**6. Conclusions**

The FGD has provided unique inputs to this research via a combination of subjective and institutional leanings and experiences, particularly in identifying key enablers and barriers of renewable energy development. Throughout the course of FGD, the barriers were actually expected as there is an evident contradiction between policy and business, particularly in the planning and implementation stages. However, this does not necessarily mean that both stages do not adhere to the same vision. In particular, the private sector highlighted the lack of representative regulations truly needed to boost private participation in renewable energy development. The key enablers include constructing the national target as a framework and renewable development plans, building a forward-thinking

scheme of supply chain management of renewable development, and regulation and policy refinement.

Regarding the renewable energy selection, geothermal energy has been considered as the most suitable and feasible renewable energy source to focus on further development in Indonesia. Not only does it have a considerable amount of potential for generating electricity, but it also has the most unique characteristics out of all the other options of renewable energy. The FGD has identified that the geothermal energy projects must include a set of supply chain trajectories, which include the upstream, midstream, and downstream. The upstream phase in this supply chain trajectory is in fact similar to that of the oil and gas sector. This allows us to perform the transferability of management know-how from the fossil fuel sector. The lessons learnt from the oil and gas sector should later be transferred over for the future development of geothermal energy, so as not to fall into the same pitfalls that impede and create inefficiency in the oil and gas sector. This implies a growing sense of corporate and institutional responsibility within the oil and gas sector, one that is visionary and should be capitalised on. Despite the tensions and disagreements between stakeholders, all parties agreed that the development of renewable energy, particularly in geothermal energy, should continue to be supported for the good of the public as well as the market. In order to do this, further investigation on geothermal supply chain trajectories needs to be done to identify the potential barriers and to design a set of policies that can bridge these barriers, thus enhancing the pace and magnitude of renewable energy development, or more specifically, geothermal energy.

Aside from directly absorbing the bold aspirations from each stakeholder, 'reading between the spoken lines' has provided plenty of room for abstraction and further inquiry. Most importantly, the FGD has succeeded in answering the four research questions posed at the beginning of this paper, meaning that we have acquired both (1) stakeholders' recount and outlook of institutional and market challenges associated with renewable energy development in Indonesia, as well as their (2) responses for overcoming the challenges, (3) their collective views on the most feasible renewable energy to develop in the near future, and, lastly, (4) the propositions to support the development of that particular renewable energy, i.e., geothermal, in Indonesia.

We recognise that, despite the benefits of FGDs, they have certain limitations, i.e., that it is possible that the participants may be hesitant to openly express their opinions when it is a sensitive topic or alternatively be dominant within the group about the topic being debated. Another limitation is that it may not be a true representation of the target group. Conscious of these limitations, we were diligent in selecting the participants plus followed specific sensitive questions individually.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.W.Y. and B.T.; methodology, S.W.Y., B.T., and P.L.; validation, S.W.Y., B.T., and P.L.; formal analysis, S.W.Y., B.T., and P.L.; investigation, S.W.Y.; writing, S.W.Y. and B.T.; writing—review and editing, B.T. and P.L.; supervision, B.T. and P.L.; project administration, S.W.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank the reviewers for their constructive comments in improving the quality of this paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
