におけるSR比較は、日本のSSBJ基準・有報開示・統合報告書が多様な企業文化や地域特性とどう整合するかを考える上で示唆に富む。特にイスラム金融圏との取引がある日本企業にとって、ESGと宗教的価値観の調和は新興国サプライチェーン開示の実務課題となる。

In the global GX context

This study adds a non-Western, dual-banking perspective to global disclosure scholarship, showing how SR legitimacy mechanisms vary by institutional and religious context. It complements TCFD/ISSB/CSRD debates by highlighting that harmonizing ESG frameworks with local governance values (e.g., Maqashid Syariah) is essential for credible accountability in emerging markets.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:SRと正当性理論の比較研究に、イスラム金融という新たな文脈を提供する。

🏢実務担当者:イスラム圏取引先を持つ企業のSR設計に、文化的・宗教的配慮の重要性を示す。

🏛政策担当者:ESG開示規制を多様な金融制度に適用する際の調和の論点を提示する。

📄 Abstract(原文)

Sustainability reporting (SR) in the banking sector is increasingly expected to demonstrate not only regulatory compliance but also credible accountability to stakeholders. However, in Indonesia’s dual banking system, there is limited systematic evidence on how SR shapes stakeholder perceptions differently between conventional and Sharia banks. This study examines the relationship between SR and stakeholder perceptions by comparing disclosure orientations, legitimacy mechanisms, and theoretical explanations across both banking systems. Using a Systematic Literature Review guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework and supported by Weighted Automated Text Analysis for Systematic Evaluation (WATASE), this study synthesizes nine peer-reviewed articles published between 2017 and 2024. The findings show that SR functions as a multidimensional accountability mechanism that strengthens transparency, stakeholder trust, and legitimacy. Conventional banks tend to frame SR in terms of ESG compliance, risk management, corporate governance, and investor confidence, reflecting an institutional legitimacy orientation. In contrast, Sharia banks integrate SR with Maqashid Syariah values, emphasizing justice, welfare, ethical stewardship, and moral accountability to build social and spiritual legitimacy. The theoretical integration of stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and Maqashid Syariah indicates that SR operates as both a governance instrument and a moral communication medium. This study contributes by developing a comparative accountability perspective that links SR quality, governance mechanisms, stakeholder trust, and legitimacy within Indonesia’s sustainable banking landscape. In practice, the findings offer insights for regulators and banking practitioners to harmonize ESG-based reporting with Islamic governance principles.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。