Association of Corporate Governance with Intellectual Capital Performance: A Study of S&P 200 Companies

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between intellectual capital efficiency and the attributes of corporate governance in the top 116 companies from 2012 to 2018. The VAIC has been calculated for the sample chosen, which did not include financial companies. The relationship between corporate governance structure and intellectual capital performance was investigated using panel data regression analysis. Results have shown that board size is negatively associated with intellectual capital and its components. CEO duality, on the other hand, is not found to be associated with intellectual capital performance. This study also shows that intellectual capital performance and human capital efficiency are negatively correlated with board independence, Indian promoters, institutional ownership, and foreign ownership. The components of intellectual capital performance, on the other hand, have yielded mixed results. The findings could be useful to policymakers while deciding on the composition and structure of the board.

Effect of corporate governance on the capital structure on non-financial firms in developing countries: A Qualitative Approach

“…On the contrary, Mwambuli (2018) found a significant negative effect of board size on capital structure decisions after examining board characteristics and their effects on capital structure decisions in developing economies using a balanced panel dataset of 32 non-financial listed firms in the East African region from 2006-to 2015. This finding is supported by Soriya and Kumar (2022) and Ehikioya et al (2021), that investigated countries of India and Nigeria, respectively, and showed a negative relationship between board size and firm leverage.…”

Female directors' representation and intellectual capital efficiency: does institutional ownership matter?

“…Prior studies have also argued that firms with higher liquidity are likely to invest more (new ventures) to enhance the efficiency of their IC resources (Shahveisi et al, 2017). Finally, prior studies have examined the role of IO, suggesting that institutional investors affect firms' strategic decisions and performance (Alshabibi, 2021;Paputungan et al, 2020;Soriya and Kumar, 2022). Table 1 shows further details regarding the defined set of variables of the current study.…”

“…In the present study, resource dependence theory and agency theory have been adopted to support the investigation of the phenomenon as they consider a cognizance-based approach toward developing and using firms' internal sources (resource dependence theory) (Hsu et al, 2018) and affect information asymmetry and agency costs (agency theory) related to IC by monitoring the board of directors' structure and roles (Smriti and Das, 2021;Zahra and Pearce, 1989). Resource dependence theory proposes that one of the main factors behind a firm's success is its open system, which is related to the interdependent relationship between external resources and firms (Davis and Adam, 2010;Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978;Scafarto et al, 2020;Soriya and Kumar, 2022). It considers the boardroom as an adviser that supplies resources to the firm through its members' informative skills and experience (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).…”

“…In this context, prior studies have found that ICE requires more monitoring and adaptability in the necessary leadership procedures of the boards and top management levels (Appuhami and Bhuyan, 2015). Only a small number of studies have focused on the determinants of ICE while underlining the importance of corporate governance mechanisms in general (Chouaibi and Kouaib, 2016;Shahveisi et al, 2017;Soriya and Kumar, 2022). Furthermore, studies addressing the association between female directors' presence and ICE are relatively scarce; the exceptions include Nadeem et al (2017Nadeem et al ( , 2019 and Smriti and Das (2021), who investigated the impact of boards' gender diversity on ICE in emerging market settings, namely China and India, respectively, where female quotas on boards are relatively low.…”

A systematic literature review of current understanding and future scope on Green Intellectual Capital

“…Second phase started from 2001 to 2010 and was immensely geared towards enlarging models to gauge, report and administer Intellectual Capital (Bontis, 2001;Guthrie, 2001;Brennan, 2001;Andriessen, 2004;Chen, Zhu & Xie, 2004;Striukova, Unerman & Guthrie, 2008;Dumay, 2009) in addition to assessing its role in organisations bottom line and worth (Chen, Cheng & Hwang, 2005;Tseng and Goo, 2005;Bharathi, 2008;Sharabat,i Jawad & Bontis, 2010). Third phase spanned the years 2011 to 2022 and was majorly oriented towards assessing the consequential effect of Intellectual Capital on performance (Joshi, Cahill, Sidhu & Kansal, 2013;Lu, Wang & Kweh, 2014;Xu and Wang, 2018;Asiaei, Jusoh & Bontis, 2018;Chatterjee, Chaudhuri, Thrassou & Sakka, 2021;Xu and Li, 2020;Campos, Dias, Teixeira & Correia, 2022;Prasojo, Yadiati, Fitrijanti & Sueb, 2022;Bataineh, Abbadi, Alabood & Alkurdi, 2022), competitive strength (Jardon & Martos, 2012;Yaseen, Dajani & Hasan, 2016;Jain et al, 2017;Niwash, Cek & Eyupoglu, 2022), innovative strength (Han & Li, 2015), knowledge governing practices (Kianto, Ritala, Spender & Vanhala, 2014), corporate governance (Hidalgo, García-Meca & Martínez, 2011;Soriya & Kumar, 2022) and sustainability (López-Gamero, Zaragoza Sáez, Claver Cortés & Molina Azorín ---, 2011; Massaro, Dumay, Garlatti & Dal Mas, 2018) on diverse sectors. Yet the study of IC so far has not been sufficient in analysing its ecological aspects and thus arose the need for the study of Green Intellectual Capital.…”