Purpose: This paper aims to examine whether the characteristics of boards are more important in determining dividend policy than management characteristics. The authors show that as the final declarers of dividend policy is a firm’s board, the composition of a firm’s board significantly subsumes the effect of management characteristics that may also influence dividend policy.Design/methodology/approach: Using the dividend declaration dummy variable, the authors run a fixed effect logistic regression of the dividend indicator on board characteristics, and managerial characteristics with firm level controls, year effects and industry effects while clustering standard errors at the firm level. For dividend yield variable which is censored at zero, they use a fixed effect Tobit regression.Findings: The results of the study show that board characteristics such as average age, female presence and size have a strong positive significant effect, whereas board independent chair and voting right of directors have a negative significant effect on the likelihood of dividend declaration. For dividend yields, the results suggest that the presence of directors with financial expertise and the board size are the main influencers of dividend policy. Managerial characteristics are subsumed by director characteristics for determining dividend policy. The results overall support the evidence on the monitoring role of boards on management.Originality/value: The originality and value of this study lies in the approach of including a comprehensive number of board characteristics unlike previous studies which makes the study of the influence of board composition on dividends more encompassing.

Purpose: This paper aims to investigate the relationship between sustainability reporting and firm value, and subsequently, ascertains the moderating effect of assurance and the type of assurer on the sustainability reporting–firm value nexus.Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on sample firms from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) in South Africa. The fixed‐effect panel data analysis method is used to estimate the coefficients of the variables.Findings: A significant positive relationship is found between sustainability reporting and firm value. The results also suggest that sustainability assurance has significant explanatory power on firm value. Furthermore, the authors found that the market is unable to distinguish between sustainability assurance services provided by Big 4 audit firms and specialist consultant firms.Practical implications: The authors expect managers will see sustainability reporting and assurance as a business strategy with incremental market value. The study should also serve as a reference for stakeholders engaged in the advocacy for the adoption of sustainability assurance practices on the JSE and other emerging markets.Social implications: The study finds that the South African market rewards firms that purchase third-party assurance to guarantee the integrity of their corporate social responsibility reports. This understanding could help encourage more firms to embrace the concept of sustainability assurance.Originality/value: The study offers a first-hand information on how market participants in Johannesburg, an emerging economy, view sustainability assurance and the services provided by the different assurers.

On the background of voluntary assurances made by corporations in line with the assertions in their corporate social responsibility disclosures, we investigate which types of firms will obtain an independent certification of their corporate social responsibility disclosures. The study is based on firms listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) from 2015 to 2019. Deviating from traditional regression approaches, we employ machine learning techniques and show that machine learning techniques obtain superior performance compared to traditional logistic regression at predicting the likelihood of corporate social responsibility assurance by a corporation. The result also shows that large firms with high CSR score, independent board, highly leveraged and belonging to finance industry are the most likely to assure their CSR disclosures.

Firm values change substantially between deal announcement and closing, risking renegotiation or termination. For deals that eventually close, does waiting longer to close benefit the acquirer post-M&A? We investigate whether the time that elapses until deal completion is an indicator of post-M&A performance and failure. We find that deals taking an optimum time to implement perform better, supporting the due diligence hypothesis, while taking too long to close is an indication of poor post-M&A performance and subsequent failure, supporting the overdue hypothesis.

This paper aims to show that information asymmetry plays a vital role in the post-M&A performance-time until deal completion nexus. The findings are that the due diligence hypothesis and the overdue hypothesis proposed and tested in Thompson and Kim (2020) are influenced by the information asymmetry of the target during the negotiation process. Thus, mergers that involve more opaque targets that take a shorter time to close perform better, whereas those that take too long to close experience poor post-M&A performance. Conversely, there is no such effect when the mergers involve targets that are transparent and not plagued with large information asymmetry problems. These results hold for the short-term supporting the evidence that information asymmetry problems are severe before the merger is consummated and become attenuated post-merger.