Blog

Danantara’s Global SWF Governance Score — the rating assigned by the independent research firm Global SWF in its annual GSR Scoreboard — stood at 40% as of the 2026 edition, up sharply from just 4% in 2025. The composite splits into three parts: Governance (5 out of 10), Sustainability (3 out of 10), and Resilience (2 out of 5). Because this is an external, third-party benchmark rather than a number Danantara publishes itself, it offers a useful outside-in check on how the fund’s disclosure and structure look to global observers — distinct from the fund’s own governance charter or ESG policy documents.

This page is an independent analysis published by Danantara Investment Lens. We are not affiliated with, and do not speak on behalf of, Badan Pengelola Investasi Daya Anagata Nusantara (Danantara) or the Government of Indonesia. Every figure below is drawn from Global SWF’s publicly available GSR Scoreboard and other public reporting, dated where possible, and none of it should be read as data Danantara itself has confirmed.

What Is the Global SWF Governance, Sustainability and Resilience (GSR) Scoreboard?

Global SWF is an independent research and advisory platform that tracks sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds worldwide. Since 2020, its GSR Scoreboard has scored roughly 200 state-owned investors — from Norway’s NBIM to Singapore’s Temasek and GIC — on a 25-point scale split across three pillars: Governance (worth up to 10 points), Sustainability (up to 10 points), and Resilience (up to 5 points). The combined total is expressed as a percentage, so a fund scoring 25 out of 25 shows as 100%. The scoreboard is refreshed annually, typically around July 1, and functions as a market reference for institutional investors, co-investment partners, and multilateral lenders assessing how a sovereign fund is run, not just how large its balance sheet is.

Because the methodology is applied consistently to every fund in the sample, it lets outside observers compare a newly formed vehicle like Danantara against decades-old peers on a like-for-like basis — something neither an internal governance charter nor a self-published ESG framework can do on its own.

What Is Danantara’s Global SWF Governance Score in 2026?

Danantara — formally the Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency, established in the first quarter of 2025 under Indonesia’s Law No. 1 of 2025 and led by CEO Rosan Roeslani — was seeded with equity stakes in seven major state-owned enterprises, including holdings tied to Bank Mandiri, BRI, BNI, Pertamina, PLN, and Telkom Indonesia. Global SWF valued those seeded stakes at roughly US$172 billion and put the fund’s overall tracked assets at approximately US$230 billion, of which about 71% sits in alternative assets — a figure separate from, and smaller than, the long-term ambition officials have floated of growing the fund beyond US$900 billion over time.

Against that backdrop, Danantara’s global SWF governance score of 40% in the 2026 GSR Scoreboard places it well below the ~60% average recorded across all ~200 funds tracked, and far below Indonesia’s own Indonesia Investment Authority (INA) and regional benchmark Temasek. The table below sets Danantara’s global SWF governance and sustainability score against those reference points.

Governance: 5 out of 10

The Governance pillar of the GSR Scoreboard rewards a clear legal mandate, board independence from day-to-day politics, stable leadership tenure, and public disclosure of decision-making structures. Danantara’s mid-range score of 5/10 is broadly consistent with what independent commentary on the fund has already flagged: a leadership structure that reports directly into the presidency rather than through a conventional multi-layer SOE-ministry oversight chain, alongside a governance framework that is still young relative to peers that have published annual reports, audited statements, and board minutes for years. That does not mean the structure is poorly designed — only that, on an external, comparable scale, a one-year-old entity naturally starts without the accumulated public record that earns full marks.

Sustainability: 3 out of 10

This pillar looks at whether a fund has a published ESG or responsible-investment policy, discloses its approach to climate and exclusion criteria, and reports on sustainability outcomes rather than intentions. A score of 3/10 signals that Danantara’s public sustainability documentation is still in an early, developing stage compared with funds such as Temasek or NBIM that publish detailed annual sustainability reports.

Resilience: 2 out of 5

Resilience measures organizational continuity, risk-management infrastructure, and a fund’s demonstrated ability to withstand shocks — market, political, or operational. A newly consolidated “superholding” that has not yet weathered a full market cycle will typically score lower here than a decades-old fund with a tested crisis-response record.

Why Did Danantara’s Governance Score Triple in a Year?

A jump from 4% to 40% in a single annual cycle looks dramatic, but it is a familiar pattern for newly launched sovereign vehicles. In its first year, a fund typically has almost no public track record for external analysts to score against — no annual report, no tested board cadence, no multi-year disclosure history — so it starts near the bottom of the scale almost by default. As the entity publishes its founding law, appoints its board and CEO, issues a mission statement, and begins disclosing basic structural information, its documented governance footprint expands quickly, which is largely what the 2026 re-scoring reflects. It is a sign of a fund moving from “not yet assessable” to “assessable but still early,” rather than evidence of a mature governance and sustainability program on par with 20-to-50-year-old peers.

What the Global SWF Governance Score Means for Investors and Partners

For foreign investors, multilateral partners, and companies evaluating co-investment or joint-venture structures with Danantara, the GSR Scoreboard is a useful sanity check — but only one input among several. A 40% governance and sustainability score does not tell a counterparty whether a specific transaction structure is sound, how tax residency or withholding obligations apply, or what contractual protections are available; those are legal and structuring questions that require dedicated due diligence, which is why we cover them separately in our governance, tax and legal advisory analysis. Similarly, the Resilience sub-score speaks to organizational maturity in general, not to the specific counterparty, currency, or project-level exposures a given deal might carry — a topic explored in more depth in our risk management analysis.

It is also worth being clear about what this piece is not. Our separate Danantara governance structure page walks through the fund’s internal board, supervisory, and reporting architecture as described in public filings and statements. This page, by contrast, is about the external benchmark a third party applies to that structure — the two are complementary, not duplicative. For readers comparing Danantara against regional peers more broadly, our Danantara vs. Temasek comparison goes deeper into how the two funds differ in mandate, track record, and disclosure practice, which helps explain the wide gap between Temasek’s 100% GSR score and Danantara’s 40%.

Read together, the trend line matters more than any single year’s number: a rise from 4% to 40% in one cycle, still trailing INA’s 92% and the ~60% global average, suggests a fund in active governance build-out rather than one that has finished the job. Investors should expect this score to keep moving — in either direction — as Danantara publishes more (or less) of its governance and sustainability record in subsequent GSR cycles.

Independent Analysis, Not an Official Danantara Channel

To be direct: danantarainvestment.com is an independent analysis and information resource. We are not Danantara, BPI Danantara, or any Indonesian government body, and nothing on this page should be mistaken for an official disclosure, endorsement, or guarantee. Figures on AUM, seeded assets, and GSR sub-scores are attributed to Global SWF’s public scoreboard and related public reporting as of 2026; Global SWF itself has noted that its asset valuations sometimes differ from figures cited in media or government announcements, and all scores are subject to revision in future GSR cycles. Readers should verify current figures directly with Global SWF (globalswf.com) and with Danantara’s own official channels before making any investment or partnership decision.

Our team provides business strategy and investment-facilitation advisory for companies and investors navigating Indonesia’s evolving state-investment landscape, including how external governance benchmarks like the GSR score fit into a broader due-diligence picture. Part of Juara Holding Group — operating from Bali across Indonesia since 2015.

If you are assessing a potential Danantara-linked opportunity and want a second, independent read on the governance and risk picture before you commit, reach our team on WhatsApp at +62 811-3941-4563 or email bd@juaraholding.com — we are happy to walk through what an external score like this should, and should not, change about your due-diligence approach.

This editorial briefing on Danantara’s Global SWF Governance Score, Explained reflects current intelligence as of July 2026. Updated quarterly. For specific inquiries, contact the editorial team — senior analyst response within 24 hours during business hours.