Purpose: The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of governance mechanisms on corporate failure.Design/methodology/approach: This study used a hypothesis-testing research design to collect data from the annual reports of 35 companies listed on Palestine Exchange from 2010 to 2019. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed, along with correlation analysis to evaluate linear relationships between variables. The variance inflation factor was used to test multicollinearity, and binary logistic regression was utilized to develop the research model.Findings: There is a significant positive relationship between board of directors' independency, institutional ownership and the quality of external audit, and corporate failure reduction. No significant relationship has been found among corporate governance variables such as board size, board meetings' frequency, board members' remuneration and audit committee existence, and corporate failure reduction.Research limitations/implications: Several empirical research studies have developed models to predict corporate failure using accounting and financial data. However, limited research has empirically investigated the impact of the different mechanisms of governance on corporate failure prediction.Practical implications: The research highlighted the significance of companies' commitment to governance principles and their impact on predicting failure. The study suggests that decision-makers and managers can adopt different governance mechanisms to support corporate success and avoid those that may lead to negative consequences and failure.Originality/value: This research is the first in Palestine to use a comprehensive list of corporate governance mechanisms to predict the failure of companies listed on the Palestine Stock Exchange between 2010 and 2019.

In recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on environmental preservation, influencing customer demand and behavior. Customers are increasingly drawn to eco-friendly lifestyles, seeking pe...

The aim of our article is to explore the interactive dynamics ensuing a digital implementation initiative whilst critiquing the nature and process of digital transformation. We analysed the data emerging out of 59 semi-structured interviews and 90 hours of non-participant observation in order to contextualise our investigation within the healthcare setting which in our case was a large hospital undergoing one of the biggest single-site implementation of digital health technology in Europe at its time. Our empirics is aided by ethnographic techniques and Gioia’s methodology has resulted in a grounded model which has implications for both scholars and practitioners. Through discussion with the end-users within the organisation, the findings highlight three processual landmarks which have been theorised using Erving Goffman’s conceptualisation of ‘framing’. In our study these have been referred to as intrinsic, frictional, and transitional frames, depicting the cognitive progression of end-users when interacting with digital artefacts as well as negotiating the institutional complexity. The three dynamic frames exhibit stage-specific occurrences and offer a complete abstract of a very large and difficult digital implementation project. Theoretically, our study offers a basis for scholars to conceptualise the processual nature of digital transformation through the lens of framing. Interactive dynamics remain underrated or largely ignored when it comes to implementation of such large projects, but we make it salient through the three empirically derived socio-cognitive frames. These frames in our view serves as a practical toolkit for practitioners in any setting visualising the implementation of a digital transformation project.

The history of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is replete with digital interventions which have either failed or been abandoned midway. When analyzing these interventions, complexities within the NHS are often cited as central to abandonment or non-adoption. Our objective was to investigate how multifarious rationales and perspectives can still facilitate adoption of a new technology in a public sector hospital. We undertook an ethnographic study to investigate how doctors, nurses and pharmacists collectively ‘make sense’ when facing the implementation of electronic medicine charts (EMEDs). We have investigated how each of these groups interactively work to understand novel, ambiguous and unexpected events arounds them underpinning the implementation process. The resulting dimensions represent a collective cognitive transformation wherein the groups transition from fearing to capturing value and eventually rationalizing the use of new technology.