Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Sustainability of E-Learning with Adoption of M-Learning in Business Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Startup Success in Hospitality & Tourism SMEs in Emerging Economies: How Innovation and Growth Are Driven by Entrepreneurial Orientation, Networking Strategy, Leadership, and Flexibility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083486
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023)

by
Obsatar Sinaga
1,*,
Abdul Rahman Hi
2 and
Suharno Pawirosumarto
3
1
Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40135, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Communication Science, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta 11650, Indonesia
3
Doctoral Program in Management, Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK, Padang 25221, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3486; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083486
Submission received: 18 February 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 1 April 2025 / Published: 14 April 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
ASEAN’s manufacturing sector contributes significantly to economic growth but also presents major environmental challenges. This study investigates how environmental policies are implemented by three leading manufacturing firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, focusing on their alignment with ASEAN’s regional guidelines. A qualitative document analysis was conducted, examining sustainability reports, annual reports, and corporate policy statements to identify patterns and gaps in environmental strategies. The findings reveal that Sime Darby (Malaysia) and PTT Global Chemical (Thailand) exhibit stronger alignment with ASEAN guidelines, particularly in renewable energy adoption and biodiversity conservation. In contrast, PT Astra International (Indonesia) prioritizes emissions reduction and waste management. These differences reflect the influence of national policies and institutional settings on corporate strategies. This study offers practical insights into regional gaps and proposes standardizing KPIs, enhancing cross-border collaboration, and promoting green innovation. This research provides a comparative perspective on corporate environmental practices in ASEAN, offering practical recommendations for standardizing Key Performance Indicators, fostering regional collaboration, and encouraging green innovation. An integrated ASEAN-wide policy framework is needed to support environmental sustainability in the manufacturing sector.

1. Introduction

The manufacturing industry in ASEAN serves as a key economic driver, contributing approximately 35% to the region’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), particularly in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand [1,2].
Although ASEAN has introduced policy frameworks, such as the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025, the execution of environmental policies at national and corporate levels remains inconsistent. Additionally, regulatory fragmentation across ASEAN members states presents a significant challenge to harmonized policy implementation, limiting the effectiveness of regional sustainability efforts [3]. Malaysia, on the other hand, has placed a stronger emphasis on low-carbon transition strategies through its National Energy Transition Roadmap (NETR), with the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 [4]. Meanwhile, Thailand’s Green Industry initiative focuses on resource efficiency and technological innovation, with the government introducing guidelines to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and net-zero emissions by 2065 [5,6].
Several major corporations in ASEAN’s manufacturing sector have initiated sustainability commitments to address environmental concerns. For example, PTT Global Chemical (Thailand) has increased its investment in circular economy initiatives, targeting a 20% reduction in industrial waste by 2026. PT Astra International (Indonesia) and Sime Darby (Malaysia) have adopted proactive sustainability measures, showcasing their efforts to align with regional sustainability objectives. For instance, PT Astra International recorded a 13.96% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 compared to 2019, as documented in their Sustainability Report 2023 [7,8].
The existing literature suggests that the effectiveness of environmental policy implementation in the manufacturing sector is largely influenced by internal organizational capacities, external stakeholder pressures, and governmental support [9]. Document analysis—particularly sustainability reports and annual disclosures—provides valuable insights into corporate environmental strategies and achievements [10]. However, there remains a gap in understanding the extent to which corporate sustainability efforts align with regional policy directives, warranting further comparative analysis.
This study contributes by systematically examining environmental policies in ASEAN’s manufacturing sector, identifying policy gaps, and proposing a harmonized sustainability framework. Unlike prior research that focuses on individual national approaches, this study employs a cross-national comparative analysis to highlight variations, similarities, and best practices that can inform more effective regional policies.
This research is structured around three key objectives. First, it aims to assess how environmental policies are implemented by leading manufacturing firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Second, it seeks to compare corporate environmental performance with ASEAN’s sustainability guidelines, identifying policy gaps and areas requiring improvement. Third, it endeavors to evaluate the role of cross-sector collaboration in enhancing sustainability outcomes, particularly in the context of public–private partnerships and regional initiatives.
From a theoretical perspective, this study extends the discourse on Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) and organizational sustainability, emphasizing the critical role of human capital in environmental strategy execution. Successful policy implementation in manufacturing is closely linked to employee engagement, structured training programs, and robust internal communication frameworks [11]. Furthermore, by incorporating a cross-national comparative lens, this study provides insights into the regulatory and cultural factors influencing policy adoption and execution [12].
Methodologically, this study refines its document analysis approach by incorporating a more detailed assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) related to corporate sustainability efforts. This allows for a deeper understanding of variations in environmental policy execution across different national contexts.
In practical terms, this research aims to serve as a reference point for ASEAN policymakers in strengthening regional sustainability frameworks. Ultimately, this study contributes to the broader discourse on industrial sustainability while supporting ASEAN’s long-term environmental commitments.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Environmental Policy in Manufacturing

Environmental policy in manufacturing has become a crucial mechanism for addressing industrial environmental challenges, particularly in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, minimizing waste, and enhancing resource efficiency. Globally, regulatory frameworks, such as the European Union’s Green Deal, have demonstrated the transformative role of policy-driven initiatives in promoting renewable energy, circular economy, and green innovation [13,14,15]. The European Green Deal, introduced in 2019, aims to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, focusing on clean technologies and sustainable industrial practice [16]. This initiative was reinforced by the European Climate Law (2021), which legally binds the EU to its climate targets [17]. Additionally, Directive (EU) 2023/959 revised the Renewable Energy Directive, increasing the EU’s binding renewable energy target for 2030 to at least 42.5% [18]. These updates highlight the EU’s continued commitment to industrial sustainability.
Similarly, the U.S. National Blueprint for a Clean and Competitive Industry (2023) outlines decarbonization strategies for the industrial sector, which accounts for approximately 20% of the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions [19]. While these policies provide structured frameworks for green manufacturing, their successful implementation relies on continuous technological advancements, financial incentives, and effective regulatory oversight.
However, in developing ASEAN economies, the implementation of environmental policies faces significant challenges due to financial constraints, technological limitations, and institutional inefficiencies. A comparative study on environmental law policies in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand highlighted how funding shortages and regulatory fragmentation impede effective policy execution [20,21]. Similarly, Elder and Ellis (2023) analyzed ASEAN countries’ environmental policies concerning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and found that while various national policies exist, weak institutional frameworks and inconsistent enforcement mechanisms often hinder their implementation [22]. Numerous structural and institutional barriers continue to hinder the adoption of green practices in Southeast Asia, especially in Thailand, including financial constraints, technical limitations, and insufficient regulatory promotion [23,24]. These findings underscore the critical need for an integrated and harmonized environmental policy approach across ASEAN member states to address the gap between policy design and implementation.
Manufacturing remains a key economic driver in ASEAN but also significantly contributes to carbon emissions, pollution, and resource depletion. Regional initiatives, such as the ASEAN Standards and Conformance Strategic Plan 2016–2025, aim to harmonize environmental standards and promote sustainable manufacturing practices [25]. However, disparities in the adoption of digital technologies and enforcement of environmental regulations remain evident across ASEAN member states. Thailand, for instance, has demonstrated notable advancements in integrating digital solutions into industrial compliance systems, supported by its expanding digital infrastructure and institutional capacity for technology-driven governance [26,27]. In contrast, Indonesia continues to face critical challenges in regulating industrial environmental performance. Evidence from West Java shows that manufacturing activities significantly contribute to air pollution, underscoring the lack of robust monitoring systems and consistent regulatory enforcement in the industrial sector [24,28]
Research Gap and Contribution. Although extensive research has been conducted on environmental policy frameworks in developed economies, there remains limited empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of environmental policies in ASEAN’s manufacturing sector. Several key gaps persist in the literature:
  • Existing studies primarily focus on policy design rather than the actual implementation and outcomes → Prior research offers broad policy analyses but lacks an in-depth evaluation of how these policies translate into practical execution within ASEAN’s manufacturing industries.
  • Limited comparative studies within ASEAN → Most studies analyze environmental policies at the national level, yet only a few provide cross-country comparisons within ASEAN to identify best practices and shared challenges.
  • Inadequate research on corporate alignment with regional frameworks → The existing literature has largely examined government-led policies, while little attention has been given to how private sector manufacturing firms align with ASEAN environmental standards.
This study aims to bridge these gaps by systematically evaluating environmental policies in the ASEAN manufacturing sector, identifying best practices, regulatory gaps, and opportunities for policy harmonization at the regional level. By analyzing policy implementation in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, this research contributes both theoretical and practical insights into the factors influencing effective environmental policy execution in developing economies. Furthermore, there is a lack of research evaluating how leading manufacturing firms operationalize these policies and respond to both national regulations and ASEAN regional guidelines.

2.2. Document Analysis in Policy Research

Document analysis has emerged as a critical method for evaluating corporate policies, offering valuable insights into the strategies and practices organizations adopt to address complex issues, such as environmental sustainability. This approach involves systematically examining publicly available documents, such as sustainability reports, annual reports, and policy statements, to uncover patterns, themes, and key performance indicators. One study utilized a content analysis of sustainability reports from leading firms to identify transitions in corporate sustainability reporting [29,30,31]. Document analysis has emerged as a critical method for evaluating corporate policies, offering valuable insights into the strategies and practices organizations adopt to address complex issues such as environmental sustainability. This approach involves systematically examining publicly available documents, such as sustainability reports, annual reports, and policy statements, to uncover patterns, themes, and key performance indicators. Recent studies employing a content analysis of sustainability reports across various industries have identified not only reporting quality and alignment with regulatory standards but also symbolic reporting patterns and greenwashing risks, particularly in the context of SDG disclosure and NGO-corporate dynamics [29,30,31].
Similarly, a systematic literature review by Silva et al. (2023) highlighted the importance of document analysis in understanding corporate sustainability practices [32]. These studies underscore the effectiveness of document analysis in providing structured insights into corporate sustainability strategies and guiding corporate decision-making.
Several studies have successfully employed document analysis to evaluate corporate policies, particularly in the domain of environmental sustainability. For example, recent research has systematically reviewed the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures on firm value and profitability across various industries, highlighting the role of transparency in enhancing compliance with global environmental standards [33,34,35]. Similarly, other studies have identified best practices and emphasized the influence of external pressures, such as consumer expectations and regulatory requirements, on corporate sustainability strategies. While these studies provide important insights, they predominantly focus on developed economies with established regulatory frameworks, leaving a research gap in understanding how document analysis can be applied in emerging markets, particularly in ASEAN, where regulatory enforcement and technological adoption remain inconsistent.
The effectiveness of document analysis lies in its ability to generate both qualitative and quantitative insights into the implementation of corporate and policy frameworks. Through the systematic mapping of thematic content, keyword frequency, and performance indicators, researchers are able to develop a comprehensive understanding of governance structures and strategic alignment. Recent studies highlight that combining document analysis with other data sources—such as interviews or quantitative measures—can enhance both the depth and validity of findings, particularly when examining sustainability reporting and non-financial disclosures [36,37,38]. However, despite its advantages, limited research has explored the methodological challenges of applying document analysis in multi-regional policy studies, particularly in ASEAN’s diverse industrial landscape. Building on this approach, the present study leverages document analysis to evaluate environmental policy implementation in the manufacturing sector across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, with the objective of identifying best practices, gaps, and opportunities for harmonizing regional guidelines.

2.3. ASEAN Context in Environmental Sustainability

ASEAN plays a pivotal role in advancing industrial sustainability by promoting the integration of environmental protection into economic growth [39,40,41]. As one of the world’s most rapidly industrializing regions, ASEAN faces increasing pressure to mitigate environmental degradation resulting from manufacturing-driven development. While the sector contributes significantly to the region’s GDP, it is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion.
To address these challenges, ASEAN has introduced a series of regional frameworks aimed at harmonizing environmental policies, promoting green manufacturing practices, and fostering cross-border cooperation. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025 emphasizes environmentally sustainable economic development, while the ASEAN Climate Change Strategic Action Plan (ACCSAP) 2025–2030 provides a roadmap for addressing climate change through integrated and coordinated sectoral strategies.
Despite these regional efforts, significant implementation challenges persist. National-level disparities in policy execution, regulatory capacity, and technological infrastructure continue to hinder uniform progress. Countries such as Malaysia and Thailand have adopted advanced environmental monitoring and reporting systems, supported by stronger institutional frameworks. In contrast, Indonesia still faces persistent challenges related to infrastructure, financing, and enforcement, which limit its capacity to adopt green technologies and comply with regional standards [22].
The ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) further demonstrates regional commitment by setting ambitious targets for renewable energy adoption and carbon emission reductions. However, the pace of progress remains uneven across member states, raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of regional sustainability policies [42,43,44].
Scholarly studies have highlighted that efforts to harmonize environmental policies in ASEAN are constrained by fragmented regulatory environments, divergent national priorities, and inconsistent institutional capacity [22,45,46]. A critical gap remains between regional policy formulation and national-level implementation, where bureaucratic inefficiencies and weak institutional coordination undermine sustainability efforts.
In response, ASEAN has launched capacity-building initiatives and technical assistance programs aimed at supporting less-developed member states. These efforts focus on enhancing institutional capabilities and stimulating private-sector engagement to ensure broader participation in environmental governance [47,48].
This study builds upon these regional dynamics by examining how environmental policies are implemented at the firm level in three key ASEAN economies: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. It identifies regulatory gaps, best practices, and opportunities for harmonization, providing a clearer understanding of how regional ambitions translate into corporate actions and contribute to ASEAN’s broader sustainability agenda.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a qualitative research design, utilizing document analysis as the primary methodological approach to examine environmental policy implementation in the manufacturing sector. Document analysis was particularly well-suited for this research as it enabled the systematic evaluation of publicly available corporate reports, such as sustainability reports, annual reports, and environmental policy statements. Additionally, corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and publicly disclosed regulatory filings were incorporated to provide a more comprehensive view of corporate sustainability efforts. These documents serve as critical sources of data, providing insights into organizational strategies, performance metrics, and compliance with environmental regulations [49,50,51].
The focus of this study is on three key manufacturing firms in ASEAN: PT Astra International (Indonesia), Sime Darby (Malaysia), and PTT Global Chemical (Thailand). The selection of these firms was based on multiple criteria, including their industry leadership, commitment to sustainability, and the availability of comprehensive environmental disclosures. These companies represent major players in their respective national manufacturing sectors and provide relevant case studies for understanding the broader environmental policy landscape in ASEAN.
The analysis will identify recurring themes, track progress on environmental targets, and compare corporate policies against the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025. This approach aligns with best practices in qualitative research, emphasizing context-specific insights and an in-depth understanding of policy implementation [52,53,54].
The research process involved the systematic coding and categorization of data to identify patterns and themes within the documents. A structured content analysis framework was employed to assess key performance indicators (KPIs), policy compliance levels, and the integration of sustainability-related language in corporate disclosures.
Frequency analysis of sustainability-related terms and alignment with regional guidelines were also conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of corporate environmental policies. To enhance analytical rigor, the study employs a cross-case comparison method to identify similarities and variations among the three firms. Triangulation of data from multiple sources enhances the reliability and validity of the findings [55,56,57]. By focusing on document analysis, this study contributes to the growing body of research on environmental governance in emerging economies, providing actionable insights for both policymakers and industry practitioners.

3.2. Data Sources

This study utilizes secondary data derived from publicly accessible documents of three leading manufacturing firms in ASEAN—PT Astra International (Indonesia), Sime Darby (Malaysia), and PTT Global Chemical (Thailand). These firm-level sources are complemented by official regional sustainability guidelines issued by ASEAN. The selection of these firms was based on their industry prominence, regional representation, and active engagement in environmental policy implementation. By focusing on both corporate disclosures and regional frameworks, this study offers a comprehensive understanding of policy coherence and sustainability practices across national and organizational contexts.
For Indonesia, data were obtained from PT Astra International’s 2023 Sustainability Report and 2022 Annual Report, accessed through the company’s official website. These documents detail Astra’s environmental strategies, including initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, improve waste management, adopt renewable energy, and promote green innovation. These efforts reflect Astra’s alignment with Indonesia’s environmental objectives, particularly those outlined under Law No. 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management.
For Malaysia, sources include Sime Darby’s 2022–2023 Sustainability Report and the publicly available Carbon Reduction Roadmap 2025. These documents outline the firm’s measurable targets for achieving low-carbon operations through renewable energy integration and energy efficiency improvements. Sime Darby’s sustainability approach aligns closely with Malaysia’s national sustainability agenda and its collaborative frameworks between government and industry.
For Thailand, the data set includes PTT Global Chemical’s 2023 Integrated Sustainability Report and its Green Manufacturing Guidelines, both publicly available. These documents highlight Thailand’s progressive approach to industrial sustainability, including initiatives in eco-design, resource efficiency, and carbon neutrality. PTTGC’s strategies are in line with Thailand’s 20-Year National Strategy on Sustainability and the country’s commitments to green industrial transformation.
At the ASEAN level, this study incorporates policy documents such as the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025 and the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC), obtained from official ASEAN archives. These frameworks provide a unified vision for environmental sustainability, emphasizing harmonized policies, regional energy efficiency targets, and renewable energy adoption.
To further clarify the variables under investigation, Table 1 summarizes the key dimensions of environmental sustainability explored in this study, along with their respective definitions and primary data sources. These variables were derived from corporate sustainability reports and official regional policy documents, enabling a comparative analysis across national and organizational contexts.

3.3. Analytical Techniques

To evaluate the implementation of environmental policies across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, this study employs a multi-method qualitative approach, comprising a thematic analysis, content analysis, and cross-case analysis. These complementary techniques provide a robust framework for extracting insights from corporate sustainability reports, annual reports, and regional guidelines.
Thematic Analysis. Thematic analysis was applied to identify recurring themes and patterns within the sustainability reports of PT Astra International, Sime Darby, and PTT Global Chemical. This approach involved coding textual data to uncover dominant themes related to environmental strategies, such as carbon reduction, resource efficiency, and waste management [58,59,60]. Identified themes were categorized based on their relevance to the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025, enabling a structured comparison of corporate initiatives with regional objectives.
Content Analysis. Content analysis was employed to quantify the frequency of sustainability-related keywords and assess the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in corporate reports. Keywords such as “carbon neutrality”, “renewable energy”, and “waste management” were systematically tracked to evaluate the emphasis placed on different environmental priorities by each firm [61,62]. Additionally, KPIs were examined across the three firms to assess variations in environmental performance and alignment with ASEAN’s sustainability goals.
Cross-case Analysis. Cross-case analysis was conducted to compare the implementation of environmental policies among the three firms. This technique involved evaluating similarities and differences in corporate strategies, regulatory compliance, and technological adoption. By juxtaposing the practices of PT Astra International, Sime Darby, and PTT Global Chemical, this study identifies best practices and gaps that can inform policy harmonization within ASEAN. This method also enabled an assessment of how each country’s unique regulatory and economic context shapes corporate sustainability initiatives [63].
These analytical techniques, when combined, ensure a comprehensive understanding of environmental policy implementation across the ASEAN manufacturing sector. The triangulation of thematic, content, and cross-case analyses enhances the reliability and validity of the findings, providing actionable insights for both policymakers and industry practitioners.

3.4. Limitations

This study acknowledges several limitations that should be considered to contextualize the findings and inform future research directions.
First, the analysis is confined to the period between 2020 and 2023. While this timeframe effectively captures recent developments and provides timely insights into contemporary environmental policy implementation, it may not fully reflect long-term trends or the cumulative impact of earlier policy measures. Future studies may benefit from extending the temporal scope to examine the evolution and sustained effectiveness of environmental policies over a longer period.
Second, this research focuses specifically on environmental policies within the manufacturing sector in three ASEAN countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. While this focus enables an in-depth exploration of a key economic sector with a substantial environmental footprint, it limits the generalizability of the findings to other industries or geographic regions. Further research could expand the scope to include sectors such as agriculture, energy, or services to evaluate how sustainability strategies differ across various economic contexts.
Finally, this study relies primarily on publicly available corporate documents—such as sustainability reports and annual reports—which may contain selective disclosures. These documents often emphasize achievements and may underreport operational challenges or failures. Although this potential bias was partially mitigated by triangulating data with ASEAN regional guidelines (e.g., the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025 and the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation), the absence of internal company records or direct stakeholder perspectives limits the analytical depth. Future research could adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative indicators with qualitative data from interviews or surveys to generate a more nuanced understanding of corporate sustainability practices in ASEAN.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Thematic Analysis of Environmental Policies

The thematic analysis of sustainability reports from PT Astra International, Sime Darby, and PTT Global Chemical revealed four dominant themes in their environmental strategies: carbon reduction, renewable energy adoption, waste management, and biodiversity conservation. These themes reflect both global sustainability trends and the specific priorities of the ASEAN manufacturing sector.
PT Astra International, for example, prioritized carbon neutrality as a strategic goal, achieving an 18% reduction in emissions between 2020 and 2023. This achievement aligns with Indonesia’s national environmental objectives under Law No. 32/2009, emphasizing corporate responsibility for emission management. Sime Darby demonstrated leadership in renewable energy integration, reporting a 12% decrease in its carbon footprint through solar energy adoption and process efficiency improvements. Similarly, PTT Global Chemical set ambitious long-term targets, including net-zero emissions by 2050, supported by a 20% reduction in energy intensity by 2025, aligning closely with Thailand’s Green Industry Project.
The environmental initiatives of these firms highlight varying degrees of alignment with regional guidelines, particularly the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025. All three firms actively pursued waste management initiatives, such as recycling programs and hazardous waste reduction, clearly aligning with ASEAN’s circular economy framework. However, biodiversity conservation emerged as a lower-priority theme, with only Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical implementing significant efforts in this area. Sime Darby, for instance, integrated reforestation programs into its sustainability strategy, while PTT Global Chemical committed to ecosystem protection within its operational regions. In contrast, PT Astra International focused primarily on operational efficiency and emissions reduction, reflecting Indonesia’s regulatory emphasis on carbon management rather than biodiversity conservation.
As summarized in Table 2, the recurring environmental themes vary across the three firms, demonstrating shared priorities in emissions reduction, renewable energy adoption, and waste management while diverging in biodiversity conservation efforts.
While these initiatives demonstrate significant progress in environmental management, the analysis also revealed gaps in policy harmonization among the three firms and regional sustainability objectives. Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical showed greater alignment with renewable energy and biodiversity conservation targets, whereas PT Astra International maintained a localized focus on emissions reduction.
These findings underscore the need for stronger regional collaboration and policy harmonization to ensure cohesive progress toward ASEAN’s sustainability goals. Prior studies have also shown that environmental management accounting and green financing can significantly enhance ESG performance among manufacturing firms in emerging economies, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of integrated environmental strategies in achieving sustainability objectives [64,65,66].

4.2. Content Analysis of Environmental KPIs

The content analysis of sustainability reports from PT Astra International, Sime Darby, and PTT Global Chemical revealed significant differences in the reporting and emphasis of environmental Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Key terms such as “carbon neutrality”, “renewable energy”, “waste management”, and “biodiversity” were analyzed to understand the environmental priorities of each firm. As illustrated in Figure 1, Sime Darby placed greater emphasis on renewable energy and biodiversity, while PT Astra International focused more on waste management and carbon reduction. This variation reflects the influence of national policies, operational strategies, and organizational priorities on sustainability reporting [67,68,69].
The comparative analysis of KPIs is summarized in Table 3, showcasing the key sustainability metrics reported by each firm. Sime Darby demonstrates a more comprehensive approach, addressing carbon intensity, renewable energy adoption, and biodiversity restoration efforts. PTT Global Chemical closely follows, with strong targets for energy intensity and waste-to-energy conversion, aligning with Thailand’s Green Industry Project. Conversely, PT Astra International reports relatively fewer KPIs, focusing primarily on emissions reduction and waste management, while biodiversity-related metrics remain minimal.
These findings highlight significant gaps in achieving environmental targets. Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical demonstrate stronger alignment with renewable energy and biodiversity goals, whereas PT Astra International prioritizes localized operational efficiency. This divergence underscores the need for a greater standardization of KPIs across ASEAN to align with the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025.
Moreover, PT Astra International’s limited emphasis on biodiversity presents a critical opportunity for improvement, addressing broader regional sustainability challenges. Aligning KPIs with regional and global benchmarks enables ASEAN member states and corporations to enhance transparency, comparability, and accountability in sustainability reporting. Prior studies emphasize that standardized metrics are crucial in driving corporate sustainability and improving compliance with regional environmental policies [70,71,72].
This study reinforces the necessity of further harmonizing environmental KPIs to foster cohesive progress across ASEAN’s manufacturing sector, ensuring long-term sustainability and alignment with global best practices.

4.3. Cross-Case Analysis of Policy Implementation

The cross-case analysis reveals significant variations in the implementation of environmental policies among PT Astra International (Indonesia), Sime Darby (Malaysia), and PTT Global Chemical (Thailand). While all three firms align with their respective national sustainability objectives, their approaches differ based on regulatory frameworks, economic priorities, and operational capacities.
Sime Darby, for instance, excels in renewable energy adoption and biodiversity initiatives, reflecting Malaysia’s robust policy support through its Carbon Reduction Roadmap 2025. In contrast, PT Astra International prioritizes waste management and emissions reduction, aligning closely with Indonesia’s emphasis on operational efficiency and pollution control. PTT Global Chemical demonstrates leadership in resource efficiency and ecosystem restoration, driven by Thailand’s Green Industry Project.
Table 4 summarizes the similarities and differences in environmental strategies and achievements across the three firms. Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical show stronger alignment with ASEAN guidelines, particularly in renewable energy and biodiversity conservation. However, PT Astra International exhibits gaps in biodiversity initiatives, reflecting a divergence from ASEAN’s broader environmental objectives.
The analysis also highlights both overlapping and unique environmental initiatives among the firms, as illustrated in Figure 2. Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical share common strengths in renewable energy adoption and biodiversity conservation, while PT Astra International focuses predominantly on emissions reduction and waste management.
The segmented bar chart in Figure 2 visually represents these differences, emphasizing the absence of biodiversity initiatives in PT Astra International compared to the more comprehensive strategies adopted by Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical. This divergence underscores the need for a more harmonized approach to align corporate strategies with the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025.
Implications for Regional Sustainability Policy. The practical implications of this cross-case analysis suggest that regional collaboration can effectively address biodiversity conservation gaps and facilitate the standardization of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across ASEAN. Strengthening the alignment between corporate strategies and regional sustainability frameworks is essential for achieving cohesive progress toward ASEAN’s environmental goals.
Empirical studies affirm that harmonized environmental governance improves regulatory compliance and operational efficiency. For example, research highlights the integration of environmental policies into ASEAN countries’ Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), demonstrating the importance of standardized reporting frameworks for regional sustainability objectives [22]. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has also been identified as a key driver for sustainability in Asia, addressing both challenges and opportunities in environmental management [73].
Furthermore, enhanced environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure has been shown to reduce capital costs in emerging markets, reinforcing the significance of harmonized sustainability governance across ASEAN [74]. These findings highlight the necessity of further policy integration to ensure consistent sustainability progress across the region.

4.4. Discussion

The findings of this study offer critical insights into the implementation of environmental policies in leading manufacturing firms across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, and their alignment with the ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025. Sime Darby and PTT Global Chemical demonstrate best practices, particularly in renewable energy adoption and biodiversity conservation, which reflect strong alignment with regional sustainability goals. In contrast, PT Astra International primarily emphasizes carbon reduction and waste management, with limited biodiversity-related initiatives. These variations highlight regulatory gaps stemming from differences in enforcement capacity and institutional frameworks across the three countries [1,75]
These results align with previous studies that emphasize the significance of strong national policies and organizational capabilities in advancing sustainability [22,76]. For example, Malaysia’s Carbon Reduction Roadmap 2025 and Thailand’s Green Industry Project provide robust structures that guide corporate environmental strategies. Conversely, while Indonesia prioritizes emissions and waste, it lacks a broader ecosystem-based approach seen in the other cases. This disparity reinforces the need for policy harmonization within ASEAN, especially in terms of unified sustainability metrics and strategic direction.
Implications for ASEAN’s Environmental Policy. These findings carry important implications for ASEAN’s environmental governance. Harmonizing biodiversity targets and renewable energy benchmarks at the regional level could close regulatory gaps and foster cooperation among member states. The development of standardized Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) would promote transparency and enable the more consistent monitoring of corporate and national compliance with sustainability goals.
Moreover, incentivizing green innovation through funding mechanisms and cross-border knowledge-sharing could accelerate alignment among industries. Empirical studies indicate that harmonized policies contribute to greater compliance, operational efficiency, and better environmental outcomes [77,78].
Contributions and Future Research Directions. This study contributes to the literature on industrial sustainability by illustrating how corporate strategies shape environmental outcomes in developing regional contexts. It also offers practical, policy-relevant recommendations for both governments and industry actors, especially in promoting regional integration for sustainability.
Future studies could expand the scope by including additional industrial sectors or employing longitudinal data to track environmental performance over time. Furthermore, examining more ASEAN countries could enrich the understanding of the dynamics shaping sustainable development across the region.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions

This study provides critical insights into how environmental policies are implemented by leading manufacturing firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, and evaluates their alignment with ASEAN’s regional sustainability objectives. The findings reveal that Sime Darby (Malaysia) and PTT Global Chemical (Thailand) exhibit strong alignment with ASEAN guidelines, particularly in renewable energy adoption and biodiversity conservation. In contrast, PT Astra International (Indonesia), while showing commendable efforts in emissions reduction and waste management, places limited emphasis on biodiversity initiatives, exposing a key gap in its sustainability strategy.
These differences reflect the influence of national policy frameworks and institutional capacities in shaping corporate environmental priorities. Despite common goals—such as carbon neutrality and renewable energy adoption—each firm demonstrates varying levels of commitment and scope. The divergence in prioritizing biodiversity conservation, in particular, highlights the need for a more harmonized regional approach.
By bridging the gap between regional sustainability frameworks and firm-level practices, this study enhances understanding of how environmental governance is operationalized in ASEAN’s manufacturing sector. It underscores the importance of standardizing environmental Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), fostering cross-country collaboration, and promoting policy coherence.
The research contributes to the broader discourse on industrial sustainability by providing empirical evidence of the challenges and opportunities in aligning corporate strategies with regional objectives. It also offers a foundation for future policy formulation that integrates institutional support, financial incentives, and regulatory alignment—particularly in areas where national capacities are still limited. Ultimately, the study reaffirms the importance of corporate engagement and regional policy coordination in advancing ASEAN’s long-term sustainability agenda.

5.2. Recommendations

5.2.1. For Manufacturing Companies

ASEAN-based manufacturing firms should align their environmental strategies not only with national regulations but also with regional sustainability guidelines. A key step is the standardization of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) focused on carbon emissions reduction, renewable energy adoption, waste management efficiency, and biodiversity conservation.
Companies with limited biodiversity initiatives—such as PT Astra International—are encouraged to adopt ecosystem restoration programs and integrate biodiversity metrics into their sustainability reporting. For example, Sime Darby’s implementation of a biodiversity action plan and PTT Global Chemical’s eco-design approach can serve as replicable models. Astra could partner with environmental NGOs or conservation bodies to initiate biodiversity offsets aligned with national targets.
Firms should also invest in green technologies that support the circular economy, such as waste-to-energy systems and sustainable packaging. These innovations not only improve operational efficiency but also reinforce corporate contributions to national and regional environmental goals. In addition, fostering partnerships with governments, industry associations, and civil society organizations will enhance policy compliance and strengthen long-term environmental governance.

5.2.2. For ASEAN Policy Harmonization

ASEAN should play a more proactive role in unifying environmental policies across member states by establishing a regional environmental KPI framework. This framework should include measurable indicators for emissions, renewable energy, biodiversity, and waste management. Such standardization would allow for better monitoring, benchmarking, and accountability.
To address disparities in technological readiness and institutional capacity, ASEAN should provide targeted support in the form of grants, green innovation incentives, and training programs. For instance, ASEAN could sponsor regional knowledge-sharing platforms where firms like Sime Darby and PTTGC present case studies to companies in less-developed markets.
Finally, ASEAN should integrate private-sector participation more fully into its environmental governance structure. This includes incentivizing corporate sustainability reporting and facilitating access to green financing instruments such as sustainability-linked loans and regional carbon credit schemes. Encouraging private-sector alignment with ASEAN goals will accelerate collective progress toward environmental sustainability across the region.

5.3. Future Research Directions

This study lays a foundation for future research on environmental policy implementation in ASEAN, highlighting several potential directions for further exploration. One promising avenue is the application of quantitative methodologies to evaluate the impact of specific environmental policies on corporate performance. Employing large-scale surveys, panel data analysis, or econometric modeling could provide deeper insights into the causal relationships between policy implementation and outcomes such as emissions reduction, resource efficiency, and financial performance.
Expanding the geographic scope of research to include a broader range of ASEAN member states, particularly Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia, would offer a more holistic understanding of regional environmental policy implementation. These countries possess distinct industrial landscapes and regulatory frameworks, which could enrich the comparative analysis of sustainability practices across ASEAN.
Future studies could also explore the transformative role of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT), in enhancing corporate compliance with environmental regulations. These technologies can improve real-time data monitoring, enhance regulatory transparency, and optimize sustainability reporting mechanisms, making them valuable tools for advancing industrial sustainability. Additionally, longitudinal research tracking policy impacts over extended periods would provide a more nuanced understanding of the long-term effectiveness of environmental initiatives, enabling evidence-based policymaking and corporate decision-making.
By addressing these research opportunities, future studies can contribute to the growing discourse on industrial sustainability, offer empirical evidence for refining environmental regulations, and provide actionable insights for both academic scholarship and industry practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.S. and S.P.; methodology, S.P.; software, A.R.H.; validation, O.S., S.P. and A.R.H.; formal analysis, O.S.; investigation, S.P.; resources, A.R.H.; data curation, A.R.H.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S.; writing—review and editing, S.P.; visualization, A.R.H.; supervision, O.S.; project administration, S.P.; funding acquisition, O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ASEANAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations
CSRCorporate social responsibility
ESGEnvironmental, social, and governance
KPIKey Performance Indicator

References

  1. ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025; ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. World Bank. Manufacturing Value Added (% of GDP). Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/embed/gdp-composition/id/fced70c (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  3. Kementerian Perindustrian RI. Rencana Induk Pembangunan Industri Nasional 2015–2035. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/sites/default/files/National%20Industry%20Development%20Master%20Plan%20%28RIPIN%29%202015-2035%20%28BH%29.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  4. Ministry of Economy. National Energy Transition Roadmap. Available online: https://ekonomi.gov.my/sites/default/files/2023-09/National%20Energy%20Transition%20Roadmap_0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  5. Enviliance Asia. Thailand, Update on Green Industry Program. Available online: https://enviliance.com/regions/southeast-asia/th/th-green-industry-program?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  6. Secretary for Ministry of Industry. Green Industry Manual. Available online: https://greenindustry.diw.go.th/webgi/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GREEN-INDUSTRY-ENG.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  7. Astra. Sustainability Report. Available online: https://r2.astra.co.id/SR2023.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  8. Simedarby. Accelerating Forward Driven by Growth. Available online: https://www.simedarby.com/investor/annual-reports?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  9. Hayat, N.; Lohano, H.D. Factors Influencing a Manufacturing Firm to Adopt ISO 14001 Standard. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. García-Sánchez, I.; Hussain, N.; Martínez-Ferrero, J.; Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 832–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Graham, S.; Cadden, T.; Treacy, R. Examining the influence of employee engagement in supporting the implementation of green supply chain management practices: A green human resource management perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4750–4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, X.; Yan, B. Greening the economy: How culture values shape environmental policies in America and Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 31, 3853–3871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, M.-C.; Pang, S.; Su, S.-Y. Sustainable global semiconductor supply chain network design considering ESG. Technol. Soc. 2025, 81, 102829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bekabil, U.T.; Jayamohan, M.K.; Beyene, A.B. Industrial wastewater treatment and reuse: Heckman probit sample selection model. MethodsX 2025, 14, 103192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alhamdi, F.M.; Al-Kahtani, S.M. The impact of applying environmental management standards in achieving sustainable development: Evidence from food product manufacturing companies in Saudi Arabia. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. European Commission. The European Green Deal Sets out How to Make Europe the First Climate-Neutral Continent by 2050, Boosting the Economy, Improving People’s Health and Quality of Life, Caring for Nature, and Leaving No One Behind. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6691 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  17. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1119 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  18. European Union. Document 32023L0959. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023L0959 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  19. US Department of Energy. The National Blueprint for a Clean & Competitive Industrial Sector. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/20241114-National_Blueprint_to_Enhance_a_Clean_and_Competitive_Industrial_Sector_1.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  20. Owusu, S.M.; Acheampong, P. Assessing the influence of green finance, renewable energy and digitization in stimulating economic expansion: Lessons from emerging economies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025, 212, 115413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wiharja; Suherman; Syafrudin; Kholiq, M.A.; Pratama, R.A.; Robbani, M.H.; Suryanto, F. Research on the matching relationship of municipal solid waste management and alternative fuel in Indonesia’s cement industry. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2025, 11, 101098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elder, M.; Ellis, G. ASEAN countries’ environmental policies for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 10975–10993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shen, W.; Tang, W.; Siripanan, A.; Lei, Z.; Duffield, C.F.; Hui, F.K.P. Understanding the Green Building Industry in Thailand. In Green Building in Developing Countries: Policy, Strategy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fu, W.; Irfan, M. Does Green Financing Develop a Cleaner Environment for Environmental Sustainability: Empirical Insights From Association of Southeast Asian Nations Economies. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 904768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Asean. Forging Ahead Together: Ensuring Quality & Building Confidence. Available online: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ASEAN-Standards-and-Conformance-Strategic-Plan-2016-2025.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  26. Thailand. Digital Economy. Available online: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/thailand-digital-economy?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  27. Janmethakulwat, A.; Thanasopon, B. Digital technology adoption and institutionalization in Thai maritime industry: An exploratory study of the Thai shipowners. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2024, 40, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kurniawan, R.; Alamsyah, A.R.B.; Fudholi, A.; Purwanto, A.; Sumargo, B.; Gio, P.U.; Wongsonadi, S.K.; Susanto, A.E.H. Impacts of industrial production and air quality by remote sensing on nitrogen dioxide concentration and related effects: An econometric approach. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 334, 122212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Crapa, G.; Roma, P.; Bruccoleri, M. The influence of NGO-corporate relationship on environmental disclosure: Evidence from the fashion industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 2104–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Costa, R.; Tiburzi, L.; Morales-Alonso, G.; Calabrese, A.; Rosati, F. SDG walking or washing? A cross-sectoral analysis of business contribution to the SDGs. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2025, 34, 3561–3576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gombkötő, N.; Hámori, J.; Rózsa, A.; Troján, S.; Hegyi, J.; Lámfalusi, I.; Kacz, K. Sustainability reporting practices of Hungarian food subsectors from EU taxonomy perspectives. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. de Oliveira, U.R.; Menezes, R.P.; Fernandes, V.A. A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: Contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 3045–3079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hejlova, D.; Ariestya, A.; Koudelkova, P.; Schneiderova, S. Strategic silence in corporate communication concerning deadstock and overstock in the fashion industry. Corp. Commun. 2025, 30, 294–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weder, F. Sustainability as guiding principle of communicative action the transformative and transformational potential of corporate sustainability communication as niche construction, a case from the energy sector. Corp. Commun. 2025, 30, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Azizi, L.; Scope, C.; Ladusch, A.; Sassen, R. Biodiversity disclosure in the European finance sector. Ecol. Econ. 2025, 228, 108430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Singhania, M.; Saini, N.; Shri, C.; Bhatia, S. Cross-country comparative trend analysis in ESG regulatory framework across developed and developing nations. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2024, 35, 61–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aluchna, M.; Hussain, N.; Roszkowska-Menkes, M. Integrated reporting narratives: The case of an industry leader. Sustainability 2019, 11, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arora, M.; Rathore, S. Analysing Sustainability Reporting Content for Creating Value through Engaging Stakeholders: A Qualitative Approach. J. Content Community Commun. 2022, 16, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Trong, N.T.; Dong, N.T.; Ly, P.T. Population aging and economic growth: Evidence from ASEAN countries. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2298055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lahadalia, B.; Wijaya, C.; Dartanto, T.; Subroto, A. Nickel Downstreaming in Indonesia: Reinventing Sustainable Industrial Policy and Developmental State in Building the EV Industry in ASEAN. J. ASEAN Stud. 2024, 12, 79–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shaari, M.S.; Majekodunmi, T.B.; Sulong, A.; Esquivias, M.A.; Yusoff, W.S. Examining the interplay between green technology, CO2 emissions, and life expectancy in the asean-5 countries: Insights from the panel FMOLS and DOLS approaches. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Balanay, R.; Halog, A. Bioenergy updates and prospects for decarbonization in the ASEAN region: A review on logistical concerns and potential solutions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2024, 13, e499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fahim, K.E.; De Silva, L.C.; Hussain, F.; Shezan, S.A.; Yassin, H. An Evaluation of ASEAN Renewable Energy Path to Carbon Neutrality. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pranadi, A.D.; Suryadi, B.; Yosiyana, B. Status on renewable energy policy and development in ASEAN. In Renewable Energy in Developing Countries: Local Development and Techno-Economic Aspects; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nurkaidah, A.A.; Baharuddin, T. Implementation of environmental policies on the development of a new capital city in Indonesia. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2024, 10, 2297764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Emami, N.; Miatto, A.; Gheewala, S.; Soonsawad, N.; Nguyen, T.C.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Gue, I.H.; Martinico-Perez, M.F.; Vilaysouk, X.; Schandl, H. Measuring progress toward a circular economy of the ASEAN Community. J. Ind. Ecol. 2025, 29, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Asean Secretariat. Asean Plus Three Cooperation Work Plan 2023–2027. Available online: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/APT-Cooperation-Work-Plan-2023-2027.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  48. Xu, J.; Qiu, Y.; Rahman, M.K.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Hasan, T. The Regional Economic Spatial Spillover Effect of China and ASEAN. J. Ind. Compet. Trade 2025, 25, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Permatasari, P.; Gunawan, J. Sustainability policies for small medium enterprises: WHO are the actors? Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 9, 100122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fitriana, R.; Zarkasyi, W.; Suharman, H.; Sukmadilaga, C. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Towards Employees, Risk Management Quality and Corporate Sustainability Performance: Mediation of Corporate Performance. Ikenga 2024, 25, 1–34. Available online: https://www.ikengajournal.com.ng/admin/img/paper/25_1-1.pdf.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  51. Aini, S.N.; Harymawan, I.; Nasih, M.; Kamarudin, K.A. CEO overseas experience and sustainability report disclosure: Evidence from Indonesia. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2024, 31, 5837–5849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Environmentally data-driven smart sustainable cities: Applied innovative solutions for energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and urban metabolism. Energy Inform. 2020, 3, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Farooq, M.B.; Zaman, R.; Nadeem, M. AccountAbility’s AA1000AP standard: A framework for integrating sustainability into organisations. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2021, 12, 1108–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bimpong, F.A.K.; Asibey, M.O.; Inkoom, D.K.B. Ghana’s recently introduced e-waste regulatory policy: A hope for a better e-waste sector? Waste Manag. Res. 2024, 42, 1031–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Soysa, R.N.K.; Pallegedara, A.; Kumara, A.S.; Jayasena, D.M.; Samaranayake, M.K.S.M. Construction of a sustainability reporting score index integrating sustainable development goals (SDGs). The case of Sri Lankan listed firms. J. Asian Bus. Econ. Stud. 2024, 31, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rajawat, S.; Mahajan, R. Trends and determinants of quality of sustainability reporting: An analysis of Indian banks. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kochkina, N.; Macchia, S.; Floris, M. Strategic Language Use in Sustainability Reporting: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Di Vaio, A.; Dell’Amura, G.; Chhabra, M.; Garofalo, A. Circular economy and waste production models for sustainable development goals 12 and 14: Evidence from cruise sustainability reporting. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 6686–6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bogdan, V.; Rus, L.; Matica, D.E. The Interconnection of Double Materiality Assessment, Circularity Practices Disclosure and Business Development in the Fast Fashion Industry. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, H. Green exploitation and exploration innovation as responses to environmental performance shortfalls: Integration of performance feedback, threat-rigidity and ambidexterity perspectives. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2025, 40, 448–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bronzini, M.; Nicolini, C.; Lepri, B.; Passerini, A.; Staiano, J. Glitter or gold? Deriving structured insights from sustainability reports via large language models. EPJ Data Sci. 2024, 13, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. Robert, K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Agostino, M.; Giunta, A.; Ruberto, S.; Scalera, D. Global value chains and energy-related sustainable practices. Evidence from Enterprise Survey data. Energy Econ. 2023, 127, 107068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Singh, C.; Singh, D. How does green lean practices effect environmental performance? Evidence from manufacturing industries in India. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2024, 28, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhen, T.; Rahman, M.M. Greening Emerging Economies: Enhancing Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance through Environmental Management Accounting and Green Financing. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khan, M.; Lockhart, J.; Bathurst, R. A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate social responsibility reporting: A mixed-method study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jamil, A.; Ghazali, N.A.M.; Nelson, S.P. The influence of corporate governance structure on sustainability reporting in Malaysia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 17, 1251–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Thanetsunthorn, N. The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from cross-regional comparison. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 4, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dolcini, M.; Brambilla, A.; Gola, M.; Capolongo, S. Health and well-being key performance indicators in corporate sustainability disclosure. A review of sustainability reports from a sample of major European companies. Acta Biomed. 2023, 94, e2023132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tőzsér, D.; Lakner, Z.; Sudibyo, N.A.; Boros, A. Disclosure Compliance with Different ESG Reporting Guidelines: The Sustainability Ranking of Selected European and Hungarian Banks in the Socio-Economic Crisis Period. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tovar, D.S.; Moghadam, S.T.; Lombardi, P. Shaping Sustainable Practices in Italy’s Construction Industry: An ESG Indicator Framework. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, K.; Hao, X. Corporate social responsibility as the pathway towards sustainability: A state-of-the-art review in Asia economics. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mohammad, W.M.W.; Osman, M.; Rani, M.S.A. Corporate governance and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure and its effect on the cost of capital in emerging market. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2023, 12, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thompson, B.S. The political ecology of mangrove forest restoration in Thailand: Institutional arrangements and power dynamics. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Idris, S.H.; Chang, L.W.; Prihandono, I.; Rasidi, S.A. Green financing and climate change: Challenges and regulatory mechanisms in Malaysia and Indonesia. Clean Technol Environ. Policy 2024, 26, 4471–4482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tamasiga, P.; Onyeaka, H.; Bakwena, M.; Ouassou, E.H. Beyond compliance: Evaluating the role of environmental, social and governance disclosures in enhancing firm value and performance. SN Bus. Econ. 2024, 4, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nepal, R.; Liu, Y.; Dong, K.; Jamasb, T. Green Financing, Energy Transformation, and the Moderating Effect of Digital Economy in Developing Countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2024, 87, 3357–3386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03486 g001
Figure 1. Frequency of key environmental terms across companies. Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Figure 1. Frequency of key environmental terms across companies. Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Sustainability 17 03486 g001
Sustainability 17 03486 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of environmental initiatives across companies. Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Figure 2. Distribution of environmental initiatives across companies. Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Sustainability 17 03486 g002
Table 1. Overview of environmental policy variables and data sources.
Table 1. Overview of environmental policy variables and data sources.
VariableDefinitionSource
Emission Reduction InitiativesCorporate strategies aimed at reducing CO2 and other GHG emissionsSustainability Reports of Astra, Sime Darby, PTTGC (2022–2023)
Renewable Energy IntegrationAdoption and implementation of renewable energy technologiesCorporate Reports + National Policies (Malaysia NETR, Thailand Green Strategy)
Waste Management PracticesPolicies and actions on solid/liquid waste reduction, recycling, disposalCorporate Reports (2022–2023); Law No. 32/2009 (Indonesia)
Biodiversity and Eco-design MeasuresCorporate programs supporting biodiversity, eco-design, and conservationPTTGC Integrated Sustainability Report; ASEAN Sustainable Industry Guidelines
Regional Policy AlignmentDegree to which corporate practices align with ASEAN sustainability objectivesASEAN Guidelines for Sustainable Industry 2025; APAEC
Table 2. Summary of recurring environmental themes in sustainability reports.
Table 2. Summary of recurring environmental themes in sustainability reports.
CompanyCarbon ReductionRenewable EnergyWaste ManagementBiodiversity Conservation
PT Astra International✔✔✔✖
Sime Darby✔✔✔✔
PTT Global Chemical✔✔✔✔
Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9], and ASEAN Secretariat (2023) [25].
Table 3. Comparison of environmental KPIs in sustainability reports.
Table 3. Comparison of environmental KPIs in sustainability reports.
KPI CategoryPT Astra InternationalSime DarbyPTT Global Chemical
Carbon emissions (tCO2e)18% reduction (2020–2023)12% reduction (2020–2023)20% reduction target (2025)
Renewable energy usage10% increase25% increase30% increase target
Waste management35% hazardous waste reduction40% total waste recycling50% waste-to-energy conversion
Biodiversity initiativesMinimal reportingReforestation programsEcosystem restoration efforts
Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Table 4. Cross-case comparison of environmental policies.
Table 4. Cross-case comparison of environmental policies.
DimensionPT Astra International (Indonesia)Sime Darby (Malaysia)PTT Global Chemical (Thailand)
Carbon reduction18% reduction (2020–2023)12% reduction20% target (2025)
Renewable energyModerate adoption (10% increase)High adoption (25% increase)High adoption (30% increase)
Waste management35% hazardous waste reduction40% total waste recycling50% waste-to-energy conversion
Biodiversity conservationLimited focusReforestation programsEcosystem restoration initiatives
Source: adapted from PT Astra International (2023) [7], Sime Darby (2023) [8], PTT Global Chemical (2023) [9].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sinaga, O.; Hi, A.R.; Pawirosumarto, S. Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023). Sustainability 2025, 17, 3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083486

AMA Style

Sinaga O, Hi AR, Pawirosumarto S. Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023). Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083486

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sinaga, Obsatar, Abdul Rahman Hi, and Suharno Pawirosumarto. 2025. "Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023)" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083486

APA Style

Sinaga, O., Hi, A. R., & Pawirosumarto, S. (2025). Environmental Policy Implementation and Communication in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Manufacturing: A Comparative Case Study of Three Key Manufacturing Firms in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (2020–2023). Sustainability, 17(8), 3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083486

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop