Why sustainability risks fail to enter audit planning?

Download This Article

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

Abstract

Financial auditors increasingly encounter sustainability‑related information that may influence financial audit risk, yet little is known about how such information is incorporated into audits in developing countries. This study examines how Indonesian auditors apply sustainability risks within the audit risk model and introduces the concept of the risk translation gap—the disconnect between recognizing sustainability risks and integrating them into audit procedures. Using an interpretive qualitative approach, the study draws on 15 interviews with auditors from Big Four and non‑Big Four firms to explore how mandatory disclosures under the Financial Services Authority Regulation No. 51 (POJK 51) are operationalized. Findings reveal persistent audit decoupling: auditors acknowledge that sustainability risks can affect going concern, impairment, and misstatement risk, but struggle to translate these risks into substantive testing due to weak regulatory enforcement, low‑quality disclosures, and limited methodological guidance. Big Four firms show more structured proceduralizing, while non‑Big Four auditors rely heavily on ad‑hoc judgment, creating inconsistency across the profession. The study advances auditing theory by showing how the risk translation gap prevents sustainability risks from entering audit planning in weak enforcement contexts, contrasting with practices in developed countries (Chiang & Northcott, 2012; Tuo et al., 2023), and provides guidance for standard setters to strengthen sustainability-related audit work.

Keywords: Sustainability Risk, Risk Translation Gap, Auditing, Coercive Isomorphism, Institutional Void

Authors’ individual contribution: The Author is responsible for all the contributions to the paper according to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standards.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

JEL Classification: D22, D91, M42, M48, M53

Received: 15.01.2026
Revised: 10.03.2026; 23.03.2026
Accepted: 20.04.2026
Published online: 22.04.2026

How to cite this paper: Suhardjo, I. (2026). Why sustainability risks fail to enter audit planning? Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 10(3), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv10i3p4