How to cite:
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto. (2022). The
Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners,
Independent Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value. Journal
Eduvest. Vol 2(6): 1.069-1.080
E-ISSN:
2775-3727
Published by:
https://greenpublisher.id/
Eduvest Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June, 2022
p- ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
THE INFLUENCE OF INSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP,
INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS, INDEPENDENT
DIRECTORS, AND PHILANTHROPY ON FIRM VALUE
Christina Dwi Astuti
1
, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra
2
, Murtanto
3
Faculty of Economics and Business Trisakti University, Indonesia
Email: cdwi_astut[email protected]c.id, audreyclari[email protected]m,
murtanto@trisakti.ac.id
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Received:
May, 26
th
2022
Revised:
June, 8
th
2022
Approved:
June, 11
st
2022
This research aims to examine the effect of institutional
ownership, independent commissioners, independent
directors and philanthropy on firm value. The population in this
study is the IDX classification industry start-up listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) from 2018 to 2020. The type of
data used is financial reports and annual reports of 76
companies using the purposive sampling method.
Furthermore, the analytical model used in this study is multiple
linear regression analysis. Based on the results of the analysis
obtained from this study, it is concluded that institutional
ownership, independent commissioners and philanthropy have
no effect on firm value, but independent directors have a
positive effect on firm value.
KEYWORDS
Firm Value, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, Institutional Ownership, Philanthropy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
INTRODUCTION
The value of a company is closely related to the level of success of a
company in the welfare of its shareholders. The implementation of good
governance factor practices can build the trust of an investor, so that it can be
followed by an increase in company value, namely through various supervisory
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.070
structures that exist in governance to achieve company goals that can increase
company value (Singh & Pilai, 2021).
The phenomenon in this study comes from PT Tiga Pilar Sejahtera Food
(AISA) which has poor governance implementation. Namely, there were several
alleged violations committed by the management of TPS food previously disclosed
by the public accountant, namely Ernst & Young, while the alleged findings were
only discovered after a long time by Ernst & Young on March 12, 2019. The first
suspicion was that there was an overstatement of 4 trillion rupiahs in accounts
receivable, inventories, and fixed assets. This consisted of sales of Rp. 662 billion
and EBITDA of Food Entity of Rp. 329 billion. Then, there is an estimated
disbursement of funds amounting to Rp. 1.78 trillion, which is followed by various
designs from the AISA Group in contact with previous management parties.
Finally, there is inadequate disclosure related to the parties involved to stakeholders
(Binsasi, 2019; Saragih, 2019)
Therefore, the existence of good governance in a company and the
implementation of philanthropy must be considered and managed properly. The
first governance factor is institutional ownership. Research from Tubagus &
Khuzaini (2020) also states that institutional ownership has a positive influence on
companies. However, in institutional ownership, some institutional investors can be
said to be temporary owners but tend to be fixated on current profits. The current
profit change in the company can trigger a change in the decisions of the company's
institutional investors, which results in institutional ownership having a negative
effect on company value (Ayu & Sumadi, 2019)
The next factor, namely, the independent commissioner as a counterweight
in decision making, especially to protect minority shareholders is also the main role
of the independent commissioner (Ardianti, Akram, & Susrani, 2019), so the
existence of an independent commissioner has a positive effect on firm value
(Farooque, 2011). However, the existence of independent commissioners in a
company does not necessarily run optimally, especially in the function of
monitoring and supervising company managers which results in a decrease in the
trust of stakeholders. Thus, the existence of independent commissioners can have a
negative effect on firm value (Fadilah, 2017).
The third factor that needs to be considered is the presence of an
independent director in a company. Monitoring actions carried out by independent
directors can effectively lead to increased company performance, which is followed
by a positive influence from independent directors on company value according to
Martinez & Alvarez (2019) and Farooque, et al. (2019). However, the existence of
independent directors who have the responsibility to supervise managers sometimes
do not fully fulfill their responsibilities optimally and professionally, this is due to
the lack of independent directors' knowledge of the company's value so that the
independent board is difficult to review the manager's responsibilities and the
mistakes of the manager. , which causes no influence between independent directors
on firm value (Alshetwi, 2017).
The last factor is philanthropy, where the existence of philanthropy in a
company aims to achieve both business and non-business goals for the company.
Philanthropy can assist consumers in determining a quality product or service with
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June 2022
1.071 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
a positive reputation. Therefore, philanthropy can be one of the factors forming a
company's reputation that comes from the assessment of shareholders (Chen, et al.,
2018), so the existence of philanthropy itself has a positive effect on company value
(Monita & Wiratmaja, 2018). However, philanthropy also affects investors on their
investment decisions, this is because the costs incurred in implementing
philanthropy are perceived by investors as only reducing the book value of assets
and equity in the company. As a result, philanthropic activities will produce results
that are contrary to the company's goals in line with research where philanthropy
has no effect on company value (Suwandi, et al., 2018).
The research conducted by the researcher is a combination of several
studies, namely from Tubagus & Khuzaini (2020), with institutional ownership as
a variable, then research from Martinez & Alvarez (2019) with an independent
director variable, and research from Farooque, et al. (2019) with independent
commissioners and independent directors as variables. Lastly, for the philanthropic
variable that comes from the research of Monita & Wiratmaja (2018). The
difference between the research conducted by the researcher and the previous
research, namely: in this study, the researcher used institutional ownership,
independent commissioners, independent directors, and philanthropy as
independent variables, and firm value as the dependent variable. The data in this
study are financial report data and annual reports on new industrial sector
companies in the IDX Industrial Classification which consist of the following
sectors: energy, raw goods, industry, primary consumers, non-primary consumers,
health, finance, technology, and listed infrastructure. on the IDX in the 2018-2020
period.
RESEARCH METHOD
The source of the data obtained for this research is secondary data, in the form of
financial reports and annual reports of new industrial sector classification companies,
namely the IDX Industrial Classification which was enforced on January 25, 2021.
Previously, the samples obtained came from manufacturing companies which are now
included in the IDX Industrial Classification. This study has a population of companies in
the energy sector, raw goods, industry, primary consumers, non-primary consumers, health,
finance, technology, and infrastructure listed on the IDX in the 2018-2020 period. The
selection criteria for the specified sample, namely:
1. These companies from various IDX-IC sectors are listed on the IDX and continuously
disclose financial reports and annual reports during the 2018-2020 period.
2. Companies from various IDX-IC sectors that disclose contributions to financial
statements and annual reports for the period 2018-2020.
3. The reports presented have been audited so that the information is credible.
The data will then be processed using the multiple linear regression method in the
SPSS 26 application. The operational definition of this research is shown in table 1:
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.072
Table 1 Definition of Operational Variables and Measurement
No.
Variable
Variable Definition
Variable Measurement
1.
Firm Value
(FV)
High company value is a
reference to high shareholder
welfare, with the higher
company value will help
shareholders in getting benefits
other than dividends given by the
company.
Keterangan:
Q : Firm value
MVS : Market Value of
Equity ( = Closing price x
outstanding share)
D : Total Liability
TA : Total Asset
2.
Institutional
Ownership
(INST)
Institutional ownership is the
portion of shares held by
governments, financial
institutions, and institutions that
lead to legal action.
3.
Independent
Commissioner
(COM)
An independent commissioner is
a party that is not related to the
controlling shareholder.
4.
Independent
Director (DIR)
Independent Directors are non-
executive members of the board
who have no business or personal
relationship with management.
5.
Philanthropy
(PHY)
Philanthropy is an initiative of a
company in the form of direct
contributions.
6.
Profitability
(PROF)
Profitability is the company's
capability to generate profits
within a certain period.
7.
Firm Size
(SIZE)
Company size is an index that
describes the financial power of
a company seen from its total
assets.
The following is the regression equation model in this study is:
.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June 2022
1.073 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Data Description
By the sampling criteria, there were 76 companies from various sectors in IDX-IC,
which consisted of energy, raw goods, industry, primary consumers, non-primary
consumers, health, finance, technology, and infrastructure sectors listed on the IDX from
the period 2018-2020. Thus, the research sample obtained was 228 samples. In this study,
21 samples were outliers.
Table 2 Sample Description
No.
Description
Total
1.
Companies from various sectors on IDX-IC listed on the
IDX from the period 2018-2020.
196
2.
Companies from various sectors in IDX-IC that are not
listed consecutively on the IDX during the 2018-2020
period.
(30)
3.
Companies from various sectors in IDX-IC that do not
publish financial reports and audited annual reports
consecutively during the 2018-2020 period.
(8)
4.
Companies from various IDX-IC sectors that do not
disclose contributions in the financial statements or
annual reports during the 2018-2020 period.
(101)
5.
The number of samples that have complied with the
specified criteria
76
6.
Research period 2018-2020 (years)
3
The number of observations according to the criteria
228
7.
Outlier data
(21)
Number of observations in this study
207
Source: Data proceed (2021)
Descriptive statistics
The results of the descriptive statistical test are in table 3 which consists of the
minimum, maximum, average, and standard deviation values:
Table 3 Deskriptive Statistic
Variables
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Deviation
Firm Value
207
0,1007
11,8788
1,611250
1,3427508
Institutional
Ownership
207
0,0000
0,9971
0,567011
0,2930336
Independent
Commissioner
207
0,00
0,67
0,3989
0,10044
Independent
Director
207
0,00
0,50
0.1289
0,14401
Philanthropy
207
0,001427
11,205304
1,14848248
1,568236319
Profitability
207
-0,4509
0,6070
0,039137
0,1077224
Firm Size
207
25,6895
32,3166
28,557372
1,5027664
Source: Data proceed (2021)
According table 3, the company value has a minimum value of 0.1007 which is
owned by PT Asia Pacific Investama in 2020, the maximum value is owned by PT Multi
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.074
Bintang Indonesia in 2019 of 11.8788. Furthermore, the average value in this study is
1.611250 and the standard deviation value is 1.3427508.
Then, institutional ownership has a minimum value of 0.0000 which is owned by
various companies from 2018-2020, namely: PT Semen Baturaja, PT Saranacentral
Bajatama, PT Betonjaya Manunggal, and PT Campina Ice Cream Industry, while the
maximum value is owned by PT Fajar Surya Wisesa in 2019 and 2020 was 0.9971.
Institutional ownership in this study has an average of 0.567011 and a standard deviation
of 0.2930336.
Independent commissioners have a minimum value of 0.00 which is owned by PT
Communication Cable Indonesia in 2018, while the maximum value is owned by PT
Bentoel Internasional Investama in 2018-2020 of 0.67. The average value in this study is
0.3989 and the standard deviation is 0.10044.
Independent directors have a minimum value of 0.00 which are owned by many
companies in the 2018-2020 period, including PT Semen Baturaja, PT Waskita Beton
Precast, PT Alakasa Industrindo, PT Alumindo Light Metal Industry, PT Indah Aluminum
Industry, PT Lion Metal Works, PT Mayora Indah, and others. The maximum value owned
by PT Yanaprima Hastapersada, PT Tri Banyan Tirta, and PT Inti Agri Resources in 2018-
2020 is 0.50. The average value in this study is 0.1289 and the standard deviation is 0.1401.
Philanthropy has a minimum value of 0.001427 which is owned by PT Keramika
Indonesia Assosiasi in 2018, while the maximum value is owned by PT Prasidha Aneka
Niaga in 2019 of 11.205304. Furthermore, the average value in this study is 1.14848248,
with a standard deviation of 1.568236319.
From table 3 above, it can be seen that the standard deviation from the variables of
company value, institutional ownership, independent commissioners, and company size
has a smaller value than the average value. This suggests that the data is homogeneous,
which means it is a good representation of those variables. Conversely, if the standard
deviation value is greater than the average value, it is a poor representation because the
data is heterogeneous.
Classic assumption test
1. Normality Test
The normality test was carried out using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to
determine whether the data were normally distributed.
Table 4 Normality Test Result
Unstandardized Residual
Conclusion
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
0,000
Data is not normally
distributed
Source: Data proceed (2021)
The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in table 4, with a significance value
of 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05, then the data is not normally distributed. Therefore,
the researchers performed outliers and data transformation so that the data returned to be
normally distributed. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test after the data outliers
and transformations have been carried out are:
Table 5 Second Normality Test Result
Unstandardized Residual
Conclusion
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
0,055
Data is normally
distributed
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June 2022
1.075 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
2. Multicollinearity Test
The multicollinearity test in this study was tested using the Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) value.
Table 6 Multicollinearity Test Result
Variable
VIF
Conclusion
Institutional Ownership
1,118
There is no
multicollinearity
Independent Commissioner
1.104
Independent Director
1,193
Philanthropy
1,052
Profitability
1,058
Firm Size
1,111
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
Based on the results of the multicollinearity test from table 4.5, it can be seen that
the VIF value for all variables in the table is less than 10.00. So, in this test that there is no
multicollinearity.
3. Autocorrelation Test
Upon autocorrelation testing, researchers used the Durbin-Watson test which aims
to observe whether the regression equation has been separated from the autocorrelation
between one observation and another.
Table 7 Autocorrelation Test Results with Durbin-Watson
DW
k
n
d
L
d
U
4-d
U
4-d
L
Conclusion
1,642
6
207
1,7071
1,8306
2,1694
2,2929
There is
autocorrelation
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
According table 7 above, the autocorrelation test shows that the Durbin-Watson
value is 1.642. Based on table 4.6 the value of k = 6 and n = 208, obtained the value of dl
= 1.7071 and the value of du = 1.8306, and the value of 4-du = 2.1694 and 4-dl = 2.2929.
Because the Durbin-Watson value is between 0 and dl = 1.8306, from the test results there
is an autocorrelation problem.
The existence of this autocorrelation problem was corrected by the researchers
using the Cochrane-Orcutt method. The results of the improvement are presented in Table
8:
Table 8 Autocorrelation Test Results fixed with Cochrane-Orcutt
DW
k
n
d
L
d
U
4-d
U
4-d
L
Conclusion
1,966
6
207
1,7071
1,8306
2,1694
2,2929
There is no
autocorrelation
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
Based on table 8 above, there is an autocorrelation test, showing the Durbin-Watson value
of 1.966. Based on table 4.6 the value of k = 6 and n = 208, obtained the value of dl =
1.7071 and the value of du = 1.8306, and the value of 4-du = 2.1694 and 4-dl = 2.2929.
The Durbin-Watson value is between du = 1.8306 and 4-du = 2.1649. So, from the test
results, the data is free from autocorrelation problems.
4. Heteroscedasticity Test
Heteroscedasticity testing was conducted by the researcher using the Glejser test
which is shown in table 9:
Table 9 Heteroscedasticity Test Result
Variable
Sig
Conclusion
Independent Commissioner
0,008
There is a heteroscedasticity
Institutional Ownership
0,711
There is no heteroscedasticity
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.076
Variable
Sig
Conclusion
Independent Director
0,816
Philanthropy
0,297
Profitability
0,890
Firm Size
0,270
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
The results of the heteroscedasticity test contained in table 9 show that there are variables
that have heteroscedasticity problems, namely the independent commissioner which shows
a value of 0.008 <0.05. The researcher used the Spearman-Rho test to find out again
whether the data was free from the problem of heteroscedasticity. Here are the test results
from Spearman-Rho:
Table 10 Spearman-Rho Test Result
Variable
Unstandardized Residual
(Sig two-tailed)
Conclusion
Institutional Ownership
0,980
There is no
heteroscedasticity
Independent Commissioner
0,633
Independent Director
0,521
Philanthropy
0,590
Profitability
0,077
Firm Size
0,914
Source: Data Proceed (2021)
Based on the results of the Spearman-Rho test above, the significance value of each
variable, the value is already above 0.05. So, there is no heteroscedasticity problem.
Multiple Regression Model and Hypothesis Testing Multiple
Linear Regression Test conducted by researchers aims to test and measure the
strength of the relationship between the dependent variable
Table 11 Regression Equation and Hypothesis Test Result
Variable
Expected
Unstandardized
Coefficients B
Sig
(one-
tailed)
Conclusion
(Constant)
-3,289
0,0005
Institutional Ownership
+
-0,192
0,1305
H
1
rejected
Independent Commissioner
+
0,503
0,155
H
2
rejected
Independent Director
+
0,911
0,006
H
3
accepted
Philanthropy
+
0,023
0,2295
H
4
rejected
Profitability
1,963
0,000
Firm Size
0,112
0,0005
Adjusted R
2
0,162
F test (Sig)
0,000
Significant
Coefficient of Determination Test (Adjusted R
2
)
The results of table 11 show the R2 value of 0.162. This means that 16.2% of the
variation in firm value can be explained by the variables of institutional ownership,
independent commissioners, independent directors, philanthropy, profitability, and firm
size. Also, 83.8% is explained by other variables outside the regression model.
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June 2022
1.077 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
F-Test
In table 11 it can be seen that the F test has a significance value of 0.000. The
significant value obtained from the test is far below 0.05. Therefore, the test results indicate
that the regression model is feasible to use to predict firm value.
T-Test
According table 11 only independent director has influence on firm value. Another
variables such as institutional ownership, independent commissioner and philanthropy does
not have influence on firm value.
DISCUSSION
The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Firm Value
In table 11 the significance value of institutional ownership is less than 0.05 but
the coefficient is negative. Thus, institutional ownership does not affect firm value. This
means that institutional ownership has not been able to provide the right signal to
shareholders and reduce agency problems. This is because several companies do not have
institutional ownership as well as the existence of institutional parties in institutional
ownership which are more focused on company profits to maximize their profits and
utilities. Moreover, if the company's profits have not been felt by institutional investors,
then they can withdraw their shares and their supervisory function becomes less effective
and efficient which can affect share value and company value so that signaling to
shareholders is directed in a negative direction and can trigger costs. agency because of
agency problems that occur between shareholders and managers who can affect the value
of the company so that it does not have a positive effect. This does not support research
from: Haryono, et al. (2017), Darmayanti, et al. (2018), Tubagus & Khuzaini (2020), Arum
& Darsono (2020), Dogan (2020) which state that institutional ownership has a positive
effect on firm value.
The Effect of Independent Directors on Company Value
Table 11 shows that the significance value of independent directors is smaller than
0.05. Thus, independent directors have a positive effect on the company. The existence of
an independent director can provide the right signal for the company and can reduce agency
problems. This means that the director is independent in supervising and disciplining
managers, so that managers can properly disclose information on the company's condition
to investors and minimize the potential for agency problems and opportunistic actions from
managers that can harm the company and trigger agency conflicts, through optimal
supervision and discipline. from independent directors accompanied by careful
consideration for the welfare of the interests of the shareholders so that in the end this
affects the delivery of good signals from managers to shareholders which has an impact on
increasing the value of the company which has been running optimally. Therefore, this
study is in line with the results of research from Onasis & Robin (2016), Martinez &
Alvarez (2019), Farooque, et al. (2019) which states that independent directors affect firm
value.
The Effect of Philanthropy on Company Value
Based on table 11 the significance value of philanthropy is greater than 0.05. Thus,
philanthropy does not affect firm value. The implementation of philanthropy is not able to
give a good signal to investors to increase their interest in investing their shares in the
company and has not been able to prosper all stakeholders, is because the implementation
of philanthropy which although it has been carried out properly and correctly by the
manager is not able to become an attraction and a positive signal. for investors to invest in
the company. Philanthropy itself is an activity of providing a benefit to shareholders
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.078
providing benefits to all stakeholders, where its implementation can reduce the book value
of assets and equity. However, if investors value the company's assets as low, one of which
is the result of the implementation of philanthropy that does not produce results, then this
can interfere with investors' investment decisions so that it makes philanthropy does not
affect the value of the company. So, this study is not in line with the results of research
from Su & Sauerwald (2015), Monita & Wiratmaja (2018) which state that philanthropy
has a positive effect on firm value.
CONCLUSION
The conclusions of this study, namely:
1. Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioner, and Philanthropy do not
affect company value
2. Independent Director has a positive effect on firm value
The limitations of this study, namely:
1. Lack of sample size obtained by researchers because not all companies disclose
philanthropy in financial or annual reports.
2. Many companies do not have independent directors due to regulatory changes.
3. There are 21 data outliers, so there are some data that must be deleted so that the
data is free from outliers.
4. The companies studied were formerly companies that were incorporated into
manufacturing companies which are now scattered into several sectors after the
IDC-IC was enacted by the IDX.
The results of this study are expected to provide benefits to related parties, namely:
1. For companies that are guided by this research, it is hoped that they can provide
input in terms of increasing company value by knowing the importance of the role
of independent directors on company value in accordance with good corporate
governance (independent directors) so that the supervisory function of managers
runs optimally and can avoid the potential for opportunistic actions that can be
taken by managers in order to create an increase in company value.
2. For users of financial statements, one of which is investors, must pay attention to
factors that have an influence on company value, especially the presence of
independent directors who have a positive influence, this is intended so that
investors can obtain good and mature decisions and considerations in making
investments.
Based on the conclusions from the research results and the discussion that has been
described previously, the following suggestions can be given by researchers: The
coefficient of determination in this study of 16.2%. So, there are various other variables
that affect firm value, so researchers should add other variables in the future that can affect
firm value, such as: Leverage, Audit Committee, CSR, and Intellectual Capital.
REFERENCES
Singh, K., & Pilai, D. (2021). Corporate Governance in Small and Medium Enterprises: A
Review. Cororate Governance. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-10-2020-0470
Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 2 Number 6, June 2022
1.079 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Binsasi, K. d. (2019, 3 27). Investor AISA: Kasus AISA adalah skandal dalam pasar modal
Indonesia. Retrieved from Investasi Kontan:
https://investasi.kontan.co.id/news/investor-aisa-kasus-aisa-adalah-skandal-
dalam-pasar-modal-indonesia
Saragih, H. P. (2019). Mencurigakan! Ada Aliran Dana Rp 1,78 T dari Manajemen AISA.
Retrieved from CNBC Indonesia:
https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/market/20190327093134-17-
63117/mencurigakan-ada-aliran-dana-rp-178-t-dari-manajemen-aisa
Ayu, P. C., & Sumadi, N. K. (2019). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional dan Kepemilikan
Manajerial terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. Widya Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 16-31,
1(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.32795/widyaakuntansi.v1i1.249
Ardianti, Y., Akram, & Susrani. (2019). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Manajerial dan Komisaris
Independen Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Dengan CSR sebagai Variabel Mediasi. E-
Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, 27(2).
doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2019.v27.i02.p30
Farooque, O. A., Buachoom, W., & Sun, L. (2019). Board, audit committee, ownership and
financial performance – emerging trends from Thailand. Pacific Accounting
Review, 32(1), 54-81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2018-0079
Fadilah, A. R. (2017). Analisis Pengaruh Dewan Komisaris Independen, Kepemilikan
Manajerial, dan Kepemilikan Institusional terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan yang
terdaftar di LQ45. Jurnal Akuntansi, 12(1).
Alshetwi, M. (2017). The Association between Board Size, Independence and Firm
Performance: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Global Journal of Management and
Business Research: D Accounting and Auditing, 17(1).
Chen, J., Dong, W., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, F. F. (2018). Corporate philanthropy and
investment efficiency: Empirical evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance
Journal, 51(C), 392-409. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.08.008
Monita, E., & Wiratmaja, I. D. (2018). Pengaruh Philanthropy Disclosure terhadap Nilai
Perusahaan dengan Profitabilitas sebagai Variabel Moderasi. E-Jurnal Akuntansi,
23(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2018.v23.i02.p13
Suwandi, Daromes, F. S., Lukita, M., Bangun, Y. K., & Lukman. (2018). Filantropi sebagai
Prediktor Nilai Perusahaan Melalui Kinerja Keuangan. Indonesian Journal of
Accounting and Governance, 4(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.36766/ijag.v4i2.125
Meckling, M. C. (1976). Theory of The Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and
Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 305-360.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Stakeholder Equity: The State of The Art. Cambridge University
Press.
Spence, M. (1974). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 87 (3), 335-
374, 87(3), 335-374. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance. (2006). Pedoman Umum Corporate Governance.
Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance.
Tran, Q. T. (2020). Ownership structure and demand for independent directors: evidence
from an emerging market. Journal of Economics and Development Vol. 22, No, 2,
pp. 335-342, 22(2), 335-342. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-03-2020-0022
Ariska, O., Nafsiah, S. N., & Noviardy, A. (2017). Pengaruh Komisaris Independen,
Komite Audit, Profitabilitas dan Leverage terhadap Konservatisme Akuntansi
(Strudi Kasus Perusahaan Sektor Perkebunan di BEI). Seminar Nasional Ekonomi
dan Bisnis Global Competitive Advantage, 133-149.
Salafudin, M. A. (2016). Pengaruh Good Corporate Governance terhadap Nilai Perusahaan
Consumer Goods Industry yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia.
Christina Dwi Astuti, Clarissa Audrey Sanggra, Murtanto
The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Commissioners, Independent
Directors, and Philanthropy on Firm Value 1.080
Sa'diyah, K., & Wuryani, E. (2019). Pengaruh Mekanisme, Corporate Governance terhadap
Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi Unesa, 8(1).
Narsiah, S. (2016). Pengaruh Philantrophy Disclosure terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan
Profitabilitas sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan, 13(1).
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.29264/jakt.v13i1.1174
Nidar, S. R. (2016). Manajemen Keuangan Perusahaan Modern: Pusta Reka Cipta.
Bandung: Pusta Reka Cipta.
Astakoni, I. M., & Wardita, I. W. (2020). Keputusan Investasi, Leverage, Profitabilitas,
dan Ukuran Perusahaan Sebagai Faktor Penentu Nilai Perusahaan Manufaktur.
Journal Ekonomi, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 19(1), 10-23.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.22225/we.19.1.1576.10-23
Supriatna, A., & Ermond, B. (2019). Peran Direktur Independen dalam Mewujudkan Good
Corporate Governance. Jurnal Yuridis, 6(1), 67.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.35586/jyur.v6i1.793
Martinez, M. C., & Alvarez, I. (2019). Do board characteristics drive firm performance?
Review of Managerial Science. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00330-x
Onasis, K., & Robin. (2016). Pengaruh Tata Kelola Perusahaan terhadap Nilai Perusahaan
terhadap Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di Sektor Keuangan yang Terdaftar di BEI.
Jurnal Ilmiah Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Katolik Parahyangan, 20(1).
doi:https://doi.org/10.26593/be.v20i1.1893.1-22
Haryono, S. A., Fitriany, & Fatima, E. (2017). Pengaruh Struktur Modal dan Struktur
Kepeilikan terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan
Indonesia, 14(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2017.07
Darmayanti, F. E., Sanusi, F., & Widya, I. U. (2018). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Manajerial,
Kepemilikan Institusional, dan Kebijakan Hutang terhadap Nilai Perusahaan (Studi
pada perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2011-
2015. Jurnal Manajemen dan Bisnis, 11(1).
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.35448/jmb.v11i1.4284
Dogan, M. (2020). Institutional Ownership and Firm Value: A Study on the Bist
Manufacturing Index. Ekonomika, 99(2), 59-75.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2020.2.4
Tubagus, S. A., & Khuzaini. (2020). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Struktur Modal, dan
Kepemilikan Institusional terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset
Manajemen, 9(5).
Su, W., & Sauerwald, S. (2015). Does Corporate Philanthropy Increase Firm Value? The
Moderating Role of Corporate Governance. Business & Society, 1-37.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0007650315613961
