Triangulating ESG Communication Effectiveness: Combining Internal Narratives, Public Perceptions, and Secondary Evidence

Dea Sona Alamanda; Nila Armelia Windasari

doi:10.53697/emak.v7i1.3338

Authors

Dea Sona Alamanda Institut Teknologi Bandung
Nila Armelia Windasari Institut Teknologi Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53697/emak.v7i1.3338

Keywords:

ESG Communication, Communication Strategy, Triangulation, Public Perceptions, Communication Effectiveness

Abstract

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) communication is expected to strengthen legitimacy and trust, yet its effectiveness is rarely assessed by looking at how internal narratives, public perceptions, and formal disclosures line up with each other. This study evaluates ESG communication effectiveness in an Indonesian state-owned enterprise by comparing what the company believes it communicates, what is documented in official channels, and what the public actually perceives. The research uses a descriptive-qualitative case design supported by descriptive survey data and a triangulation method that combines semi-structured interviews with communication and sustainability practitioners, an online survey of 106 internet users, and secondary evidence from sustainability reports, annual reports, and corporate websites. These three evidence streams are organized into a convergence–divergence matrix covering visibility, message clarity, credibility, channel fit, and brand architecture. Results show a clear misalignment: unaided awareness of the company’s ESG initiatives is only 17.0%, message clarity is moderate (2.42/4), and credibility is perceived as fair (3.30/5), despite the presence of assured ESG data and active digital channels. The study concludes that the main weaknesses of current ESG communication lie in salience, clarity, and explicit brand ownership, while channel choice and the availability of proof-points are relative strengths. The findings support prior work on ESG communication gaps and extend it by showing how the use of a white-label ESG campaign brand can unintentionally weaken the link between ESG performance and the corporate brand, thus highlighting the importance of aligning content, channels, and brand architecture in future ESG communication strategies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bharadwaj, N., Naik, P. A., & Nath, P. (2022). Sustainability communications and corporate brand associations. Journal of Sustainable Marketing, 3(1), 41–52.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

de Silva Lokuwaduge, C. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1927

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984

Ellerup Nielsen, A., & Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0044

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Flick, U. (2018). Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. FT Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366

Kliamenakis, A., Grohmann, B., & Bodur, H. O. (2025). Build or buy corporate social responsibility? Socially responsible brand acquisitions and firm CSR perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 201, 115705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.115705

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.

LLC, M. E. S. G. R. (2024). MSCI ESG Ratings Methodology. MSCI Inc.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia Nomor 51/POJK.03/2017. (2017). Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.

Schmeltz, L. (2014). Identical or just compatible? The utility of corporate identity values in communicating CSR. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(3), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525401

Sustainalytics, M. (2025). ESG Risk Rating. Morningstar Inc.

Trianaputri, M., & Djakman, C. D. (2019). Sustainability reporting quality and its determinants: Evidence from an emerging market. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 16(2), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2019.10