IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v18y2025i2p59-d1578756.html

The Call to Shift from the Narrow Legalistic to the Broader Moral and Legal Stakeholder Model in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises: Its Implications and Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy

    (Faculty of Law, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga 50711, Indonesia)

Abstract

This article aims to elaborate on the narrow legalistic stakeholder model and the need to apply a new revised moral and legal stakeholder model in Indonesian state-owned enterprises (SOEs) with its implications and challenges. Studies on the narrow legalistic stakeholder model in Indonesian SOEs are still uncommon, despite the rising awareness of the model. This study expects to initiate discourse on the ideal stakeholder model in the industry. This study combined doctrinal and empirical legal research methods. The SOE laws and the Minister of SOEs’ regulations were examined aside from the investigation of empirical data on the accusation of SOEs breaching their obligations to their legitimate stakeholders as indicated in court decisions and mass media publications. This study shows that the Minister of SOEs’ Regulation on Implementing Corporate Governance Implementation has promoted a narrow legalistic approach to the stakeholder model. As a result, only those who have a written contract with SOEs can be considered as the legitimate direct stakeholders. This approach has led to the expropriation of other indirect legitimate stakeholders of the SOEs. This study can be used to revise the narrow legalistic stakeholder model and to strengthen research on the stakeholder model in SOEs and corporate governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2025. "The Call to Shift from the Narrow Legalistic to the Broader Moral and Legal Stakeholder Model in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises: Its Implications and Challenges," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:2:p:59-:d:1578756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/2/59/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/2/59/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    2. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, 2000. "The End Of History For Corporate Law," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm136, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Feb 2001.
    3. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 25-41, January.
    4. Steven Radelet & Jeffrey Sachs, 2000. "The Onset of the East Asian Financial Crisis," NBER Chapters, in: Currency Crises, pages 105-153, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nur Sayidah & Aminullah Assagaf & Bayu Taufiq Possumah, 2019. "Determinant of state-owned enterprises financial health: Indonesia empirical evidence," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1600207-160, January.
    6. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    7. Dunfee, Thomas W. & Donaldson, Thomas, 1995. "Contractarian Business Ethics: Current Status and Next Steps," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 173-186, April.
    8. Tracey E. George & Albert H. Yoon, 2014. "The Labor Market for New Law Professors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 1-38, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    2. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    3. Andrew West, 2016. "Applying Metaethical and Normative Claims of Moral Relativism to (Shareholder and Stakeholder) Models of Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 199-215, May.
    4. Elise Perrault, 2017. "A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 25-38, November.
    5. Pamela Queen, 2015. "Enlightened Shareholder Maximization: Is this Strategy Achievable?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 683-694, March.
    6. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    7. Lynn Buckley, 2022. "The foundations of governance: implications of entity theory for directors’ duties and corporate sustainability," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(1), pages 29-53, March.
    8. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    9. Maria Goranova & Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2022. "The Corporate Objective Revisited: The Shareholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 526-554, March.
    10. Bongani Munkuli & Renee Horne, 2018. "Financial Markets Value Reputation for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – A Study of the South African Mining Sector," Africagrowth Agenda, Africagrowth Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 17-22.
    11. Sefa Hayibor, 2017. "Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 43-64, January.
    12. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    13. McSweeney, Brendan, 2009. "The roles of financial asset market failure denial and the economic crisis: Reflections on accounting and financial theories and practices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 835-848, August.
    14. Garrod, Brian & Fyall, Alan & Leask, Anna & Reid, Elaine, 2012. "Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1159-1173.
    15. Emiliano Di Carlo & Silvia Cervi, 2025. "Redefining Firms in a Crisis Era: A Conceptual Framework for a Humanistic Approach Post-COVID-19," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 273-297, August.
    16. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2018. "Principals and stewards? An exploration of the role of institutional investors in corporate governance," Post-Print hal-01791931, HAL.
    17. Bianchi, Lara & Passetti, Emilio & Contrafatto, Massimo, 2025. "The (non)enactment of intelligent accountability through stakeholder engagement: A micro-processual perspective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(6).
    18. Cle‐Anne Gabriel & Kamran Shafique, 2024. "An ethical salience framework to achieve sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 3213-3225, August.
    19. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    20. James Hine & Lutz Preuss, 2009. "“Society is Out There, Organisation is in Here”: On the Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Held by Different Managerial Groups," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 381-393, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:2:p:59-:d:1578756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.