Purpose: This study examines the impact of institutional ownership (IO) on firm performance. It also investigates whether powerful CEOs using a “CEO score index” moderate IO and firm performance nexus by drawing on insights from the agency and resource dependency theories.Design/methodology/approach: Data were obtained from annual reports of companies listed on the Palestine Security Exchange from 2009 to 2019. Panel data regressions were conducted based on 528 observations. In addition, this study repeated the analysis using a one-step generalized method of moments (GMM) and two-stage least squares analysis to deal with the endogeneity issue.Findings: Results show that IO and CEO power is positively associated with firm performance. Besides, it has been established that CEO power strengthens the relationship between IO and performance. Thus, this can be summarized that IO improves firm performance; however, with the powerful CEO intervention, the performance will improve even more.Originality/value: Studying IO is timely given since the type of ownership is paramount to identify which form of a high degree of ownership affects the performance negatively, especially, in the Palestine environment which is dominated by institutional investors. This is of great importance to the investors as it will enable them to identify the type of firms to which they can commit their funds, and which firm excels through the CEO power. Besides, the inconsistency results in previous literature on IO, and firm performance indicates that there is an indirect effect that needs alternative explanations.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to empirically examine the effect of board multiple directorships and chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics on firm performance among nonfinancial firms listed on the Palestine Security Exchange (PSE) during the period from 2009 to 2016.Design/methodology/approach: Based on 200 observations, this study utilizes panel data to examine the effect of the predictors on firm performance measured by return on assets. The analysis is repeated using the return on equity and two regression methods to evaluate the robustness of the main analysis (pooled regression, and backward stepwise regression analysis).Findings: The results show that the “busyness” of a CEO reduces their effectiveness and is associated with losses in the companies where they are in charge. On the other hand, the results show that CEO tenure, CEO experience and CEO political connections have a positive effect on corporate performance.Originality/value: This study is timely given that the practice of multiple directorships is widely common among firms in developing countries. Prior research in Palestine has not investigated the role of multiple directorships and the CEO characteristics on corporate outcomes. This study provides a picture of the potential benefits to firms, policymakers and professional bodies from considering CEO variables. The findings of such an examination can help them to set up suitable policies and enhance the role and the quality of the CEO in firms.

This study aims to explore whether capital structure (CS) has a contingent role in the relationship between corporate governance (CG) quality and firm performance. The empirical findings indicate that CG quality had a positive and significant effect on the performance of Jordanian non-financial firms listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) from 2014 to 2019. Additionally, the moderate effect of the CS reinforces this relationship. These results are robust to alternative econometric specifications and variable definitions. This study utilizes certain firm-specific characteristics to represent the CS to assess its role as a moderating variable in the relationship between CG quality and firm performance. This study makes a contribution to the literature by showing that CS can strengthen the relationship between CG quality and firm performance. The results have important managerial implications for the practice of CG in developing countries. Firms in developing countries can enhance performance by implementing and abiding by good governance practices. Moreover, firms in developing countries should adopt effective financial strategies regarding CS to enhance the relationship between CG quality and firm performance. Finally, potential investors should consider the debt level in the CS of non-financial firms in Jordan when making investment decisions.

This study investigates how corporate board governance attributes influence carbon emission disclosure (CED) across ASEAN-5 countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) from 2015 to 2022. Using panel data regressions and a composite Board Effectiveness Score, the analysis evaluates both individual board characteristics—gender diversity, size, independence, meeting frequency, and environmental committees—and their collective impact on CED as measured by CDP scores. Grounded in agency, resource dependence, stakeholder, legitimacy, signaling, and voluntary disclosure theories, the findings reveal that gender diversity and the presence of an environmental committee significantly enhance CED, supporting the notion that board diversity and specialized structures improve sustainability oversight. In contrast, board size and meeting frequency show no consistent influence, challenging conventional assumptions within agency and stakeholder theories. Notably, board independence has a negative impact on disclosure, highlighting contextual governance challenges in the ASEAN region. The Board Effectiveness Score emerges as a stronger predictor of CED than individual attributes, confirming that integrated governance mechanisms better explain corporate transparency. Additional robustness tests—including quantile regression, logit analysis, and dynamic GMM—confirm the consistency of results. Control variables such as green innovation, firm size, age, and profitability also positively affect disclosure. As one of the first region-wide governance studies in Southeast Asia, this research provides important implications for policymakers, investors, and sustainability advocates, underscoring the need for enhanced governance frameworks and regulatory mandates to bridge ASEAN’s sustainability disclosure gap and align corporate practices with global climate goals.