MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414711242 · doi:10.25105/v12i2.24104

INVESTMENT ATTRACTIVENESS: PERAN MODERASI REPUTASI PERUSAHAAN TERHADAP HUBUNGAN ESG PERFORMANCE DAN KEUNGGULAN KOMPETITIF

2025· article· en· W4414711242 on OpenAlexaff
Putri Wahyuni, Fitri Indriawati, Feber Sormin, Asep Husni Yasin Rosadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Akuntansi Trisakti · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Analysis and Corporate Governance
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessReputationCompetitive advantageStock exchangeInvestment (military)Corporate governanceLeverage (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the issue of investment attractiveness on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) by highlighting Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance and corporate competitive advantage. The main problem lies in the low level of ESG strategy integration in Indonesian companies, even though global investors are increasingly emphasising sustainability in their investment decisions. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of ESG performance and competitive advantage on investment attractiveness and to examine the role of corporate reputation as a moderating variable. The research method uses a quantitative approach with secondary data from 57 non-financial companies listed on the IDX for the period 2021–2023. The analysis was conducted using Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) with EViews 10 software. The novelty of this study lies in the use of corporate reputation with CSR Strategy Score measurement as a moderating variable, which has rarely been examined in previous studies. The results show that ESG performance does not have a significant effect on investment attractiveness, while competitive advantage has a significant negative effect. However, when corporate reputation is included as a moderator, the relationship between ESG and competitive advantage on investment attractiveness becomes significant, confirming the importance of reputation as a reinforcing mechanism. These findings are expected to contribute to companies and regulators in designing more effective sustainability strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Akuntansi TrisaktiSame topicFinancial Analysis and Corporate GovernanceFrench-language works237,207