ACF7002 Corporate Finance

Impact of board construct (size, independence, diversity, etc.) on corporate performance

 Table of Contents
Introduction (808 words).................................................................................................................3
Literature Review (2175 words)......................................................................................................5
Connecting Literature to Theoretical Foundations......................................................................9
Research Method...........................................................................................................................10
Data and Result (360 words).....................................................................................................10
Corporate Performance..........................................................................................................11
Board Construct.....................................................................................................................12
Discussion......................................................................................................................................13
Data Analysis (1027 words).......................................................................................................13
Correlation.............................................................................................................................13
Descriptive Statistics.............................................................................................................14
Regression Analysis...............................................................................................................16
Findings (724 words).................................................................................................................18
Implications...............................................................................................................................18
Conclusion (703 words).................................................................................................................20
References......................................................................................................................................22
Introduction (808 words)

A company's performance and strategic direction are profoundly impacted by the composition
and dynamics of its board of directors, who play a crucial role of corporate governance (Guluma,
2021). Size and independence of the board play important roles in decision-making, risk
management, and, in the end, financial results. In an effort to understand this vital aspect of
corporate governance in the dynamic context of today's businesses, this report sets out to
examine the connection between board composition or construct and company performance.

It is impossible to exaggerate the critical role that a company's board of directors plays. The
performance and strategic direction of the organisation are significantly affected by the makeup
and dynamics of its governing body. Board size and independence are key factors in decision-
making, risk management, and financial results in the end. In the dynamic landscape of modern
business, this research sets out to thoroughly investigate. The main goal is to analyse and
comprehend the complex connection between the makeup or structure of the board and the
performance of the organisation. We want to shed light on the driving factors that affect
contemporary companies' fortunes and the state of corporate governance by analysing the
complex relationship between these factors.

The growing literature on the consequences of board structure affects many different parties
within the vast business ecosystem. Because they are signs of possible risks and rewards,
investors look attentively at a company's governance structure. The aim of shareholder wealth
maximisation, investment appeal, and financial strategy are all influenced by what happens in the
boardroom. Therefore, for those navigating the complexities of investment and financial
decision-making, understanding the ins and outs of board composition becomes vital. In
addition, business leaders who are responsible for guiding their firms through the volatile and
uncertain business landscape may find this inquiry relevant. The board of directors plays a
crucial role in determining the destiny of a firm by directing how its strategy is put into action.
Understanding the effects of different board characteristics on management autonomy, strategic
flexibility, and, in the end, the bottom line is crucial for executives who want to successfully
navigate the ever-changing waters of global business.

Investigating the complex and crucial link between the make-up of a company's board and its
performance is an essential part of good corporate governance (Riamo, 2021). The report's
examination of board structures' complex dynamics reveals that these arrangements have far-
reaching consequences that influence investors, company executives, and other stakeholders. A
rising amount of research on board structure has shown that it affects more than just the company
itself. Governance frameworks are closely examined by investors as signs of a company's health
and its ability to maximise shareholder value. Investors are very sensitive to signals that indicate
risks and benefits. Anyone making investment choices, developing financial plans, or trying to
achieve sustainable development must have a firm grasp of the nuances of board composition.

Inquiry into board composition is especially important for company executives guiding their
organisations through the uncertain contemporary business environment. As the masterminds
behind how a company's plan is put into action, the board of directors is crucial in deciding the
organization's fate. The importance of knowing how various board traits affect managerial
independence, strategic adaptability, and profits is duly highlighted in the paper. In the
complicated world of global business, where agility and anticipation are essential to success, this
understanding is crucial for CEOs. A methodical effort to understanding the topic's intricacies is
reflected in the report's organisational structure. A thorough comprehension is promised by the
intended parts, which include theoretical and empirical analyses, literature reviews, and practical
viewpoints. Data and outcomes from different UK firms are included to make it more realistic
and provide significant insights that managers, individual investors, and capital providers can
relate to.

The report is organised in a way to provide a thorough understanding of the topic. A

comprehensive examination of theoretical and empirical data will be presented in the upcoming
sections of the report. Literature review will be discussed in the next section of the report. This
will include discussions regarding board size and its independence, as well as regarding the
corporate performance. The section after that will provide a practical perspective on the
influence of board composition on corporate performance by providing data and results from
several companies of UK. Managers, individual investors, and capital providers are among the
many groups who stand to benefit from the results that follow the summary data and conclusions'
careful examination in the part that follows. Using reputable sources from the literature, this
section connects the results to the theoretical foundations covered in previous sections. To wrap
up the report, last section will provide a brief but thorough summary of the key results, discusses
the implications, suggests directions for future research, and extracts important insights about the
connection between board design and company performance.

Literature Review (2175 words)

In terms of a company's overall performance and strategic direction, the organisational

framework, and more especially, the make-up and dynamics of the board of directors, plays a
pivotal and game-changing role. The purpose of this literature review is to sift through all the
studies that have attempted to decipher the complex relationship between the make-up of boards
and the success of businesses. The goal is to carefully analyse the complexities and subtleties of
this important and intricate connection by focusing on variables like board size, board
independence, and key financial performance measures like Return on Assets (ROA) and Return
on Equity (ROE).

The dimension of board composition that pertains to its size stands out as a fundamental and
multifaceted aspect, sparking significant academic scrutiny due to its profound implications for
corporate performance. Scholars have engaged in robust discourse, contending that the size of a
board intricately influences various facets of organizational functioning, including decision-
making processes, risk management strategies, and, ultimately, financial outcomes. The
deliberation on board size revolves around a delicate balance, weighing the potential benefits
derived from a larger board, such as diverse perspectives, an array of skills, and extensive
networks, against the inherent challenges it introduces in terms of coordination, communication,
and decision-making efficiency.

In the pursuit of understanding the optimal board size, empirical studies have yielded a spectrum
of conflicting findings, contributing to the complexity of the discourse. A study introduced a
noteworthy perspective, revealing a negative correlation between board size and firm
performance. This proposition suggests that larger boards may inadvertently be associated with
agency problems and decision-making inefficiencies, challenging the conventional belief in the
advantages of a larger, more diverse group of decision-makers. Contrastingly, another study
injects nuance into the discourse by proposing a curvilinear relationship between board size and
firm performance. This perspective implies that both very small and excessively large boards
may prove detrimental to a firm's overall performance. The implication is that an excessively
small board may lack the diversity and skill set necessary for comprehensive decision-making,
while an excessively large board may encounter challenges related to coordination and
communication, undermining the effectiveness of the decision-making process.

The variance in findings among these empirical studies underscores the nuanced nature of the
relationship between board size and corporate performance. It highlights the contextual
dependence of optimal board size, acknowledging that industry dynamics, company size, and
other contextual factors may significantly influence the observed outcomes. As such, the
exploration of board size as a determinant of corporate performance extends beyond a simple
dichotomy and requires a more intricate understanding of the interplay between organizational
structure and operational effectiveness.

The concept of independence inside the boardroom is fundamental to the complex system of
regulating businesses and making crucial choices (Tibiletti, 2021). As a basis for good corporate
governance, this idea has gained a lot of respect. Proponents of having independent directors
argue that it helps keep agencies from competing interests, strengthens oversight systems, and
helps shareholders' interests come first in strategic decision-making. From the number of
independent directors to the number of independent board committees, researchers have
examined board independence from many angles. The groundwork for recognising the crucial
function of independent directors in aligning management interests with shareholders was
created. The importance of independent directors in preventing managerial opportunism and
creating a system of governance where shareholder value is adequately considered was
highlighted in this groundbreaking study.

The first excitement for a clear acceptance of board independence has been tempered by later
research that has offered varied viewpoints. Although researchers have recognised the important
function of independent directors in protecting companies, they have also identified various
difficulties that these directors may encounter. Independent directors may face complex
challenges in gathering enough information and exercising effective supervision inside the
boardroom. In their analysis of the tunnelling issue, researcher highlight the precarious balance
between encouraging autonomy and promoting information exchange among board members. An
independent director's balancing act in the complicated landscape of corporate governance is
exemplified by the tunnelling dilemma. Their independence is critical for preventing managers
from acting in their own self-interest and for making choices that are in line with shareholder
values. Boardroom dynamics, on the other hand, are collaborative, therefore it's important for
members to share what they know and work together to make good decisions. The trick is to stay
away from situations where people lose their autonomy, which might lead to exploitative actions,
or tunnelling.

The complexity of incorporating board independence into a corporate governance structure is

uncovered by this detailed examination of the concept. Independence is not just seen as a
solution to governance problems or a roadblock to effective decision-making; the discussion
goes beyond this simplistic view. Rather, it calls for a more thorough investigation of the
subtleties of context that impact independent directors' capacity to foster openness,
responsibility, and strategic harmony with shareholder interests. This nuanced view is becoming
more important for stakeholders trying to promote governance models that find the sweet spot
between independence and teamwork on boards as the governance environment keeps changing.

Comprehensively gauging a company's profitability and operational efficiency typically requires

the use of sophisticated financial indicators, which add another layer of complexity to the already
complex process of evaluating corporate performance. Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on
Equity (ROE) are two of the most popular indicators used by academics and financial analysts
among the many accessible measures (Pointer and Khoi, 2019). Important indicators of a
company's soundness financially, operational efficiency, and return on investment (ROI) for
shareholders are these measurements. If you want to know how profitable a firm is, you should
look at its return on assets (ROA). The percentage form of this indicator sheds light on how well
a business transforms its assets into profits. The ability of a business to turn its investments into
lucrative initiatives is shown by a greater ROA, which is a sign of improved asset utilisation and
operational efficiency.

Conversely, ROE provides insight into the return produced on equity investment for
shareholders. Another way to look at this indicator is as a percentage. It shows how much equity
capital the firm is using to make money. Return on equity (ROE) is a useful metric for
shareholders as it shows how well a firm is doing at turning their investment into profits (Kumar
and Agrawal, 2023). An increase in return on equity indicates that the firm is doing a good job of
turning shareholder capital into profit.
Scholarly interest has shifted to the point where board composition meets these two crucial
financial measures, ROA and ROE. The complicated link between a company's board
composition and its financial success as assessed by these criteria has been the subject of much
research. The meta-analysis provides valuable insight into this topic; it examines the correlation
between board independence and ROA and ROE. Board independence is positively associated
with financial success indicators, according to the results of the meta-analysis. There is a strong
correlation between having independent members on a company's board and higher ROA and
ROE, which highlights the importance of good governance in generating profits. Based on this
connection, it seems that boards with greater independence are better able to make strategic
choices that boost operational efficiency and financial returns for the organisation.

These results have significant implications for corporate governance as a whole, highlighting the
genuine advantages of a system of oversight that places a premium on boardroom independence.
As firms aim to improve their financial position and manage the difficult business environment,
it is crucial to grasp the complex relationship between board composition and financial
performance indicators like ROA and ROE. Those involved in governance structure optimisation
for long-term financial success, including investors, executives, and lawmakers, can benefit from
the practical insights offered by this detailed investigation, which also enhances scholarly debate.

This literature study thoroughly investigates the complex relationship between board
composition and company success by integrating theoretical and empirical findings. An
sophisticated and context-dependent explanation of this link is provided by this synthesis, which
not only amalgamates known theoretical frameworks but also draws from empirical data.

Agency theory and resource dependency theory provide a solid theoretical groundwork for this
synthesis, with both theories providing significant lenses through which the underlying processes
are thoroughly explained. Board arrangements are crucial in reducing manager-shareholder
conflicts of interest, according to agency theory, a prominent concept in corporate governance.
Organisational success may be fostered via a governance framework that is favourable to
managers' and shareholders' interests, which agency theory explains by outlining the duties,
responsibilities, and power dynamics of the boardroom (Shahzad, et al, 2023). Additionally,
resource dependency theory highlights how external resources, especially those that independent
directors bring to the table, play a crucial role in determining the dynamics of board composition.
The idea behind this hypothesis is that having outside directors may help a firm become less
reliant on its own resources by providing new viewpoints, expertise, and connections. In this
light, the literature study explores how outside funding improves the board's capacity to make
strategic decisions, which in turn makes them more resilient and able to respond to changing
business conditions.

The empirical part of the synthesis recognises that the correlation between board makeup and
company success is inherently context-dependent (Cooke, et al, 2021). Factors such as industry
dynamics, business size, and national governance frameworks significantly impact observed
results; empirical research, by their very nature, provide insights based on real-world
circumstances. The complex results that have come out of this research help us comprehend how
different factors in the external environment affect the effect of board composition on company
success. Companies' sizes and scopes, industry-specific difficulties, and the regulatory climate in
each country are acknowledged as critical factors impacting the results. The literature study aims
to provide a thorough and detailed analysis that recognises the various and nuanced nature of the
link between board composition and corporate performance by considering this contextual
sensitivity. The goal is to go beyond sweeping generalisations.

The literature review purposefully draws from a wide variety of research in its quest for a
thorough understanding. The synthesis is enhanced and the link between board composition and
business performance may be explored more nuanced with this inclusion. This comprehensive
overview of the complex processes influencing the governance-performance nexus in modern
corporate contexts is based on a wide range of research that provide a solid theoretical and
empirical basis for extrapolating conclusions.

Connecting Literature to Theoretical Foundations

This part makes an attempt to bridge the gap between the worlds of empirical facts and well-
established theoretical frameworks by relating literature to these foundations. This part aims to
combine the practical results from empirical investigations with the underlying ideas addressed
in previous sections via a detailed assessment of the reviewed literature. In the larger context of
board composition and business performance, this integrative method seeks to provide a strong
analytical framework, making the results more reliable and applicable. Academic discourse and
real-world observations form a mutually beneficial interaction when practical discoveries are
aligned with well-established theoretical underpinnings. The theoretical structures covered in
previous parts find concrete expression in the empirical data obtained from various
investigations. This helps to root abstract ideas in real-life experiences and actions seen in
organizational settings.

Agency theory and resource dependency theory are two examples of the core ideas that provide
useful frameworks for understanding the dynamics of corporate governance. One way to look at
the real-world effects of board arrangements is via the prism of agency theory, which aims to
reduce managers' and shareholders' conflicts of interest (Stein, 2022). In order to strengthen the
theoretical framework, the review aims to test or improve the theoretical propositions by
bringing empirical outcomes into line with agency theory. This will create a feedback loop with
real-world observations. Similarly, the theory of resource reliance offers a theoretical framework
for comprehending the dynamics of board composition by highlighting the importance of
external resources brought in by independent directors. This study is to validate the theoretical
assumptions in the context of practical applications by linking this theory to empirical data. Its
objective is to illustrate how the infusion of external viewpoints and resources effects
organizational behaviors and outcomes. To make sure the theoretical foundations are based on
real-world actions and results and not just abstract notions, this part takes an integrated approach,
which is crucial. A deeper comprehension of the intricacies of the connection between board
composition and corporate success may be achieved via the mutually beneficial interaction of
theory and practice (Bag, et al, 2023). This link also guarantees that the theoretically sound
analytical framework fits with the complexities and subtleties seen in different types of
organizational settings. A nuanced picture of how theoretical constructs appear in the dynamic
and ever-changing corporate governance context is offered by the review as it navigates this
connecting trip, which aims to uncover the practical consequences of the theories. The review's
goal is to help stakeholders understand the intricacies of board design and how it affects an
organization's performance by providing a thorough examination of the topic and adding to the
existing scholarly conversation.

Research Method

Data and Result (360 words)

This section dives into the empirical element of the study by offering a thorough assessment of
data related to the selected aspect of board design, whether its board size or independence, or a
combination of these variables in the context of UK firms. Several UK-based firms are examined
in detail in this investigation.

Corporate Performance

The term corporate performance encompasses a wide range of ideas, including how well a
business manages its operations and provides value to its constituents (Lee, et al, 2022).
Researchers and analysts often use financial metrics, which provide a quantitative way to
measure performance, to evaluate and assess an organization's success. Return on Assets (ROA)
and Return on Equity (ROE) are two of the most prominent metrics among many others.

One of the most basic ways to measure a business's profitability is by looking at its return on
assets (ROA) (Saputra, 2022). Divide net income by average total assets to get return on assets
(ROA). This metric shows how well a business uses its resources to make money. Companies
with high ROAs are good at turning their investments into lucrative endeavors because they
make good use of their assets. An important measure of a company's success, return on assets
(ROA) shows how profitable the business is relative to its investment. Along with return on
assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE) is an important statistic that measures the return on
investment (ROI) for shareholders' equity. A measure of a company's efficiency in turning
shareholder money into profit, return on equity (ROE) is determined by dividing net income by
average shareholders' equity. Companies that maximize profits for their shareholders have a
greater return on equity (ROE), which means they employ equity capital efficiently. As a
measure of a company's profitability in relation to the investments made by shareholders, return
on equity (ROE) is of paramount importance to investors.

ROA ROE
1 Easyjet PLC 12.60% 34.50%
2 Rotork PLC 3.50% 12.60%
3 International Distributions 7.90% 24.70%
Services PLC
4 Renishaw PLC 4.90% 10.30%
5 Network International -0.20% -4.68%
Holdings PLC
6 Wizz Air Holdings PLC 0.33% 24.26%
 7 Babcock International 7.12% 21.88%
Group PLC
8 Balfour Beatty PLC 2.67% 9.23%
9 Serco Group PLC 4.37% 4.10%
10 QinetiQ Group PLC 6.79% 23.82%
11 Hays PLC 3.75% 5.01%
12 Ithaca Energy PLC 2.62% 14.96%
13 Pagegroup PLC 13.63% 17.82%
14 Mitie Group PLC 14.77% 18.34%
15 Vesuvius plc 9.18% 40.05%

Board Construct

Board construct describes the make-up, structure, and composition of an organization's

governing board (Jouber, 2021). It includes a wide range of people, their backgrounds, skills, and
connections that make up an organization's governing structure. Data regarding the board
structure of the UK companies is as follows:

Board Board
Size Independence
Easyjet PLC 60%
13
Rotork PLC 75%
13
International Distributions 80%
Services PLC 11
Renishaw PLC 65%
13
Network International 60%
Holdings PLC 13
Wizz Air Holdings PLC 75%
11
Babcock International 65%
Group PLC 14
Balfour Beatty PLC 60%
12
Serco Group PLC 75%
16
QinetiQ Group PLC 80%
13
Hays PLC 65%
11
Ithaca Energy PLC 70%
 11
Pagegroup PLC 60%
13
Mitie Group PLC 60%
13
Vesuvius plc 60%
13
Easyjet PLC 75%
11
Rotork PLC 80%
11
International Distributions 65%
Services PLC 13
Renishaw PLC 80%
11

Discussion

Data Analysis (1027 words)

Correlation

ROA ROE Board Size Board

Independence
ROA 1
ROE 0.5 1
Board Size 0.29 -0.4 1
Board Independence -0.4 0.10 -0.32 1

A variety of financial and governance indicators are shown in the table with their respective
correlation coefficients. Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Assets (ROA) are moderately to
strongly positively correlated with a correlation value of 0.5. With a correlation coefficient of
0.29, there is a little positive relationship between board size and return on assets. Return on
Assets and Board Independence have a negative correlation of -0.4, suggesting a link. Therefore,
it seems that Return on Assets tends to fall as board independence grows. A correlation of -0.4
between board size and return on equity suggests a slight negative connection. A correlation of
0.10 between Return on Equity and Board Independence suggests a slight positive link. Lastly, a
little negative association is shown by the -0.32 correlation between Board Independence and
Board Size. The table sheds light on the correlations that may affect strategy and decision-
making by revealing the dynamics between financial performance and corporate governance
measurements.

Descriptive Statistics

Summary statistics for four metrics, Board Size, Board Independence, Return on Equity (ROE),
and Return on Assets (ROA) are included in the table below. With a standard error of just 0.01
points, the sample as a whole shows very little variation around the mean return on assets (ROA)
of 0.06. Compared to the mean, the midpoint is somewhat lower with a median ROA of 0.05.
With a skewness of 0.61 and a standard deviation of 0.04, we can see that the distribution is
somewhat skewed toward larger ROA values, suggesting a moderate level of variability. The
average Return on Equity is 0.17 with a standard deviation of 0.03. With a standard deviation of
0.12 and a median ROE of 0.15, the data points are spaced out around the mean. A distribution
that tends to have higher ROE values is shown by a positive skewness of 0.51. The median board
size is 13.00 and the standard error is 0.29; the mean board size is 12.45. A skewness of 0.73 and
a standard deviation of 1.32 suggest a positive skewness, suggesting a trend toward bigger board
sizes, and a significantly greater data dispersion. There is a median score of 0.65 and a standard
deviation of 0.02 for Board Independence. The mean score is 0.69. A smaller spread and a
distribution significantly tilted towards lower values of board independence are indicated by the
standard deviation of 0.08 and skewness of 0.28. Seeing the lowest, maximum, and range of a
metric's values may provide light on its variability and distribution. A flatter distribution, as
opposed to a normal distribution, is suggested by negative kurtosis values for ROA and Board
Independence, which show the shape of the distribution. If you want to know what the actual
population parameters are, you may use the confidence levels as a range. In total, the measures'
distributional properties, central tendency, and variability are all well explained in this statistical
overview.

ROA

Mean 0.06
Standard Error 0.01
Median 0.05
Standard Deviation 0.04
Sample Variance 0.002
Kurtosis -0.38
Skewness 0.61
Range 0.15
Minimum -0.002
Maximum 0.15
Sum 1.17
Count 20
Confidence Level 0.020
(95.0%)
ROE

Mean 0.17
Standard Error 0.03
Median 0.15
Standard Deviation 0.12
Sample Variance 0.01
Kurtosis -0.01
Skewness 0.51
Range 0.45
Minimum -0.05
Maximum 0.40
Sum 3.40
Count 20
Confidence Level 0.055239072
(95.0%)
Board Size

Mean 12.45
Standard Error 0.29
Median 13.00
Standard Deviation 1.32
Sample Variance 1.73
Kurtosis 1.18
Skewness 0.73
Range 5
Minimum 11
Maximum 16
Sum 249
Count 20
Confidence Level 0.616
(95.0%)
Board Independence
 Mean 0.69
Standard Error 0.02
Median 0.65
Standard Deviation 0.08
Sample Variance 0.01
Kurtosis -1.59
Skewness 0.28
Range 0.20
Minimum 0.60
Maximum 0.80
Sum 13.75
Count 20
Confidence Level 0.0371
(95.0%)
Regression Analysis

ROA
The relation between the model's dependent variable and its independent variables may be better
understood with the help of regression statistics (Zhou, et al, 2021). With an R-squared value of
0.16 and a multiple R-value of 0.40, we can see that the independent variables account for
around 16% of the variation in the dependent variable. Positive Adjusted R Squared Value of
0.06 suggests that the model may not be appropriate for describing the observed variance; this
might be due to overfitting or the addition of extraneous variables. As a measure of the model's
accuracy, the standard error of 0.04 shows how far the observed values, on average, are from the
regression line. Twenty observations are available.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.40
R Square 0.16
Adjusted R Square 0.06
Standard Error 0.04
Observations 20

When all other independent variables are set to zero, the intercept of 0.086 indicates that there is
a constant term that predicts the dependent variable to be 0.086. The dependent variable is
expected to rise by 0.007 units for every one-unit increase in Board Size, according to the
coefficient for Board Size, which is 0.007. At the standard levels of analysis, however, the t-
statistic (0.838) and p-value (0.414) indicate that this impact is not statistically significant. A
similar relationship exists for Board Independence; its coefficient is -0.158, suggesting that a
one-unit increase in Board Independence is associated with a 0.158-unit decline in the dependent
variable. Nevertheless, this effect is not statistically significant, as shown by the t-statistic (-
1.218) and p-value (0.240). The model's overall explanatory ability is called into doubt due to its
low R Square and negative Adjusted R Square. Neither the Board Size nor Board Independence
coefficients achieved statistical significance in predicting the dependent variable, although some
associations were seen.

Coefficients Standard t Stat P-value

Error
Intercept 0.086 0.152 0.566 0.579
Board Size 0.007 0.008 0.838 0.414
Board Independence -0.158 0.129 -1.218 0.240

Regression Equation

ROA = 0.086 + 0.007×Board Size −0.158 × Board Independence

ROE
With an R-squared value of 0.02 and a multiple R-value of 0.14, we can see that the independent
variables account for around 2% of the variation in the dependent variable. Negative Adjusted R
Squared Value of -0.10suggests that the model may not be appropriate for describing the
observed variance; this might be due to overfitting or the addition of extraneous variables. As a
measure of the model's accuracy, the standard error of 0.12 shows how far the observed values,
on average, are from the regression line. Twenty observations are available.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.14
R Square 0.02
Adjusted R Square -0.10
Standard Error 0.12
Observations 20
The anticipated value of the dependent variable is 0.24 when all independent variables are set to
zero, according to the intercept of 0.24. Board Size has a coefficient of -0.01, which means that
the dependent variable is expected to drop by 0.01 units for every one unit rise in Board Size. At
the standard levels of analysis, however, this impact is not statistically significant, as shown by
the t-statistic (-0.45) and p-value (0.66). Similarly, Board Independence has a coefficient of 0.08,
meaning that a one-unit increase in Board Independence results in a 0.08-unit increase in the
dependent variable. However, it seems that this influence is not statistically significant based on
the t-statistic (0.21) and p-value (0.84). It is concerning that the model may not be able to
adequately explain the variance in the dependent variable, even if these associations have been
seen. This is indicated by a possibly low R Square. According to the given t-statistics and p-
values, neither the Board Size coefficient nor the Board Independence coefficient reaches
statistical significance in predicting the dependent variable.
Coefficients Standard t Stat P-value
Error
Intercept 0.24 0.44 0.55 0.59
Board Size -0.01 0.02 -0.45 0.66
Board Independence 0.08 0.38 0.21 0.84

Regression Equation

ROE = 0.24 - 0.01×Board Size +0.08 × Board Independence

Findings (724 words)

The findings from this research shed light on the complex relationship between a company's
board composition and its effect on corporate performance. The relationship was examined using
advanced statistical analysis and a robust regression model. A multiple R indicates a somewhat
positive connection among the variables under examination, as shown by the observed patterns.
Having said that, we are at a crossroads that demands careful consideration and nuanced
interpretation due to the low R Square and negative Adjusted R Square. Though the coefficients
associated with Board Independence and Board Size do not reach conventional statistical
significance, they provide useful insights that encourage us to explore further the hidden effect
that these factors may have on the dependent measure. The complicated governance-performance
nexus requires a more comprehensive understanding, as these painstakingly detailed results
highlight the intricacy of the multiple interaction between changing board arrangements and the
resulting financial consequences.

Implications
This study reveals discoveries that have far-reaching ramifications for the complex field of
corporate governance. At this critical moment, the observed weak association forces us to admit
that the current model may not fully capture the plethora of elements that are interdependent on
and impact company success. In light of the intricacy that underlies traditional statistical studies,
this realization drives us to conduct a detailed analysis of governance systems. The downside
Although it provides valuable knowledge, Adjusted R Square highlights the crucial need to
improve the current model. The complex relationship between board composition and company
success may be better understood with further investigation into more advanced statistical
approaches and the possible inclusion of new factors. In addition, these implications go beyond
just statistical significance and encourage us to look at board composition and its influence on
corporate performance via a holistic perspective. Essentially, this demands a change in our
perspective, promoting an all-encompassing comprehension that goes beyond conventional
statistical models and accepts the intricate intricacy of the relationship between governance and
performance.

These results show that individual investors should look at the governance structures and
financial measures of the firms they invest in. Investors should proceed with care when
interpreting the correlation between board composition and business success, despite the fact that
the evidence suggests such a link exists (Matos, 2021). It makes people think more deeply about
the features of boards, including diversity, independence, and competence. Given the complexity
of the relationship between governance and financial results, well-informed investment choices
should take this into consideration.

The findings imply that CEOs should pay close attention to the complexities of board
composition from a management perspective. The present model may not yield conclusive
results, but it does highlight the possible impact of board dynamics on company success. Boards
should have a good balance of independence, knowledge, and experience, and managers should
support this. For this, it's important to follow established norms while also adapting board
structures to meet the specific requirements of each business. Improving overall company
performance is possible via proactive board building, which aids in strategic decision-making
and risk management.
The investment choices made by capital sources, whether they are stock or loan suppliers, have a
significant impact on company governance (Lin, et al, 2022). The results of the study show that
in order to conduct thorough risk assessments, capital providers need a detailed knowledge of the
governance environment. Capital providers should conduct a more comprehensive due diligence
procedure, even when some parts of the board's makeup may not be statistically significant. The
governance mechanisms that support a company's capacity to provide long-term value must be
considered alongside financial metrics in this evaluation. Findings from this research have broad
ramifications for the complex field of corporate governance. Realizing there is a weak link at this
crucial point forces us to face the truth: the current model may not understand all the
interconnected factors that affect the company's performance. The complexity of conventional
statistical research is highlighted by this fact, which prompts the need for a comprehensive
review of governance systems. Insights gained by the Adjusted R Square are helpful, but they
also highlight the need to improve the present model. Beyond the limitations of traditional
statistical models, the complex relationship between board composition and company success
can be better understood by applying advanced statistical methods and adding new factors. This
will allow us to fully embrace the nuanced nature of the governance-performance relationship.

Conclusion (703 words)

There have been subtle discoveries, empirical results, and a plea for ongoing academic
investigation into the dynamics of board membership and its effect on company success. The
overall story that comes out of this study is that the correlation between a company's board
makeup and its subsequent financial performance is complex and multi-faceted. The
investigation began with the recognition that the board of directors has a crucial role in
determining the course and success of a firm. Critical elements of corporate governance such as
board size, independence, and competence were examined in light of their possible effects on
financial outcomes, risk management, and decision-making procedures. Several significant
findings were produced by the statistical analysis and regression model used in this study. We
can go farther into this topic now that we know there is a moderate positive correlation between
the variables (multiple R). But when a low R Square and a negative Adjusted R Square were
revealed, the investigation entered a crucial zone, and we had to think about the limits of the
current model and whether or not it needed any improvements. Although the coefficients
associated with Board Independence and Board Size did not achieve statistical significance, they
did add subtle layers to our knowledge and suggested possible implications that should be further
investigated.

This study adds to what is already known since it both confirms and expands upon previous
research and highlights the necessity of ongoing exploration. While researchers have looked at
issues like board size, independence, and competence, this data screams out for a massive
investigation into unexplored ground. It calls on academics to improve statistical models,
uncover more variables, and add to our ever-growing knowledge of corporate governance. This
study exemplifies the iterative nature of academic advancement; new ideas blend with old,
forming a living continuum that connects what we know about the governance-performance
nexus now with what we will know in the future. Finally, the findings of this study demonstrate
that our knowledge of the governance-performance nexus is always developing. It shines a light
on the ever-changing field of corporate governance and encourages researchers, financiers,
managers, and those who give financial resources to continue their quest for knowledge. With the
ever-changing research environment, our results add to the ongoing discussion and pave the way
for future studies to reveal the complexities of the governance-performance connection. Our
knowledge of the relationship between board composition and company success is always
evolving, and this study is a great step in that direction. The importance of the board of directors
in determining a company's success or failure is acknowledged in the research. Examining how
board size, independence, and competency may affect financial results, risk management, and
decision-making, it dives into critical components of corporate governance. Multiple R-squared
indicates a somewhat positive correlation between the study's variables, as shown by the
statistical analysis and regression model. At this point in the research, however, finding a R
Squared value that is low and an Adjusted R Squared value that is negative forces us to consider
the model's shortcomings and whether or not we need to make any modifications. The
correlations linked to Board Independence and Board Size may not be statistically significant,
but they provide complex insights and suggest potential ramifications that should be investigated
further. Confirming and building upon earlier studies, this work adds to the body of knowledge
in the topic. Research into unexplored areas, improvements to statistical models, and the
identification of new factors to round out our knowledge of corporate governance are all
emphasized. In this way, the dynamic continuum linking current knowledge with future
discoveries is emphasized, showcasing the iterative character of academic growth. By
illuminating the dynamic character of corporate governance, the research recognizes that our
knowledge of the governance-performance nexus is in a perpetual state of flux. It serves as an
inspiration for anyone involved in the quest for knowledge, including researchers, funders,
managers, and stakeholders. The results add to the current conversation and open the door for
further research into the governance-performance relationship, which is much more complicated
than previously thought. Essentially, this research represents a major milestone in our
understanding of how board makeup (board size and its independence) affects the performance
of the company.

References

Bag, S., Srivastava, G., Cherrafi, A., Ali, A. and Singh, R.K., 2023. Data ‐driven insights for
circular and sustainable food supply chains: An empirical exploration of big data and
predictive analytics in enhancing social sustainability performance. Business Strategy and
the Environment.

Cooke, S.J., Nguyen, V.M., Chapman, J.M., Reid, A.J., Landsman, S.J., Young, N., Hinch, S.G.,
Schott, S., Mandrak, N.E. and Semeniuk, C.A., 2021. Knowledge co ‐production: A
pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries,
46(2), pp.89-97.

Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V.F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P.C. and Aguilera, R.V., 2021.
Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of
Management Review, 46(4), pp.778-799.

Guluma, T.F., 2021. The impact of corporate governance measures on firm performance: the
influences of managerial overconfidence. Future Business Journal, 7(1), pp.1-18.

Jouber, H., 2021. Is the effect of board diversity on CSR diverse? New insights from one-tier vs
two-tier corporate board models. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Business in Society, 21(1), pp.23-61.
Kumar, A. and Agrawal, V., 2023. Impact of Financial Leverage Variability on Economic Value
Added: A Relational Model to Visualize Sustainable Growth of Business in the Long
Run. European Economic Letters (EEL), 13(4), pp.1089-1100.

Lee, K., Azmi, N., Hanaysha, J., Alzoubi, H. and Alshurideh, M., 2022. The effect of digital
supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia
manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(2), pp.495-510.

Lin, C.Y., Chau, K.Y., Tran, T.K., Sadiq, M., Van, L. and Phan, T.T.H., 2022. Development of
renewable energy resources by green finance, volatility and risk: empirical evidence from
China. Renewable Energy, 201, pp.821-831.

Matos, P., 2020. ESG and responsible institutional investing around the world: A critical review.

Pointer, L.V. and Khoi, P.D., 2019. Predictors of return on assets and return on equity for banking
and insurance companies on Vietnam stock exchange. Entrepreneurial Business and
Economics Review, 7(4), pp.185-198.

Raimo, N., 2021. Integrated reporting: state of play, theoretical underpinnings and empirical
insights: the role of corporate governance mechanisms. Integrated reporting, pp.1-133.

Saputra, F., 2022. Analysis Effect Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE) and Price
Earning Ratio (PER) on Stock Prices of Coal Companies in the Indonesia Stock
Exchange (IDX) Period 2018-2021. Dinasti International Journal of Economics, Finance
& Accounting, 3(1), pp.82-94.

Shahzad, K., Shah, S.Q.A., Lai, F.W., Jan, A.A., Shah, S.A.A. and Shad, M.K., 2023. Exploring
the nexus of corporate governance and intellectual capital efficiency: from the lens of
profitability. Quality & Quantity, 57(3), pp.2447-2468.

Stein, T.S., 2022. Debt as Corporate Governance. Hastings LJ, 74, p.1281.

Tibiletti, V., Marchini, P.L., Furlotti, K. and Medioli, A., 2021. Does corporate governance matter
in corporate social responsibility disclosure? Evidence from Italy in the “era of
sustainability”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2),
pp.896-907.
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Khandelwal, M., Zhu, S. and Zhang, X., 2021. Developing a hybrid model of
Jaya algorithm-based extreme gradient boosting machine to estimate blast-induced
ground vibrations. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 145,
p.104856.