This study examines the interactions among economic growth, technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and carbon emissions in Africa using advanced econometric methods. Panel data analysis reveals both symmetric and asymmetric impacts on carbon emissions, showing how economic and technological variables contribute to environmental outcomes. The augmented mean group (AMG) and common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG) estimators address cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity, ensuring robust results. Findings indicate that positive economic growth increases emissions, while economic downturns significantly reduce emissions. The study underscores the need for strategic policies that leverage technological innovations and renewable energy to promote sustainable development in African economies, balancing economic growth with environmental protection.

This study investigates the financial performance of target companies involved in mergers and acquisitions (M&As), aiming to reveal the dynamics affecting these organizations pre- and post-transaction. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset, we analyze the financial outcomes of M&A deals globally, spanning from 2010 to 2019. Employing various financial ratios, such as liquidity ratios, profitability measures, leverage ratios, asset management ratios, and market valuation metrics, this research provides an understanding of how M&As influence the financial performance of target companies. The key findings suggest that target companies experience significant changes in their financial ratios post-acquisition, with liquidity and profitability ratios showing marked fluctuations. The study shows that the method of payment (cash vs. non-cash) and the size of the deal significantly influence the post-acquisition financial performance of target companies. Cash-based and lower-valued deals are found to have a more positive impact on financial stability and growth metrics. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the marginal effects of acquisition strategies on target companies’ financial performance. Our findings provide practical insights for potential acquirers, suggesting that the choice of acquisition method and deal size can significantly affect the financial outcomes of M&A activities.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze notable distribution dispute cases from Islamic law history. The authors will assess these alongside resolutions proposed by historical authorities, some of which evolved into established Islamic case law. In addition, the authors intend to apply classic fair division rules to these cases, providing alternative solutions. Using a game-theoretical approach, the authors plan to compare Islamic solutions with traditional division rules through axiomatic analysis. The goal of this study is to systematically explore the unique principles underpinning Islamic distributions. Design/methodology/approach: In this study, the authors collate Islamic inheritance law disputes involving conflicting claims, unresolvable by primary Islamic law sources, from historical and modern texts. The authors formally model these as claims problems, surplus-sharing problems and adapted claims problems. Concurrently, the authors gather the proposed solutions and historical backgrounds offered by the era’s authorities and jurists. These solutions are axiomatically generalized into rules, while the axioms characterizing distribution rules are checked if they are aligned with Islamic norms and values. This approach facilitates a comparison between Islamic distributions and classic division rules. Findings: The 'Awl and Radd doctrines, used in Islamic inheritance law, are axiomatically equivalent to the Proportional Rule, a prevalent non-Jewish division rule. These doctrines present solutions impervious to manipulation by legal heirs through rights transfer, unlike other possible distributions. Ibn 'Abbas' solution for Awliyya cases uses sequential priorities and diverges uniquely from classic fair division rules in the literature. In addition, it is established that Abu Yusuf's (b. 729) distribution for a legal dispute is axiomatically identical to Abraham ibn Ezra's (b. 1089) division rule. Research limitations/implications: There is a noticeable dearth of comprehensive studies investigating contentious disputes concerning resource claims within Islamic law. Many of these studies are lacking in-depth analyses of diverse cases, casting doubts on their reliability. As a result, a robust focus is needed on case collection prior to any analytical process. Future research should concentrate on collating instances of fair division problems throughout Islamic history, as well as separately collecting methods of Islamic sharing. This procedure may lead to the characterization of various Islamic regulations, thereby emphasizing distinct Islamic principles. In forthcoming studies, conducting an exhaustive axiomatic evaluation of the cases and proposed resolutions is imperative. Practical implications: This research illuminates existing knowledge gaps, setting a course for novel research trajectories. It underlines the fair division literature’s oversight of disputes within Islamic law, despite the plentiful existence of contentious cases. The research underscores the relevance of cooperative game theory as a tool for dissecting Islamic legal disputes. By accounting for unique Islamic norms and principles, this study lays a foundation for a nuanced comprehension of the dynamics and outcomes of legal disputes. By integrating an interdisciplinary approach, this research strives to bridge the gap between game theory and Islamic law. Social implications: Beyond addressing a significant research lacuna, this study carries extensive societal implications. By shedding light on enduring debates within Islamic law, it encourages a rejuvenated understanding of the evolution and interpretation of legal disputes. The axiomatic disparities between rulers’ and jurists’ methods provide invaluable insights within the Islamic context, bolstering the understanding of sociocultural dynamics that influence legal decision-making. This research has the potential to shape legal discourse, guide policymaking and spur scholarly, juristic and societal dialogue. Consequently, it may foster a more comprehensive and enlightened approach toward the resolution of legal disputes in Islamic law. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine Islamic law’s historical legal disputes from a game-theoretical standpoint. Existing studies rarely collect distribution disputes systematically, and none scrutinize the axiomatic rationales underlying authorities’ and jurists’ distributions, opting instead to focus on historical backgrounds. While the fair division literature extensively examines disputes, it often overlooks those originating from Islamic law, which presents a rich source of disputes that can be modeled as fair division problems. This research makes a distinct contribution by incorporating disputes from Islamic law into the existing body of cooperative game theory literature.

This paper compares the rulebooks of five main Shariah-compliant equity indices—DJIMI, KLSI, FTSE Shariah, MSCI Islamic, and STOXX Europe Islamic 50—inside one fixed S&P 500 stock list from Q1 2019 to Q4 2023. For each index, we build both equally weighted and market-capitalization-weighted portfolios, then check their performances with the Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen’s alpha ratios. All Islamic portfolios beat the regular S&P 500 after adjusting for risk, with STOXX as the most stable winner. Its market-cap version reaches a level of 253.01 by Q4 2023, far above the S&P 500 level of 210.46. Market-cap portfolios, in general, perform better than equally weighted ones. Furthermore, STOXX offer better protection in rough markets, while DJIMI shows relatively better performance when prices recover. Most rule sets cause small advantages to the Islamic portfolios compared to conventional ones, but STOXX’s 33% limit on leverage and liquidity results in higher Sharpe ratios. These results suggest that screening details shape portfolio behavior and point to the need for one clear, shared Shariah rulebook so investors can compare products with confidence. From a business ethics view, our study also shows that strict and open screening brings a real “moral dividend”, as follows: smaller losses when markets fall and stronger risk-adjusted returns overall, linking faith-based rules to the wider talk on responsible investing and stakeholder welfare.