MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416721973 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18120672

The Determinants of Green Bond Issuance in Indonesia: An Analysis of Sustainable Financial Instruments

2025· article· en· W4416721973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Endri Endri, Irwan Mangara Harahap, Anton Hindardjo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSustainable Finance and Green Bonds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirecció General de Recerca, Generalitat de CatalunyaMinistrstvo za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo
KeywordsBondCorporate bondFinancial instrumentGovernment bondGovernment (linguistics)CouponStock exchangeBond market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green Bonds (GBs) have emerged as one of the most prominent innovations in sustainable finance instruments in recent times, necessitating an understanding of the factors determining their issuance. However, empirical literature on the factors driving GB issuance in Indonesia is limited. This study aims to investigate the impact of bond characteristics and macroeconomic factors on Government and Corporate Bond issuance from 2018 to 2023 using a random-effects panel regression model. The results confirm that all factors, except economic growth, have a significant effect on GB issuance; however, the impact of some factors differs between government-issued GBs and corporate-issued GBs. Among them, the green stock market and exchange rate have a positive effect on Corporate GB issuance, but the opposite is true for Government GB issuance. Furthermore, increases in interest rates and coupon rates encourage more government GB issuance but have the opposite effect on Corporate GB issuance. Our results contribute to the literature on sustainable finance, providing policymakers, issuers, and investors with valuable practical insights to encourage the development of the green bond market.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicSustainable Finance and Green BondsFrench-language works237,207