This study explores the effect of sustainability development and Independent Board of Commissioners on operational and systematic risks in Indonesian listed companies.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses a five-year period of data from 2018 to 2022 and ordinary least squares regression to estimate the associations. We also applied the Generalized Method of Moments to address endogeneity issues, as well as several robustness tests, including the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic and other additional control variables.
Findings
Overall, our empirical research shows that companies with higher sustainable performance and Independent Board of Commissioner members experience lower operational and systematic risks, whereas the Independent Board of Commissioners has no association with systematic risk. Furthermore, we test for endogeneity and the results remain consistent.
Implications
This study has practical implications for policymakers and academics by considering sustainable development and corporate governance mechanisms in emerging economies, such as increasing ESG practices and the role of an independent board of commissioners to promote transparency and competitiveness of the organization. This study also assists investors in considering the large amount of funds issued and the investment decisions for companies in developing countries.
Originality/value
This study examines the knowledge gap in the literature in developing countries regarding sustainability development and the independent board of commissioners in Indonesia.
BalmerJ. M. T. (2017). The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum. European Journal of Marketing, 51(9–10), 1472–1502. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2017-0448
2.
BeedlesW. L.DoddP.OfficerR. R. (1988). Regularities in Australian share returns. Australian Journal of Management, 13(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300101
3.
BlissM. A.GulF. A. (2012). Political connection and cost of debt: Some Malaysian evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(5), 1520–1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.12.011
4.
CandraA. R.JoniJ. (2025). Politically connected independent supervisory board and financial distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-08-2024-0336
ChongL. L.OngH. B.TanS. H. (2018). Corporate risk-taking and performance in Malaysia: The effect of board composition, political connections and sustainability practices. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 18(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2017-0095
8.
ClaessensS.DjankovS.FanJ. P. H.LangL. H. P. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. The Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2741–2771. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00511
De GiuliM. E.GrechiD.TandaA. (2024). What do we know about ESG and risk? A systematic and bibliometric review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(2), 1096–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2624
12.
DuQ.SunZ.GoodellJ. W.DuA. M.YangT. (2024). Ecological risk and corporate sustainability: Examining ESG performance, risk management, and productivity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 96, 103551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103551
GaoL.SheikhS.ZhouH. (2022). Executive compensation linked to corporate social responsibility and firm risk. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 19(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-10-2021-0511
15.
GieseG.LeeL. E.MelasD.NagyZ.NishikawaL. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2019.45.5.069
HarjotoM.LaksmanaI. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3202-y
18.
HuangY. S.WangC.-J. (2015). Corporate governance and risk-taking of Chinese firms: The role of board size. International Review of Economics & Finance, 37, 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.016
19.
JoniJ.AhmedK.HamiltonJ. (2020). Politically connected boards, family and business group affiliations, and cost of capital: Evidence from Indonesia. British Accounting Review, 52(3), 100878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100878
20.
Kabderian DreyerJ.MoreiraM.SmithW. T.SharmaV. (2023). Do environmental, social and governance practices affect portfolio returns? Evidence from the US stock market from 2002 to 2020. Review of Accounting and Finance, 22(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-02-2022-0046
KruegerP.SautnerZ.StarksL. T. (2020). The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1067–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz137
23.
LawrenceE.NguyenT.WickB. (2025). Stock crash risk and the independent board leadership structure. Financial Review, 60(3), 1085–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/fire.12440
24.
LeeJ.KohK. (2024). ESG Performance and firm risk in the US financial firms. Review of Financial Economics, 42(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/rfe.1208
25.
LiZ.UnluE.WuJ. (2022). Are social connections of independent directors all the same? Evidence from corporate monitoring. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 18(5), 812–832. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-01-2021-0049
26.
MasulisR. W.RezaS. W. (2015). Agency problems of corporate philanthropy. Review of Financial Studies, 28(2), 592–636. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu082
27.
MathewS.IbrahimS.ArchboldS. (2016). Boards attributes that increase firm risk – evidence from the UK. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 16(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2015-0122
28.
MintonB. A.TaillardJ.WilliamsonR. (2011). Do independence and financial expertise of the board matter for risk taking and performance?Available at SSRN 1787126.
29.
MuliaR. A.JoniJ. (2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and risk taking: Evidence from Indonesia. ACRN Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 8(1), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.35944/jofrp.2019.8.1.010
30.
NacitiV. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
31.
NagyG.MegeheeC. M.WoodsideA. G. (2018). Computing with words in modeling firms' paradoxical performances. In Improving the marriage of modeling and theory for accurate forecasts of outcomes (pp. 155–236). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1069-096420180000025008
32.
NaseerM. M.GuoY.ZhuX. (2024). ESG trade-off with risk and return in Chinese energy companies. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(5), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-07-2023-0027
33.
NguyenP.NguyenA. (2015). The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093
34.
NicolasM. L.DesroziersA.CaccioliF.AsteT. (2024). ESG Reputation risk matters: An event study based on social media data. Finance Research Letters, 59, 104712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104712
35.
ObrimahO. A. (2023). Outside of a sole globally risk averse agent, all other agents in markets are risk seeking agents. Finance Research Letters, 54, 103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103715
36.
ParkS. R.JangJ. Y. (2021). The impact of ESG management on investment decision: Institutional investors’ perceptions of country-specific ESG criteria. International Journal of Financial Studies, 9(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9030048
37.
RamirezA. G.MonsalveJ.González-RuizJ. D.AlmonacidP.PeñaA. (2022). Relationship between the Cost of Capital and Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores: Evidence from Latin America. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(9), 5012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095012
RoodmanD. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900106
40.
SinglaM.SinghS. (2019). Board monitoring, product market competition and firm performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 1036–1052. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2018-1482
41.
SutoM.TakeharaH. (2022). Impact of corporate social responsibility intensity on firm-specific risk and innovation: Evidence from Japan. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(3), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2020-0335
42.
TrahanR. T.JantzB. (2023). What is ESG? Rethinking the “E” pillar. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4382–4391. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3371
43.
UsmanM.FarooqM. U.ZhangJ.MakkiM. A. M.KhanM. K. (2019). Female directors and the cost of debt: Does gender diversity in the boardroom matter to lenders?Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2018-1863
44.
UyarA.KuzeyC.KaramanA. S. (2023). Does aggressive environmental, social, and governance engagement trigger firm risk? The moderating role of executive compensation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 398, 136542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136542
ZhaoY.ElahiE.KhalidZ.SunX.SunF. (2023). Environmental, Social and Governance Performance: Analysis of CEO Power and Corporate Risk. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(2), 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021471
