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

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]

1. Introduction:

Response 1:

a.      Please add more about the current state of the literature so that the literature gaps become more clear.

Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, Yes, I have  added some latest literature on stakeholder model research in Indonesia, page 2 para 2).

Response 2:

b.     Support your arguments with recent studies (2023 and 2024) to make readers aware of the latest and most up-to-date literature.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, Yes, I have 

added some latest literature on stakeholder model research in Indonesia, page 2 para 2).

Response 3:

c.     Add a short paragraph about the theoretical framework or model you adopt to analyse

your empirical data. Without using a specific theoretical framework or model to frame

your empirical analysis (e.g., institutional theory, structuration theory, stakeholder theory,

agency theory, etc.), | believe that your empirical findings may not be clear about how they

contribute to the existing literature.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment as this suggestion is a bit confusing. However, the Stakeholder model has been explained in the literature review section)

Response 4:

d.     Add a short paragraph about your research methodology and methods used to collect

and analyse the empirical data.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, Yes, I have added this issue in the methodology section)

Response 5:

e.     Add a short paragraph on the main findings along with the literature and theory to make

your theoretical and empirical contributions more clear.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment.  There is no need to do so as both theoretical and empirical contributions have been explained in the article).

Response 6:

f.      Add a short paragraph about the structure of the article so that readers can understand

the coherence of the entire article.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, Yes, I have rewritten it so can follow the structure, Introduction section, page 2 para 4)

2. Literature Review:

Response 7:

g.     The presentation of previous studies is descriptive. To illustrate your arguments, you

should provide a critical review of the theoretical and empirical findings of previous studies. This will justify the research gaps and the importance of research question

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. The gap of the study has been underlined in the introduction section

Response 8:

h.     Please avoid discussing studies one by one (in order). This doesn't make this section purposeful. You should identify clear arguments supported by adequate discussion of relevant previous studies.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. All previous studies are made to make it easy for the readers to follow the article.

Response 9:

i.      Here again, you should support this section with recently published studies to strengthen your research gaps and arguments/questions. As noted, the previous studies presented in this section are not new.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. Some recent studies have been added in the introduction section.

Response 10:

j.      At the end of this section, you should summarise the literature gaps that justify the importance of your study, and then the rest of the article sections.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment as the gap of the research has been explained well in the introduction section.

3. Research Questions and Methodology:

Response 11:

k.     I was surprised to find this section after the literature review section. This should be an

essential part of the introduction (Section 1)

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore  I have moved the methodology section after the introduction, section 2)

Response 12:

l.      After the literature review section, you should provide a separate section on the ‘theoretical framework.’ In this section, you should present the theoretical aspects or conceptual model that you adopt or adapt to analyse your empirical data. This section will help readers understand your theoretical contributions to the existing literature. Another separate section on 'research methodology and methods’ should be added. In this section, you should provide a detailed explanation of how you collected, coded, and analysed your empirical data. This section will serve as a preliminary step towards the next section, “Results and Discussion.”

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. In my understanding the stakeholder theory has been explained so there is no need to make another section on theoretical frame work).

 4. Results and Discussion:

Response 13:

m.    This section is interesting. Thank you for this appreciation.

Response 14:

n.     However, throughout the section, a detailed explanation of the 'why' of the shift from a

narrow legalistic approach to a stakeholder model is only provided. You should also explain 'how' the broader moral and legal stakeholder model is implemented within Indonesian SOEs. Who are the key actors/members involved in implementing the broader model within Indonesian SOEs? What tools have Indonesian SOEs used to accommodate this broader model within their existing routines? What generalised practices does this broader model create within Indonesian SOEs compared to the narrow model? How has the broader model affected decision-making within Indonesian SOEs and the central government?

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment.  But It is hard to do another research. Maybe next research all the comments can be research questions. I just limited myself on the research questions that have been formulated.  

Response 15:

o.     To further clarify your results, | wonder if the author could separate the empirical results from the discussion. | think it would be better if the author devoted a separate section to "results" in which the empirical data are presented. Another separate section on "discussion" should be added to provide a critical discussion of the results in conjunction with previous literature and the theoretical framework that the author can adopt to interpret the results.

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. Therefore, In the analysis section I have explained the two methods; doctrinal and empirical; in one section; result and discussion.

5. Conclusions:

Response 16:

p.     This section needs to be rewritten.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have rewritten the conclusion a little bit, page 12)

Response 17:

q.     Ideally, this section should begin with a summary of the study and its results that reflect the theoretical and empirical contributions of this study.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have started with summary and have added a reflection on the theoretical and empirical contributions, page 12).

Response 18:

r.      Next, the author should address the practical and social implications. How can other SOEs in other contexts benefit from this study? How will this study impact society and local communities?

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added

 practical and social implications in the conclusion section, para 2, 3 and 4, page 12)

Response 19:

s.      Then, this section should conclude with the limitations of the study that reflect the research implications. How can this study pave the way for future research proposals?

Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment as the limitations and future research have been stated in the end of the article)

6. General comments:

Response 20:

t.      The author should adhere to the journal's guidance in citing references within the text and preparing a list of references at the end of the study.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Yes, it has been updated.

u.     The entire article needs further proofreading.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Yes, it has been proofread.

v.     The article should be updated with newly published references in this field

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore  I have  added some latest literature on stakeholder model research in Indonesia, page 2 para 2 and The references have been adapted to journal guidelines.

I hope the author will benefit from the above comments to further improve the article. | wish you

all the best in your revisions and look forward to receiving the revised article!

(Thank you very much for your comments)

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work? 

Is the English used correct and readable?        

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]

1. The paper would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the empirical legal research was conducted. While the author mentions examining court decisions and media publications, it would be helpful to:

- Specify the time period covered in the analysis

Thank you for pointing out this. I agree with this comment. Therefore I have added the time period of analysis in the methodology section;  p.2 para 2 and 3.

- Describe the criteria used for selecting specific court cases and media reports

- Explain the analytical process used to derive conclusions from these sources

- Consider including a summary table of the key cases/reports analyzed

Thank you for pointing out this. I agree with this comment. The cases and media reports that are used only related to the issues addressed in this research. 

1. While the literature review effectively covers stakeholder theory, the analysis could be strengthened by:

- More explicitly connecting the theoretical framework to the Indonesian SOE context

- Including competing theoretical perspectives on stakeholder governance

- Drawing more direct comparisons between the narrow legalistic model and the proposed broader moral-legal model

This would help readers better understand the theoretical implications of the proposed shift.

Thank you for pointing out this. I disagree with this comment as basically these comments have been addressed in the article.

1. The paper makes reference to corporate governance codes from the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. This comparative element could be developed further by:

- Adding a structured comparison of stakeholder approaches across these jurisdictions.  

Thank you for pointing out this. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added the comparison in Para 5, page 9-10).

- Analyzing how other emerging economies have handled similar transitions in SOE governance  - Discussing specific lessons that could be applied to the Indonesian context 

Thank you for pointing out this. I disagree with this comment. I am sorry I can’t do it due to limited time and it takes more effort to do so. Another reason is that this not a comparison study. 

1. Implementation Roadmap: While the challenges to implementing the broader moral-legal stakeholder model are well-identified, the paper would be more impactful if it included:

- A more detailed roadmap for transitioning from the current model

- Specific policy recommendations for regulatory changes

- Practical steps SOEs could take to begin this transformation

- Metrics for measuring progress in this transition

Thank you for pointing out this. I disagree with this comment as if it is read carefully some suggestions been in the article for  Indonesian SOEs to start with the new revised model.

1. The visual models (Figures 1 and 2) effectively illustrate the different approaches, but could be improved by:

- Adding specific examples of how different stakeholder groups interact with SOEs

- Including quantitative data on stakeholder impacts where available

- Providing more detailed analysis of the power dynamics between different stakeholder groups

Thank you for pointing out this. I disagree with this comment. There is no need to do so as this not a case study for specific SOEs but to all SOEs in terms of the application of stakeholder theory. 

1. Case Study Development: The paper mentions several important cases (e.g., PERTAMINA's oil spill), which could be developed into more detailed case studies to:

- Provide concrete examples of the current model's limitations  (It has been explained the exixting article). 

- Illustrate specific instances where a broader stakeholder approach would have led to different outcomes

Thank you for pointing out this. I disagree with this comment as this is a normative explanation so it is a bit hard to measure as in the quantitative method) 

With these revisions, the paper would provide even greater value to both scholars and practitioners in the field.

Thank you so much for your invaluable comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor edit

(Thank you so much for the all the invaluable comments)