The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership on Business Strategy and Business Performance Moderated by Government Policy

Muhammad Willy; Mochammad Al Musadieq; Yusri Abdillah; Nila Firdausi Nuzula

doi:10.12688/f1000research.175209.2

Home Browse The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership on Business Strategy and Business Performance Moderated by Government Policy

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Muhammad Willy ¹, Mochammad Al Musadieq¹, Yusri Abdillah¹, Nila Firdausi Nuzula¹

PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, Indonesia

Muhammad Willy
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Mochammad Al Musadieq
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yusri Abdillah
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nila Firdausi Nuzula
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

The performance of regional-owned multi-business enterprises (BUMD Aneka Usaha) in Indonesia is crucial for regional economic development, yet many still face challenges related to weak corporate governance, leadership, and business strategy.

Methods

Data were collected through a questionnaire survey administered to 176 directors of regional-owned multi-business enterprises across Indonesia. The data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), with higher-order constructs estimated in SmartPLS.

Results

The findings show that corporate governance and transformational leadership have positive and significant effects on business strategy and business performance. Business strategy also has a positive and significant effect on business performance and mediates the effects of corporate governance and transformational leadership on performance. Government policy significantly moderates the relationships between corporate governance, transformational leadership, business strategy, and business performance, strengthening their positive impact.

Conclusions

These results highlight the need to reinforce internal capabilities through stronger governance practices, transformational leadership, and flexible, innovation-oriented strategies, while ensuring a supportive government policy environment so that regional-owned enterprises can improve their business performance.

Keywords

Corporate Governance, Transformational Leadership, Business Strategy, Business Performance, Government Policy, PLS-SEM

Corresponding author: Muhammad Willy

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Willy M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Willy M, Al Musadieq M, Abdillah Y and Nuzula NF. The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership on Business Strategy and Business Performance Moderated by Government Policy [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:56 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.2) First published: 14 Jan 2026, 15:56 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.1) Latest published: 20 Apr 2026, 15:56 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The second version of this article incorporates revisions in response to reviewer comments. The manuscript was revised to improve conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and theoretical integration. Specifically, it now clarifies the mediating role of business strategy, strengthens the description of the research design and sampling procedure, and further explains the relevance of RBV, DCT and Contingency Theory. The limitations and terminology consistency were also improved throughout the manuscript. No major changes were made to the title, author list, figures, tables, or underlying data.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by David Minja
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Oscar Radyan Danar

XML processing error : Illegal HTML character: decimal 146

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, Indonesia

Muhammad Willy
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Mochammad Al Musadieq
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Yusri Abdillah
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nila Firdausi Nuzula
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 20 Apr 2026, 15:56

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.2

version 1

Published: 14 Jan 2026, 15:56

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.1

© 2026 Willy M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Willy M, Al Musadieq M, Abdillah Y and Nuzula NF. The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership on Business Strategy and Business Performance Moderated by Government Policy [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:56 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.175209.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2026

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 07 May 2026

Muhammed Zakir Hossain, State University of Bangladesh, dhaka, Bangladesh; Department of Business Studies, State University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198522.r477474

While the article is scientifically sound overall, here are a few specific suggestions to improve clarity, transparency, and replicability:

Include the full survey questionnaire used in the study as an appendix to ensure that future researchers

While the article is scientifically sound overall, here are a few specific suggestions to improve clarity, transparency, and replicability:

Include the full survey questionnaire used in the study as an appendix to ensure that future researchers can replicate the data collection method precisely.
Provide the SmartPLS model diagram and the model file to allow researchers to reproduce the path analysis step exactly.
Share data processing scripts if any data transformations were done prior to analysis (e.g., handling missing data or data normalization), so others can follow the exact steps taken.
Clarify the assumptions underlying the statistical methods used (e.g., normality of data, homoscedasticity) to improve transparency in the analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Corporate Governance, Artificial Intelligence, Accounting, Auditing, Corporate Social Responsibility

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 05 May 2026

David Minja, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198522.r476761

Approved ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Apr 2026

Oscar Radyan Danar, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198522.r476762

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Feb 2026

David Minja, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193172.r457717

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

20 Apr 2026

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the previous wording in the abstract could create ambiguity regarding the role of business strategy. We have revised the abstract to clarify that business strategy is positioned as an endogenous variable influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership, and as a mediating variable linking these variables to business performance. The revised wording now presents the variable roles consistently with the study model and title.

In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised Section 3 to explicitly state the research design. The manuscript now clarifies that the study used a quantitative, explanatory design with a cross-sectional survey approach.

Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
Author response: Thank you for this important comment. We respectfully clarify that business strategy was not conceptualized as a final dependent variable in the same sense as business performance. In our model, business strategy is specified as an endogenous mediating construct that is influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership and, in turn, affects business performance. Thus, H3 is retained because it represents the mediating path required in the structural model. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the role of business strategy as mediating mechanism rather than as a standalone final dependent variable.

In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the relevance and contribution of Dynamic Capabilities Theory in the study.

In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the limitations section needed to be discussed more explicitly. We have therefore revised the conclusion by strengthening the discussion of the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, the contextual focus on BUMD Aneka Usaha in Indonesia, and the exclusion of other potentially relevant variables. We also clarified how these limitations inform directions for future research.
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the previous wording in the abstract could create ambiguity regarding the role of business strategy. We have revised the abstract to clarify that business strategy is positioned as an endogenous variable influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership, and as a mediating variable linking these variables to business performance. The revised wording now presents the variable roles consistently with the study model and title.

In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised Section 3 to explicitly state the research design. The manuscript now clarifies that the study used a quantitative, explanatory design with a cross-sectional survey approach.

Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
Author response: Thank you for this important comment. We respectfully clarify that business strategy was not conceptualized as a final dependent variable in the same sense as business performance. In our model, business strategy is specified as an endogenous mediating construct that is influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership and, in turn, affects business performance. Thus, H3 is retained because it represents the mediating path required in the structural model. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the role of business strategy as mediating mechanism rather than as a standalone final dependent variable.

In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the relevance and contribution of Dynamic Capabilities Theory in the study.

In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the limitations section needed to be discussed more explicitly. We have therefore revised the conclusion by strengthening the discussion of the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, the contextual focus on BUMD Aneka Usaha in Indonesia, and the exclusion of other potentially relevant variables. We also clarified how these limitations inform directions for future research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

20 Apr 2026

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the previous wording in the abstract could create ambiguity regarding the role of business strategy. We have revised the abstract to clarify that business strategy is positioned as an endogenous variable influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership, and as a mediating variable linking these variables to business performance. The revised wording now presents the variable roles consistently with the study model and title.

In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised Section 3 to explicitly state the research design. The manuscript now clarifies that the study used a quantitative, explanatory design with a cross-sectional survey approach.

Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
Author response: Thank you for this important comment. We respectfully clarify that business strategy was not conceptualized as a final dependent variable in the same sense as business performance. In our model, business strategy is specified as an endogenous mediating construct that is influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership and, in turn, affects business performance. Thus, H3 is retained because it represents the mediating path required in the structural model. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the role of business strategy as mediating mechanism rather than as a standalone final dependent variable.

In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the relevance and contribution of Dynamic Capabilities Theory in the study.

In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the limitations section needed to be discussed more explicitly. We have therefore revised the conclusion by strengthening the discussion of the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, the contextual focus on BUMD Aneka Usaha in Indonesia, and the exclusion of other potentially relevant variables. We also clarified how these limitations inform directions for future research.
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the previous wording in the abstract could create ambiguity regarding the role of business strategy. We have revised the abstract to clarify that business strategy is positioned as an endogenous variable influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership, and as a mediating variable linking these variables to business performance. The revised wording now presents the variable roles consistently with the study model and title.

In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised Section 3 to explicitly state the research design. The manuscript now clarifies that the study used a quantitative, explanatory design with a cross-sectional survey approach.

Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
Author response: Thank you for this important comment. We respectfully clarify that business strategy was not conceptualized as a final dependent variable in the same sense as business performance. In our model, business strategy is specified as an endogenous mediating construct that is influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership and, in turn, affects business performance. Thus, H3 is retained because it represents the mediating path required in the structural model. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the role of business strategy as mediating mechanism rather than as a standalone final dependent variable.

In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the relevance and contribution of Dynamic Capabilities Theory in the study.

In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the limitations section needed to be discussed more explicitly. We have therefore revised the conclusion by strengthening the discussion of the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, the contextual focus on BUMD Aneka Usaha in Indonesia, and the exclusion of other potentially relevant variables. We also clarified how these limitations inform directions for future research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Feb 2026

Oscar Radyan Danar, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193172.r457713

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Public Governance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

20 Apr 2026

Author Response

I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic ... Continue reading I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic is relevant for both policy and managerial discussion, and the paper provides a useful empirical contribution.
Author response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate your recognition that the research method is appropriate, the analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are aligned with the study’s objectives and framework. We are also grateful that you consider the topic relevant for both policy and managerial discussion and that the paper offers a useful empirical contribution.

Minor comments (non-essential)
1. Strengthen the contribution statement in the Introduction:
At the end of the Introduction, please add 2–3 short sentences that clearly summarize the research gap, the study aim, and the main contributions in one concise paragraph.
Author response: We have strengthened the contribution statement at the end of the Introduction by adding a concise paragraph that explicitly summarizes the research gap, the study aim, and the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

2. Clarify the random sampling procedure:
Please briefly state the sampling procedure. This will improve transparency and make replication easier.
Author response: We have revised the Methods section to clarify the random sampling procedure.

3. Improve terminology consistency:
Please use consistent key terms throughout the manuscript (choose either “government policy” or “government policies” and use it consistently, and keep the organizational context naming consistent).
Author response: We have revised the manuscript to improve terminology consistency throughout the text.
I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic is relevant for both policy and managerial discussion, and the paper provides a useful empirical contribution.
Author response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate your recognition that the research method is appropriate, the analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are aligned with the study’s objectives and framework. We are also grateful that you consider the topic relevant for both policy and managerial discussion and that the paper offers a useful empirical contribution.

Minor comments (non-essential)
1. Strengthen the contribution statement in the Introduction:
At the end of the Introduction, please add 2–3 short sentences that clearly summarize the research gap, the study aim, and the main contributions in one concise paragraph.
Author response: We have strengthened the contribution statement at the end of the Introduction by adding a concise paragraph that explicitly summarizes the research gap, the study aim, and the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

2. Clarify the random sampling procedure:
Please briefly state the sampling procedure. This will improve transparency and make replication easier.
Author response: We have revised the Methods section to clarify the random sampling procedure.

3. Improve terminology consistency:
Please use consistent key terms throughout the manuscript (choose either “government policy” or “government policies” and use it consistently, and keep the organizational context naming consistent).
Author response: We have revised the manuscript to improve terminology consistency throughout the text.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

20 Apr 2026

Author Response

I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic ... Continue reading I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic is relevant for both policy and managerial discussion, and the paper provides a useful empirical contribution.
Author response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate your recognition that the research method is appropriate, the analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are aligned with the study’s objectives and framework. We are also grateful that you consider the topic relevant for both policy and managerial discussion and that the paper offers a useful empirical contribution.

Minor comments (non-essential)
1. Strengthen the contribution statement in the Introduction:
At the end of the Introduction, please add 2–3 short sentences that clearly summarize the research gap, the study aim, and the main contributions in one concise paragraph.
Author response: We have strengthened the contribution statement at the end of the Introduction by adding a concise paragraph that explicitly summarizes the research gap, the study aim, and the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

2. Clarify the random sampling procedure:
Please briefly state the sampling procedure. This will improve transparency and make replication easier.
Author response: We have revised the Methods section to clarify the random sampling procedure.

3. Improve terminology consistency:
Please use consistent key terms throughout the manuscript (choose either “government policy” or “government policies” and use it consistently, and keep the organizational context naming consistent).
Author response: We have revised the manuscript to improve terminology consistency throughout the text.
I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic is relevant for both policy and managerial discussion, and the paper provides a useful empirical contribution.
Author response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate your recognition that the research method is appropriate, the analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are aligned with the study’s objectives and framework. We are also grateful that you consider the topic relevant for both policy and managerial discussion and that the paper offers a useful empirical contribution.

Minor comments (non-essential)
1. Strengthen the contribution statement in the Introduction:
At the end of the Introduction, please add 2–3 short sentences that clearly summarize the research gap, the study aim, and the main contributions in one concise paragraph.
Author response: We have strengthened the contribution statement at the end of the Introduction by adding a concise paragraph that explicitly summarizes the research gap, the study aim, and the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

2. Clarify the random sampling procedure:
Please briefly state the sampling procedure. This will improve transparency and make replication easier.
Author response: We have revised the Methods section to clarify the random sampling procedure.

3. Improve terminology consistency:
Please use consistent key terms throughout the manuscript (choose either “government policy” or “government policies” and use it consistently, and keep the organizational context naming consistent).
Author response: We have revised the manuscript to improve terminology consistency throughout the text.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 20 Apr 26	read	read	read
Version 1 14 Jan 26	read	read

Oscar Radyan Danar, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia
David Minja, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya
Muhammed Zakir Hossain, State University of Bangladesh, dhaka, Bangladesh; State University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

07 May 2026 | for Version 2

Muhammed Zakir Hossain, State University of Bangladesh, dhaka, Bangladesh; Department of Business Studies, State University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

While the article is scientifically sound overall, here are a few specific suggestions to improve clarity, transparency, and replicability:

Include the full survey questionnaire used in the study as an appendix to ensure that future researchers can replicate the data collection method precisely.
Provide the SmartPLS model diagram and the model file to allow researchers to reproduce the path analysis step exactly.
Share data processing scripts if any data transformations were done prior to analysis (e.g., handling missing data or data normalization), so others can follow the exact steps taken.
Clarify the assumptions underlying the statistical methods used (e.g., normality of data, homoscedasticity) to improve transparency in the analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Corporate Governance, Artificial Intelligence, Accounting, Auditing, Corporate Social Responsibility

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

05 May 2026 | for Version 2

David Minja, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Approved for indexing.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

21 Apr 2026 | for Version 2

Oscar Radyan Danar, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for the revisions made to the manuscript and for the authors’ careful responses to the comments raised in the previous review. The revised version has addressed the issues identified earlier. I only have minor remaining comment concerning the consistency of terminology used throughout the manuscript, which should be checked carefully to ensure uniformity across sections.

Nevertheless, this is a minor issue and does not affect the overall quality of the article. In my assessment, the article is suitable to proceed for indexing in Scopus.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Public Governance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

28 Feb 2026 | for Version 1

David Minja, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. The following are the details of the revisions made in response to your comments.

In the abstract, the findings imply that business strategy was treated as an independent variable. The same variable is treated as a mediator. This is inconsistent with the study topic because business strategy is treated as a dependent variable while corporate governance and transformational leadership are treated as independent variables in the topic. These inconsistencies should be addressed.
Author response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the previous wording in the abstract could create ambiguity regarding the role of business strategy. We have revised the abstract to clarify that business strategy is positioned as an endogenous variable influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership, and as a mediating variable linking these variables to business performance. The revised wording now presents the variable roles consistently with the study model and title.

In section 3.0 on methods, the research design used is missing. This should be included.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised Section 3 to explicitly state the research design. The manuscript now clarifies that the study used a quantitative, explanatory design with a cross-sectional survey approach.

Hypotheses testing
H3- Business strategy has an effect on business performance. From the topic, both are dependent variables. Conceptually, a DV cannot have an effect on another DV since it has not been manipulated. This hypothesis should therefore be dropped.
Author response: Thank you for this important comment. We respectfully clarify that business strategy was not conceptualized as a final dependent variable in the same sense as business performance. In our model, business strategy is specified as an endogenous mediating construct that is influenced by corporate governance and transformational leadership and, in turn, affects business performance. Thus, H3 is retained because it represents the mediating path required in the structural model. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the role of business strategy as mediating mechanism rather than as a standalone final dependent variable.

In the discussions, the study should have shown how Dynamic Capabilities theory mentioned in the background informed this study( it’s relevance). The authors only discussed RBV.
The study demonstrates how it has contributed to the body of knowledge in the application of RBV and Contingency Theory. However, how the study contributed to Dynamic Capabilities Theory is not clear.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion to clarify the relevance and contribution of Dynamic Capabilities Theory in the study.

In the conclusion section, limitations should be adequately discussed.
Author response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the limitations section needed to be discussed more explicitly. We have therefore revised the conclusion by strengthening the discussion of the study’s limitations, including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, the contextual focus on BUMD Aneka Usaha in Indonesia, and the exclusion of other potentially relevant variables. We also clarified how these limitations inform directions for future research.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

16 Feb 2026 | for Version 1

Oscar Radyan Danar, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

15 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Public Governance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

20 Apr 2026

Muhammad Willy, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

I reviewed the manuscript and overall the research method is appropriate, the analysis is presented clearly, and the findings are consistent with the study’s objectives and proposed framework. The topic is relevant for both policy and managerial discussion, and the paper provides a useful empirical contribution.
Author response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate your recognition that the research method is appropriate, the analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are aligned with the study’s objectives and framework. We are also grateful that you consider the topic relevant for both policy and managerial discussion and that the paper offers a useful empirical contribution.

Minor comments (non-essential)
1. Strengthen the contribution statement in the Introduction:
At the end of the Introduction, please add 2–3 short sentences that clearly summarize the research gap, the study aim, and the main contributions in one concise paragraph.
Author response: We have strengthened the contribution statement at the end of the Introduction by adding a concise paragraph that explicitly summarizes the research gap, the study aim, and the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

2. Clarify the random sampling procedure:
Please briefly state the sampling procedure. This will improve transparency and make replication easier.
Author response: We have revised the Methods section to clarify the random sampling procedure.

3. Improve terminology consistency:
Please use consistent key terms throughout the manuscript (choose either “government policy” or “government policies” and use it consistently, and keep the organizational context naming consistent).
Author response: We have revised the manuscript to improve terminology consistency throughout the text.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

The Effect of Corporate Governance and Transformational Leadership on Business Strategy and Business Performance Moderated by Government Policy

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated