Analysis of Business Environment Dynamics, Integrated Financial Conglomerate Risk Management, and Strategic Recommendations for a Bank Business Group (KUB)

The tightening of the minimum core capital requirement to IDR 3 trillion through Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) Number 12/POJK.03/2020 has triggered a fundamental structural transformation in the national banking industry, particularly for Regional Development Banks (BPD). The Bank Business Group (Kelompok Usaha Bank, KUB) scheme has emerged as a functional regulatory solution for small- to medium-sized BPDs to maintain their operational status as commercial banks without undergoing a full merger. This academic study aims to comprehensively analyze business environment dynamics, structural gap analysis, and the integrated risk management framework within the KUB strategic alliance between PT Bank Pembangunan Daerah Jawa Barat dan Banten Tbk (bank bjb), as the ultimate parent entity (anchor bank), and PT Bank Pembangunan Daerah Jambi (Bank Jambi), as the member bank. By fully integrating the Dynamic Capabilities lens as the grand theory and Institutional Theory as the supporting theory, this research examines how isomorphic pressures (coercive, mimetic, and normative) drive Bank Jambi to build its internal adaptive capabilities (sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring) within the financial conglomerate ecosystem. Using a descriptive qualitative analysis approach grounded in empirical evidence, this study identifies three major post-consolidation strategic gaps: the Agency Conflict Gap, arising from the clash between the parent's purely commercial orientation and the regional government's development mandate; the Dependency Trap Gap, which threatens the member's strategic autonomy; and the Operational and Cultural Integration Gap in information and cyber-system interoperability. Furthermore, this paper formulates an Integrated Risk Management framework that must be consolidated by the ultimate parent entity to mitigate contagion risk, concentration risk, and cyber security risk across KUB subsidiary entities. As a final solution, a comprehensive strategic recommendation model is designed based on the Triple Bottom Line framework (Profit, People, Planet), underpinned by a strong governance foundation through a Dual (Dwitunggal) Shareholders Agreement. Concluding with a five-year implementation roadmap, this model is expected to guide the bank bjb-Bank Jambi KUB alliance away from a structural dependency trap and toward sustainable consolidation that preserves capital resilience while genuinely accelerating regional economic growth.

: Bank Business Group (KUB), Regional Development Bank, Dynamic Capabilities, Institutional Theory, Integrated Risk Management, Triple Bottom Line.

1. Amel, D., Barnes, C., Panetta, F., & Salleo, C. (2004). Consolidation and efficiency in the financial sector: A review of the international evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 28(10), 2493-2519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2003.11.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beccalli, E., & Frantz, P. (2009). M&A operations and performance in banking. Journal of Financial Services Research, 36(2-3), 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-009-0062-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Berger, A. N., Demsetz, R. S., & Strahan, P. E. (1999). The consolidation of the financial services industry: Causes, consequences, and implications for the future. Journal of Banking & Finance, 23(2-4), 135-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(98)00125-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). Government ownership of banks. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 265-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00422 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Micco, A., Panizza, U., & Yáñez, M. (2007). Bank ownership and performance: Does politics matter? Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(1), 219-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.01.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Financial Services Authority (OJK). (2020). Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 12/POJK.03/2020 concerning Commercial Bank Consolidation. Financial Services Authority (OJK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]