Search results

This study aimed to investigate the impact of the board composition on financial performance in the restaurant industry from a stewardship theory perspective.

The composition of board was measured as the ratio of inside and outside directors. Firm performance was operationalized as return on assets (operational performance) and Tobin’s q (market-based performance). Panel regression analysis tested the research hypotheses.

Using data from 25 restaurant firms from 2007 to 2013, the study found an insignificant impact of board composition on operational performance. However, a higher proportion of inside board members increases market-based performance. A higher proportion of outside board members decreases market-based performance.

Supporting the basic tenets of stewardship theory, restaurant companies may consider changing the current practice of having a super-majority of outside directors and increase the inside board members. Because inside board member have greater experience with the organization and the industry, they have a better understanding of the status quo and are better able to respond to opportunities and threats in the environment.

Considering the scarcity of research on how the board composition affects firm performance in the hospitality context, the present study is a forerunner in its exploration of the impact of inside and outside directors on restaurant firms’ performance.

This study examined the relationship between 130 firm's business investment strategy and their firm performance, as measured by return on investment (ROI) and earnngs per share (EPS). ROI was used as the accounting performance measure and EPS was used as the market‐based performance measure. Results indicate that the accounting performance measure (ROI) may be more appropriate for firms pursuing share‐increasing and turnaround business investment strategies. Whereas both accounting (ROI) and market‐based (EPS) measures may be more appropriate for firms pursuing less risky profit‐oriented business investment strategies.

Factors associated with the use of long‐term plans in management compensation contracts and the choice between earnings‐based performance plans and market‐based long‐term plans are examined. Results indicate the firms using long‐term plans are large, have diffuse ownership and more long‐term growth. Furthermore, performance plans are more likely to be used when stock‐return variability is high relative to earnings variability. Firms using performance plans are also larger and have more diffuse ownership than firms with market‐based plans alone. Overall, the evidence is consistent with long‐term plans serving as incentive alignment mechanisms.

Extant research posits that mergers and acquisition (M&As) do not create value. Still many firms adopt expansion strategies such as alliances, joint ventures (JVs), and M&As to grow and enhance their performance. Through performing a meta-analysis on 204 papers that assess the relationship between the three most prevalent expansion strategies formed by firms, alliances, JVs, and M&As and their different substantive and symbolic performance effects, this study contributes in two ways. First, it becomes clear that alliances and M&As enhance a firm’s substantive performance, while no positive performance effect is observed for JVs. In turn, all three expansion strategies boost a firm’s symbolic performance in terms of its legitimacy and status. Second, a distinction between their effects on a firm’s substantive performance in terms of their market-based and accounting-based performance shows that alliances and M&As both positively contribute to a firm’s accounting-based performance, while only the former spurs a firm’s market-based returns. This indicates that M&As have more long-term accounting-based performance effects compared to alliances and JVs, which suggests that in the long-term firms do best by expanding through M&As.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure and business responsibility report (BRR) on a firm’s financial performance. Additionally, the study explores whether CSR expenditure and firm performance are related linearly or otherwise. The study also assesses the influence of mandating CSR expenditure on a firm’s performance.

The study is set in India and uses a nine-year data set from 165 companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Data compilation and analysis are done by using content analysis and panel data regressions.

The main findings of the study are that the effect of CSR expenditure on firm performance in India is non-linear and can be characterized as parabolic for investigated firms. While some performance indicators suggest a U-shaped relationship, others show an inverted U-type pattern, making a definitive conclusion elusive in either direction. BRR scores themselves have a positive impact on firm performance. Mandatory CSR expenditure affects the financial performance negatively, but the market performance improves in general.

The study provides new insights on the relationship between CSR expenditure, BRR scores and firm performance from India, which is not only a notable emerging market but also has other gripping characteristics. It has a prolific history of philanthropy, and yet, it is the first country in the world to mandate CSR expenditure in recent times. The equation between reported economic progress and general quality of life remains intriguing, and yet the number of studies on the effects of CSR expenditure on firm performance are no match to the volume of ongoing and completed works in more developed markets. This study attempts to trim the gap and provide some useful insights for managers, policymakers and stakeholders, apart from prompting further research.

This study empirically investigates the significance of the core competencies on various economic performance indices by utilizing accounting and market-based performance in Chinese and South Korean leading manufacturing companies.

This research employs a series of hierarchical regression models to test the hypotheses concerning the significance of R&D and export strategy on firms' performance.

This study finds that R&D intensity and foreign trade activities through export are most likely to be significantly associated with firm performance, particularly market-based performance, across the Chinese and South Korea manufacturing companies. The significance of other core strategic factors such as capital intensity, leverage, inventory turnover, labor productivity, administrative cost efficiency, and collection policy on performance was also contemplated.

The relationship between R&D and firm performance has been an interesting issue concerning the performance measures employed across different country settings. Research issues addressed in this paper relate to how R&D, and foreign trade by export influence firm performance across two diverse economic environments inherent of Chinese and South Korean leading manufacturing firms. Particularly, this study explores the directions and magnitudes of the operational and strategic relationships between key strategic factors, such as R&D intensity, export by foreign trade, and the firm's economic and market-based performance.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analytic review based on a theoretical framework developed for investigating new product development (NPD) teams in the first two decades of the research stream.

This study contributes to literature by investigating the presence of publication bias and synthesizing correlation effect sizes of 27 factors influencing three NPD team performance dimensions: overall, market-based (e.g. sales, profitability), process-based (e.g. budget adherence, schedule adherence) outcomes. Further, this study presents a path analytical model that uses the aggregate study effects to identify significant drivers of NPD team performance.

First, examination of extant literature shows no publication bias. Next, analyses show that three internal team dynamic variables have the most significant positive effect on overall NPD team performance: team member job satisfaction, cross-functional integration and superordinate identity. For market-based performance, three goal-related contextual factors exert the most positive influence, namely, goal stability, goal clarity and goal support, in respective order. Further, for process-based performance, cross-functional integration’s strong positive effect is followed by team and goal stability. Moreover, physical distance, interpersonal and task conflict have significant negative effects on NPD team performance. Finally, both market- and process-based NPD team performance are significantly influenced by NPD team’s cohesion, which acts a mediator between two contextual factors: physical distance and team tenure.

This meta-analysis contributes to literature by providing a comprehensive model of NPD team performance predictors, their definitions, along with their corresponding effects in predicting performance. While team cohesion is found to be a strong predictor of both market- and process-based performance, future research can examine if too much cohesion has a detrimental effect, especially on market-based performance.

The results assist managers in shifting their priorities to ensure optimal support of NPD teams. For example, team leadership competence externally has a larger effect on overall performance compared to team leadership for internal team dynamics. Hence, team leaders should make sure that they manage the team’s relationships with external parties (e.g. other functional units) with more caution.

This study provides a guiding framework for analyzing NPD team performance as well as identifies and then addresses many knowledge gaps on NPD team performance.

This study sheds light on the relation between intellectual capital and firm performance. The study argues that traditional performance measurement based on accounting is still able to explore the relation between intellectual capital and performance.

The study was conducted at 198 firms from two Gulf Cooperation Council countries: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kingdom of Bahrain for the period 2014–2016. To measure intellectual capital, the value added intellectual coefficient model was adopted along with two measures of performance: accounting-based performance which is return on assets and market-based performance which is Tobin’s Q, in addition to the Random-Effects Regression.

Study findings came up with evidences that support the relationship between intellectual capital and accounting-based performance, but negates any relation between intellectual capital and market-based performance. The findings also revealed different results, between Saudi Arabia’s and those of Bahrain.

The study contributes to the debate on the validity of relating intellectual capital to the traditional accounting-based performance.

This paper attempts to examine a canonical (simultaneous) relationship between service industry CEOs' compensation and corporate performance with respect to accounting‐based and market‐based performance measures. In addition, this study examines the effect of firm size on compensation. The results of this study suggest that executive compensation depends simultaneously on both market‐based and accounting‐based performance measures. EPS, ROA, ROE and Market Rate of Return are positively associated with both cash compensation and long‐term compensation. Firm size is also positively related to the long‐term compensation.

This study aims to investigate the effects of corporate board and audit committee characteristics and ownership structures on market-based financial performance of listed firms in Thailand.

It applies system GMM (generalized method of moments) as the baseline estimator approach, and ordinary least squares and fixed effects for robustness checks on a sample of 452 firms listed on the Thai Stock Exchange for the period 2000-2016.

Relying mainly on the system GMM estimator, the empirical results indicate some emerging trends in the Thai economy. Contrary to expectations for an emerging market and prior research findings, ownership structures, particularly ownership concentration and family ownership, appear to have no significant influence on market-based firm performance, while managerial ownership exerts a positive effect on performance. Moreover, as expected, board structure variables such as board independence; size; meeting and dual role; and audit committee meeting show significant explanatory power on market-based firm performance in Thai firms.

These findings are important for policymakers in constructing an appropriate set of governance mechanisms in an emerging market context, and for corporate entities and investors in shaping their understanding of corporate governance in the Thai institutional context.

Unlike previous literature on the Thai market, this study is the first to use the more advanced econometric method known as system GMM estimator for addressing causality/endogeneity issues in governance–performance relationships. The findings indicate new trends in the explanatory power of ownership structure variables on market-based firm performance in Thai-listed firms.