The consistent distribution of economic value from state-owned companies in Indonesia to both external and internal stakeholders over the long term is crucial as an indicator of company growth. This research aims to demonstrate the influence of stakeholder value on the performance of state-owned enterprises in Indonesia. Using panel data to measure predictor consistency over the long term, the study finds that the data is stationary and cointegration occurs in the long term. The findings are: (a) Government Value positively influences return on equity (ROE) and sustainable growth rate (SGR) but has no effect on return on assets (ROA); (b) Customer Value positively influences ROA but has no effect on ROE and SGR; (c) Social Value has no significant impact on ROA, ROE and SGR; (d) Debt-holder Value negatively influences ROA, ROE and SGR; (e) Supplier Value positively influences ROA, ROE and SGR; (f) Employee Value positively influences ROE but has no effect on ROA and SGR; and (g) Shareholder Value positively influences ROE but has no effect on ROA and SGR. These findings indicate inconsistencies in the impact of stakeholder value on company performance.
AcharyyaM., & AgarwalaT. (2022). Relationship between CSR motivations and corporate social performance: A study in the power industry in India. Employee Relations, 44(3), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0091
2.
AmiraslaniH., LinsK. V, ServaesH., & TamayoA. (2023). Trust, social capital, and the bond market benefits of ESG performance. Review of Accounting Studies, 28(2), 421–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09646-0
3.
AngR., ShaoZ., LiuC., YangC., & ZhengQ. (2022). The relationship between CSR and financial performance and the moderating effect of ownership structure: Evidence from Chinese heavily polluting listed enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.030
4.
ApergisN., PoufinasT., & AntonopoulosA. (2022). ESG scores and cost of debt. Energy Economics, 112, 106186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106186
5.
ApriyantopoW., AprianingsihA., & KitriM. L. (2023). State-owned enterprises’ performance in Indonesia: A strategic typology perspective. Competitiveness Review, 33(4), 759–786. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2021-0019
6.
AsnawiM. I., NasutionB., & SiraitN. N. (2021). Corporate governance in realizing sustainable plantation in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 782(3), 032048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/782/3/032048
7.
BalM., & PawlickaK. (2021). Supply chain finance and challenges of modern supply chains. Logforum, 17(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2021.525
8.
BartovE., MarraA., & MomentéF. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and the market reaction to negative events: Evidence from inadvertent and fraudulent restatement announcements. Accounting Review, 96(2), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0281
9.
BătaeO. M., DragomirV. D., & FeleagăL. (2021). The relationship between environmental, social, and financial performance in the banking sector: A European study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125791
10.
BossmanA., AgyeiS. K., AsiamahO., AgyeiE. A., ArhinE. Y., & Marfo-YiadomE. (2022). Dividend policy and performance of listed firms on Ghana stock exchange. Cogent Economics and Finance, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2127220
11.
CaoY., AldawsariS. H., HresticM. L., LileR. A., BaldanC., MihaiD., TanascoviciM. B., & ShabbirM. S. (2024). Does the green economy influence environmental sustainability? Nexus between staple food crops consumption and total factor productivity. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02068-8
12.
CaoS., YaoH., & ZhangM. (2023). CSR gap and firm performance: An organizational justice perspective. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113692
13.
ChabowskiB. R., GabrielssonP., HultG. T. M., & MorgesonF. V. (2023). Sustainable international business model innovations for a globalizing circular economy: A review and synthesis, integrative framework, and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00652-9
14.
ChangH. (2022). Customer bargaining power, strategic fit, and supplier performance. Production and Operations Management, 31(4), 1492–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13627
15.
ChenJ., XiaoT., & ZhangF. (2023). Paradox of CSR distinctiveness: The tension between stakeholder legitimacy evaluation and stakeholder integration efficiency. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(6), 2906–2923. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2523
16.
DansoA. (2020). Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 119, 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.038
17.
DoniF., CorvinoA., & Bianchi MartiniS. (2022). Corporate governance model, stakeholder engagement and social issues evidence from European oil and gas industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(3), 636–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2020-0336
18.
EnalpeM. (2022). Corporate social responsibility activities and impact on firm value: The case of the technology company group. Springer proceedings in business and economics, pp. 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81663-6_2
19.
FerryL., HeG., & YangC. (2023). How do executive pay and its gap with employee pay influence corporate performance? Evidence from Thailand tourism listed companies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(1), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-03-2021-0061
20.
FreemanR. E., DmytriyevS. D., & PhillipsR. A. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1757–1770.
21.
FuadahL. L. (2022). The relationship between sustainability reporting, e-commerce, firm performance and tax avoidance with organizational culture as moderating variable in small and medium enterprises in Palembang. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(7), 3738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073738
22.
GaoH., HeJ., & LiY. (2022). Media spotlight, corporate sustainability and the cost of debt. Applied Economics, 54(34), 3989–4005. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.2020710
23.
GreenwoodR., & MeyerR. E. (2008). Influencing ideas: A celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492608326693
24.
GuoZ. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: The moderating effects of financial flexibility and & investment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(20), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208452
25.
HoK.-C., LiH.-M., & GongY. (2022). How does corporate social performance affect investment inefficiency? An empirical study of China market. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 515–524. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.016
26.
HsuB.-X., ChenY.-M., & ChenL.-A. L. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and value added in the supply chain: Model and mechanism. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121302
27.
JaisinghaniD., KaurH., GoyalJ., & JoshiM. (2020). Marketing intensity and persistence of firm performance: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(6), 1109–1127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2019-0072
28.
KartasasmitaP. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility disclosure by state-owned enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(1), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/427
29.
KhalidF., SunJ., HuangG., & SuC. Y. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance of Chinese multinationals: A comparison of state-and non-state-owned enterprises. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(7), 4020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074020
30.
KhuongN. V. (2022). The nexus between corporate social responsibility and firm value: The moderating role of life-cycle stages. Social Responsibility Journal, 19(5), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0370
31.
KhuongN. V., LiemN. T., ThuP. A., & KhanhT. H. T. (2020). Does corporate tax avoidance explain firm performance? Evidence from an emerging economy. Cogent Business and Management, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1780101
32.
KimH. S., & JangS. S. (2020). The effect of increasing employee compensation on firm performance: Evidence from the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102513
33.
KimJ., YangI., YangT., & KoveosP. (2021). The impact of R&D intensity, financial constraints, and dividend payout policy on firm value. Finance Research Letters, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101802
34.
KooP. H. (2022). A capacity cost-sharing contract for a two-stage supply chain with a risk-averse supplier under a bargaining power. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042279
35.
KoC.-Y., PanH., KuoL.-C., & KoY.-C. (2022). The association between non-executive compensation and firm performance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(2), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2020.1726777
36.
KobrossyS., KaraszewskiR., & AlChamiR. (2022). The institutionalization of implicit and explicit CSR in a developing country context: The case of Lebanon. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040142
37.
LeeR. P., & WeiS. (2023). Do employee orientation and societal orientation matter in the customer orientation—Performance link?Journal of Business Research, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113722
38.
LiJ. (2022). Environmental protection tax, corporate ESG performance, and green technological innovation. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.982132
39.
LiX., RehmanA. U., TomaS., JaradatM., LvX., MihaiD. M., SpinuA. E., & ShabbirM. S. (2024). Does corporate social sustainability influence on business environment? Impact of corporate governance on distance to default of Sukuk issuers in Islamic banks. International Review of Economics & Finance, 93, 520–528. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.03.002
LiuD., DangB., & ZhaoY. (2023). Managerial ties and learning ambidexterity: The moderating effects of manager service support and employee service rewards. Management Decision, 61(3), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2021-1352
42.
LiuY., SalmanA., KhanK., MahmoodC. K., Ramos-MezaC. S., JainV., & ShabbirM. S. (2023). The effect of green energy production, green technological innovation, green international trade, on ecological footprints. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03399-3
43.
LongF. (2022). Impact of China’s environmental protection tax on corporate performance: Empirical data from heavily polluting industries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106892
44.
MahmoodM., OstrovskiyA., & CaparN. (2023). Effect of orientation training on employee and firm performance. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 42(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22173
45.
MarkovitchD. G., HuangD., & YeP. (2020). Marketing intensity and firm performance: Contrasting the insights based on actual marketing expenditure and its SG&A proxy. Journal of Business Research, 118, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.032
46.
NeogY. (2020). Tax structure and economic growth in India: Insights from ARDL model. Indian Growth and Development Review, 13(3), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-05-2019-0048
47.
NiyommaneeratW., SuwanteepK., ChavalparitO., Georgiana NojaG., CristeaM., Gabriel PirteaM., PanaitM., DraceaR. M., AbrudanD., BranickiL., KalfaS., PullenA., BrammerS., BajajA., LeonardL. N. K., SunL., XingZ., WangL., ShangY., & MarfoM. (2023). Corporate social responsibility and bank credit loans: Exploring the moderating effect of the institutional environment in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(1), 1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2022-0298
48.
ÖzkanP. (2020). The effect of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty: The mediation of perceived value of services, corporate image, and corporate reputation. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 38(2), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-03-2019-0096
49.
PehlivanA., GerekanB., & KocanM. (2020). The effect of operating expenses on growth and performance: An empirical analysis of the petroleum and chemistry industry in Turkey. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 10(11), 1299–1308. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2020.1011.1299.1308
50.
PowellW. W., & ColyvasJ. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 276, 298.
51.
PurwatiA. A., WilliamW., HamzahM. L., & HamzahR. (2023). Employee performance distributions: Analysis of motivation, organizational learning, compensation and organizational commitment. Journal of Distribution Science, 21(4), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.21.04.202304.57
52.
RamdhanR. M. (2022). Corporate social responsibility internal as a predictor for motivation to serve, normative commitment, and adaptive performance among state-owned enterprises’ employee. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2093486
53.
RisiD., VigneauL., BohnS., & WickertC. (2023). Institutional theory-based research on corporate social responsibility: Bringing values back in. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12299
54.
SodaM. Z., OroudY., & MakhloufM. H. (2021). The effect of financial policy and capital assets on firm performance: Evidence from service companies listed on the Amman stock exchange. Accounting, 7(4), 917–924. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2021.1.016
55.
SuharmanH. (2022). Corporate social responsibility, intellectual capital, and corporate performance in state-owned enterprises. Quality—Access to Success, 23(189), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/23.189.04
56.
SusantiN., YaasmiinN. N., RamadantiD. Z., NugrahaM. A. D., MaghfirohN., & NasutionY. P. (2021). The influence of firm size, leverage, and liquidity on company performance through dividend policy in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2015–2019 period. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(5), 3225–3237. https://doi.org/10.48047/rigeo.11.05.213
57.
WangQ., LiuM., & ZhangB. (2022). Do state-owned enterprises really have better environmental performance in China? Environmental regulation and corporate environmental strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185, 106500. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106500
58.
WeiF., & ZhouL. (2024). Do state-owned enterprises prefer capital from private enterprises with better ESG performance? Evidence from China’s mixed ownership reforms. Finance Research Letters, 62, 105067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105067
59.
YanC., HeX., LiJ., HeH., & AoT. (2023). Multiple large shareholders and firm performance: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 52(3), 394–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajfs.12434
