Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 28, 2025
Accepted
May 5, 2026
Published
July 24, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 55 Download : 31

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research examines the influence of political connections, board diversity, and director busyness on firm performance, while considering the moderating role of ownership structure. The sample comprises 440 firm-year observations of companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange during 2014–2024. Indonesia provides a relevant setting due to the widespread presence of politically exposed individuals and limited transparency in regulations related to political affiliations. This study offers two main contributions. First, it emphasizes the positive role of political connections in improving firm performance and provides implications for regulatory policies. Second, it provides insights into board composition, particularly female representation, which remains relatively low in Indonesia. The results indicate that political connections significantly enhance firm performance, suggesting that government ties create strategic benefits. Similarly, Board diversity shows a positive effect, highlighting the contribution of women in improving decision-making quality and risk management. In contrast, director busyness is not significantly related to company performance. Further moderation analysis shows that managerial ownership weakens the positive effect of political connections on performance, but does not significantly impact the relationship between board diversity or director engagement and firm performance.

Keywords

Governance political connections board diversity company performance managerial ownership director's busyness

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Sonia Ayesha Riska, Wuri Handayani

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Riska, S. A., & Handayani, W. (2026). Political connection, board diversity, director’s busyness and company performance: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Asian Management and Business Review, 6(2), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.20885/AMBR.vol6.iss2.art9
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, Hashmi, M. A., Mateen, A., Badshah, Y. A., & Iqbal, M. S. (2022). Does tax aggressiveness and cost of debt affect firm performance? the moderating role of political connections. Cogent Economics and Finance, 10(1): Article 2132645. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2132645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2132645
  2. Ahmed, N., & Hadi, O. A. (2017). Impact of ownership structure on firm performance in the MENA region: an empirical study. Accounting and Finance Research, 6(3), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v6n3p105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v6n3p105
  3. Almarayeh, T. (2023). Board diversity, board compensation and firm performance. evidence from Jordan. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 21(3), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2021-0138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2021-0138
  4. Amin, M. R., Mazumder, S., & Aktas, E. (2023). Busy board and corporate debt maturity structure. Global Finance Journal, 58: Article 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2023.100890 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2023.100890
  5. Bai, Y., Xiao, Y., Pan, J., Tan, Y., & Zeng, C. (2023). When political ties matter for firm performance? the role of CEO’s political utilization orientation and prosocial orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 1395-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09881-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09881-w
  6. Basdekis, C., Katsampoxakis, I., & Anathreptakis, K. (2023). Women’s participation in firms’ management and their impact on financial performance: Pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 period evidence. Sustainability, 15(11), 8686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118686
  7. Baxamusa, M., & Jalal, A. (2024). Environmental regulations, agency costs, and firm performance. Research in International Business and Finance, 70(Part A): Article102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102307 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102307
  8. Boachie, C. (2023). Corporate governance and financial performance of banks in Ghana: the moderating role of ownership structure. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(3), 607–632. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2020-1146 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2020-1146
  9. Brahma, S., Zhang, J., Boateng, A., & Nwafor, C. (2023). Political connection and M&A performance: evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 85, 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.01.026
  10. Brugués, F., Brugués, J., & Giambra, S. (2024). Political connections and misallocation of procurement contracts: evidence from Ecuador. Working Paper, 170: Article 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2024.103296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2024.103296
  11. Chancharat, S., & Chancharat, N. (2019). Board structure, ownership structure, and performance of Thai listed companies. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 13(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v13i3.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v13i3.4
  12. Cheikh, S. B., & Loukil, N. (2023). Political connections, related party transactions and firm performance: evidence from Tunisian context. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 13(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-10-2020-0287 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-10-2020-0287
  13. Chen, K. D., & Guay, W. R. (2020). Busy directors and shareholder satisfaction. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 55(7), 2181–2210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109019000590 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109019000590
  14. Coad, A., Holm, J. R., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2018). Firm age and performance. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0532-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0532-6
  15. Dawood, M., Rehman, S. ur, Majeed, U., & Idress, S. (2023). Contribution the effect of corporate governance on firm performance in Pakistan. Review of Education, Administration & Law, 6(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.47067/real.v6i1.304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47067/real.v6i1.304
  16. Defina, D., & Kuswanto, R. (2025). Tata kelola perusahaan dan kinerja finansial: evaluasi berdasarkan keberagaman gender dan struktur pengawasan. Paradoks: Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi, 8(3), 1364–1379. https://doi.org/10.57178/paradoks.v8i3.1500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.57178/paradoks.v8i3.1500
  17. Din, S. U., Arshad Khan, M., Khan, M. J., & Khan, M. Y. (2022). Ownership structure and corporate financial performance in an emerging market: a dynamic panel data analysis. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(8), 1973–1997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2019-0220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2019-0220
  18. Eklemet, I., Mohammed, I., Gyamera, E., & Twumwaah, D. A. (2023). Moderating role of board size between the board characteristics and the bank’s performance: application of GMM. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 13(3), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.14495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.14495
  19. Farooq, M., Noor, A., & Ali, S. (2022). Corporate governance and firm performance: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 22(1), 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-07-2020-0286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-07-2020-0286
  20. Ferrary, M., & Déo, S. (2023). Gender diversity and firm performance: when diversity at middle management and staff levels matter. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(14), 2797–2831. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2093121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2093121
  21. Ferris, S. P., Jayaraman, N., & Liao, M. Y. (Stella). (2020). Better directors or distracted directors? an international analysis of busy boards. Global Finance Journal, 44: Article 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.05.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.05.006
  22. Firmansyah, A., Arham, A., Qadri, R. A., Wibowo, P., Irawan, F., Kustiani, N. A., Wijaya, S., Andriani, A. F., Arfiansyah, Z., Kurniawati, L., Mabrur, A., Dinarjito, A., Kusumawati, R., & Mahrus, M. L. (2022). Political connections, investment opportunity sets, tax avoidance: does corporate social responsibility disclosure in Indonesia have a role? Heliyon, 8(8), Article e10155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10155
  23. Gao, W., Huang, Z., & Yang, P. (2019). Political connections, corporate governance and M&A performance: evidence from Chinese family firms. Research in International Business and Finance, 50, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.04.007
  24. Guping, C., Sial, M. S., Wan, P., Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., & Brugni, T. V. (2020). Do board diversity and non-executive directors affect CSR reporting? insight from agency theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208597 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208597
  25. Habib, A., Haris, A., & Jiang, H. (2017). Political connections , related party transactions , and auditor choice: evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.01.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.01.004
  26. Harymawan, I., Putri, F. V., Ratri, M. C., & Nasih, M. (2023). Busy CEOs and audit fees: evidence from Indonesia. Accounting Research Journal, 36(6), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-01-2023-0003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-01-2023-0003
  27. Hashmi, M. A., Abdullah, M. A., & Brahmana, R. K. (2022). Family monitoring and the adverse consequences of political connections: does it vary over family generations? Management Research Review, 46(6), 832–851. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2021-0471 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2021-0471
  28. Hauser, R. (2018). Busy directors and firm performance: evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 128(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.01.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.01.009
  29. Hong, N. T. H., & Linh, T. K. (2023). Institutional investors, corporate governance and firm performance in an emerging market: evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(1), Article 2159735. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2159735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2159735
  30. Hossain, I., Mia, A., & Pellegrina, L. D. (2024). A systematic review of gender diversity and its impact on the performance of microfinance institutions. Future Business Journal, 10(9), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-023-00294-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-023-00294-1
  31. Hu, Y., & Zhou, X. (2008). The performance effect of managerial ownership: evidence from China. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(10), 2099–2110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.047
  32. Islam, M. S. U., Wong, W.-C., & Yusoff, M. Y. M. (2022). The influence of political connections and ownership on firm performance in Pakistan. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 15(2), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-00104
  33. Islam, M. S. U., Wong, W. C., & Yusoff, M. Y. B. M. (2023). Types of political connections, election years, and firm performance in Pakistan: moderating role of external monitoring. Cogent Business and Management, 10(2): Article 2224139. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2224139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2224139
  34. Jaffar, R., & Abdul-Shukor, Z. (2016). The role of monitoring mechanisms towards company’s performance: evidence from politically connected companies in Malaysia. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 6(4), 408–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-05-2014-0021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-05-2014-0021
  35. James, H. L., Wang, H., & Xie, Y. (2018). Busy directors and firm performance: does firm location matter? North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 45, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.01.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.01.010
  36. Jenter, D., Schmid, T., & Urban, D. (2023). ECGI Working Paper Series in Finance Does Board Size Matter? October. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4371743 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4371743
  37. Ji, K. M., Wang, J., Boccardo, L., Brown, H., Wong, I. K. A., & Wu, J. (2024). Interactive effects of financial leverage with asset-light strategies: the agency theory perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 116: Article 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103619
  38. Joni, J., Natalia, M., & Leliana, L. (2023). The investment behavior of politically connected firms in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 8(4), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-12-2022-0416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-12-2022-0416
  39. Kao, M.-F., Hodgkinson, L., & Jaafar, A. (2019). Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 19(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144
  40. Karami, G., Mehrani, S., Beik Boshrouyeh, S., Ezadpour, M., Mohebbi, M., & Samavat, M. (2024). Political connections and labor investment efficiency. International Review of Economics and Finance, 89(PB), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.10.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.10.010
  41. Khan, A. (2022). Ownership structure, board characteristics and dividend policy: evidence from Turkey. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 22(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2021-0129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2021-0129
  42. Khieu, H., Nguyen, N. H., Phan, H. V., & Fulkerson, J. A. (2023). Political corruption and corporate risk-taking. Journal of Business Ethics, 184, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05136-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05136-8
  43. Khuram, H. R., Hassan, G. A., & Hameed, A. (2023). Role of corporate governance, firm and country specific factors of PSX listed firms’ dividend policy and stock prices. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(5), 566–587.
  44. La Rocca, M., Fasano, F., La Rocca, T., & Neha, N. (2024). Women in CEO duality and firm performance in Europe. Journal of Management and Governance, 28(1), 177–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09669-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09669-6
  45. Laker, B., & Roulet, T. (2019). How companies can adapt during times of political uncertainty failure learning view project media and social evaluations view project. Harvard Business Review. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337340149
  46. Lee, K. W., & Lok, C. L. (2020). Busy boards, firm performance and operating risk. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, 16(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2020.16.2.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2020.16.2.1
  47. Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. (2015). Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: a strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2167-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2167-y
  48. Liu, J. J., & Liu, Y. (2023). Multiple directorships and firm performance: evidence from independent director effort allocation in Hong Kong. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 79: Article 102051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102051
  49. Liu, X., Zhao, R., & Guo, M. (2023). CEO turnover, political connections, and firm performance: evidence from China. Emerging Markets Review, 55: Article 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2022.100965 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2022.100965
  50. Loderer, C. F., & Waelchli, U. (2011). Firm age and performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1364018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1938635
  51. Lu, X., Wang, J., & Dong, D. (2013). Busy boards and corporate performance. China Finance Review International, 3(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441391311330618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/20441391311330618
  52. Makpotche, M., Bouslah, K., & M’Zali, B. (2024). Corporate governance and green innovation: international evidence. Review of Accounting and Finance, 23(2), 280–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-04-2023-0137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-04-2023-0137
  53. Mehrotra, S., Mohanty, B., & Sharma, T. (2023). Do board quality and promoters’ holdings affect firm performance? evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. FIIB Business Review, 12(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714520980286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714520980286
  54. Munisi, G. (2020). Corporate governance and ownership structure in Sub-Saharan Africa Countries. Journal of African Business, 21(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1646600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1646600
  55. Muttakin, M. B., & Ullah, M. S. (2012). Corporate governance and bank performance: evidence from Bangladesh. Corporate Board: Role, Duties and Composition, 8(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv8i1art5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv8i1art5
  56. Nhan, D. T. T., Vo, T. S., & Nguyen, T. S. (2024). Politically connected boards and firm performance: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Finance and Marketing Research, 15(5), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.52932/jfm.v15i5.501
  57. Ogabo, B., Ogar, G., & Nuipoko, T. (2021). Ownership structure and firm performance: the role of managerial and institutional ownership-evidence from the UK. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 11(7), 859–886. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2021.117053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2021.117053
  58. Osazuwa, N. P. (2016). Political Connection, Board Characteristics and Firm Performance in Nigeria. February, 769–774. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.08.108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.08.108
  59. Queiri, A., Madbouly, A., Reyad, S., & Dwaikat, N. (2021). Corporate governance, ownership structure and firms’ financial performance: insights from Muscat securities market (MSM30). Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 19(4), 640–665. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2020-0130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2020-0130
  60. Rahman, M. J., & Yihun, L. (2021). Firm size, firm age, and firm profitability: evidence from China. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management, 28(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.31966/jabminternational.v28i1.829 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31966/jabminternational.v28i1.829
  61. Rusmin, R., Evans, J., & Hossain, M. (2012). Ownership structure, political connection and firm performance: evidence from Indonesia. Corporate Ownership and Control, 10(1), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv10i1c4art4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv10i1c4art4
  62. Sahoo, M., Srivastava, K. B. L., Gupta, N., Mittal, S. K., Bakhshi, P., & Agarwal, T. (2023). Board meeting, promoter CEO and firm performance: evidence from India. Cogent Economics and Finance, 11(1): Article 2175465. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2175465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2175465
  63. Shin, J. Y., Hyun, J. H., Oh, S., & Yang, H. (2018). The effects of politically connected outside directors on firm performance: evidence from Korean chaebol firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12203
  64. Tao-Schuchardt, M., & Kammerlander, N. (2024). Board diversity in family firms across cultures: a contingency analysis on the effects of gender and tenure diversity on firm performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 15(2): Article 100554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2023.100554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2023.100554
  65. Taouab, O., & Issor, Z. (2019). Firm performance: definition and measurement models. European Scientific Journal, 15(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n1p93 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n1p93
  66. Tarmizi, N. F. A., & Brahmana, R. K. (2023). Environmental performance, political connection, and financial performance: evidence from global oil and gas companies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 11081–11098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22881-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22881-5
  67. Tee, C. M., & Hooy, C.-W. (2023). Political connections and economic policy uncertainty: a global evidence. Finance Research Letters, 51, Article 103340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103340
  68. Transparency International Indonesia. (2023). Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Penilaian 50 Perusahaan Sawit di Indonesia. Transparency International Indonesia. Retrieved from https://ti.or.id/transparency-in-corporate-reporting-trac-50-perusahaan-sawit-di-indonesia-kartu-kuning-bagi-tata-kelola-perusahaan-sawit-di-indonesia/
  69. Trinugroho, I., Risfandy, T., Hanafi, M. M., & Sukmana, R. (2023). Busy commissioners and firm performance: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(11), 5028–5048. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-01-2020-0007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-01-2020-0007
  70. Ulum, I., Rizqiyah, & Jati, A. W. (2016). Intellectual capital performance: a comparative study between financial and non-financial industry of Indonesian biggest companies. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(4), 1436–1439. https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijefi/article/view/2884
  71. Vieira, E. S., & Nogueira, J. (2022). The relationship between corporate governance and firm performance in a small stock market. In Proceedings of the 2022 17th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI54924.2022.9820251 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI54924.2022.9820251
  72. Wongsinhirun, N., Chatjuthamard, P., & Jiraporn, P. (2023). Corporate culture and board diversity: evidence from textual analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 8: Article 102534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102534
  73. Yang, H., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Ma, B. (2022). The impact of organizational-level political connection on environmental strategy in private firms. Energy, 126026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106644
  74. Yang, J., Chen, Y., & Rahardja, S. (2023). Neighborhood representative for improving outlier detectors. Information Sciences, 625, 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.12.041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.12.041
  75. Yasmin, N., & Utama, C. A. (2020). The impact of busy directors on firm performance in manufacturing companies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 144, 283–286. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200606.049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200606.049
  76. Zarefar, A., & Narsa, I. M. (2023). Do corporate governance drive firm performance? evidence from Indonesia. Gestao e Producao, 30, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2022V29E7322 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2022v29e7322