Market share and firm performance: Moderated and mediating effects of firm size and corporate governance
-
Received September 8, 2024;Accepted December 14, 2024;Published December 30, 2024
-
Author(s)Link to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2197-3851Link to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9482-6548Link to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9966-2013
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(4).2024.52
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2024, Issue #4, pp. 683-692
- TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
- 78 Views
-
13 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Firm performance is of global interest for sustainable growth and is a function of multiple factors. Market share is often considered the source of competitive position and ability to generate financial performance. By understanding these dynamics, organizations can develop tailored strategies incorporating corporate governance to enhance competitiveness for improved performance outcomes. This study examines the impact of market share on firm performance, considering the moderated effect of firm size and mediating effects of corporate governance with capital structure, growth, and innovation as control variables. This study relies on seven-year firm-level data, utilizing an uneven sample of 40 non-financial companies listed on the Nepal Stock Exchange (NSE) and encompassing 280 observations. A causal-comparative research design was used with Process Macro tools in a moderated mediating model to examine the hypotheses. The results revealed a significant impact of market share on firm performance, i.e., ROA (β = 0.195, p < 0.01) and Tobin’s Q (β = 0.232, p < 0.01). Additionally, firm size moderated negatively (β = –0.82, p < 0.01), while corporate governance positively mediated the relationship (β = 0.184, p < 0.01; Tobin’s Q: β = 0.188, p < 0.05). Control variables had no significant impact on corporate governance. The study highlights the implication of balance of market share, corporate governance, and innovation with firm size for the firm’s performance. By utilizing these insights, firms can create strategic initiatives to boost competitiveness, improve resource allocation, and reinforce governance practices.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge all the individuals who supported this research process directly and indirectly. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on improving the quality of the paper.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G30, G32, L25
-
References54
-
Tables3
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Study framework
-
- Table 1. Descriptive statistics
- Table 2. Regression result
- Table 3. Moderating effects
-
- Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., Bano, S., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The effects of corporate social responsibility practices and environmental factors through a moderating role of social media marketing on sustainable performance of business firms. Sustainability, 11(12), Article 3434.
- Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2013). Product market competition, corporate governance, and firm value: Evidence from the EU area. European Financial Management, 19(3), 452-469.
- Ariss, R. T. (2010). On the implications of market power in banking: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(4), 765-775.
- Belloc, F. (2012). Corporate governance and innovation: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(5), 835-864.
- Benito-Osorio, D., Colino, A., Guerras-Martín, L. Á., & Zúñiga-Vicente, J. Á. (2016). The international diversification-performance link in Spain: Does firm size really matter? International Business Review, 25(2), 548-558.
- Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 257-273.
- Bhattacharya, A., Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2022). Examining why and when market share drives firm profit. Journal of Marketing, 86(4), 73-94.
- Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Does product market competition lead firms to decentralize? American Economic Review, 100(2), 434-438.
- Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.-C., & Guedhami, O. (2005). Liberalization, corporate governance and the performance of privatized firms in developing countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(5), 767-790.
- Brander, J. A., & Lewis, T. R. (1986). Oligopoly and financial structure: The limited liability effect. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 956-970.
- Byukusenge, E., Munene, J., & Orobia, L. (2016). Knowledge management and business performance: Mediating effect of innovation. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 4(4), 82-92.
- Campello, M., & Hackbarth, D. (2012). The firm-level credit multiplier. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 21(3), 446-472.
- Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: The roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 326-342.
- Christensen, J., Kent, P., Routledge, J., & Stewart, J. (2015). Do corporate governance recommendations improve the performance and accountability of small listed companies? Accounting & Finance, 55(1), 133-164.
- Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175-210.
- Dang, C., Li, Z. F., & Yang, C. (2018). Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 86, 159-176.
- Das, S. C. (2022). Corporate governance: Codes, systems, standards and practices. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
- Edeling, A., & Himme, A. (2018). When does market share matter? New empirical generalizations from a meta-analysis of the market share – Performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 1-24.
- Farida, I., & Setiawan, D. (2022). Business strategies and competitive advantage: The role of performance and innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), Article 163.
- Fosu, S. (2013). Capital structure, product market competition, and firm performance: Evidence from South Africa. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 53(2), 140-151.
- Frank, M. Z., Goyal, V. K., & Shen, T. (2020). The pecking order theory of capital structure: Where do we stand? In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance.
- Giroud, X., & Mueller, H. M. (2011). Corporate governance, product market competition, and equity prices. The Journal of Finance, 66(2), 563-600.
- Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107-156.
- Haniffa, R., & Hudaib, M. (2006). Corporate governance structure and performance of Malaysian listed companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7-8), 1034-1062.
- Huang, Z.-x., Savita, K., & Zhong-jie, J. (2022). The business intelligence impact on the financial performance of start-ups. Information Processing & Management, 59(1), Article 102761.
- Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 492-509.
- Jain, B. A., Li, J., & Shao, Y. (2013). Governance, product market competition and cash management in IPO firms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(6), 2052-2068.
- Javed, M., Rashid, M. A., Hussain, G., & Ali, H. Y. (2020). The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1395-1409.
- Javeed, S. A., Latief, R., & Lefen, L. (2020). An analysis of relationship between environmental regulations and firm performance with moderating effects of product market competition: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, Article 120197.
- Jiraporn, P., Chintrakarn, P., & Liu, Y. (2012). Capital structure, CEO dominance, and corporate performance. Journal of Financial Services Research, 42, 139-158.
- Klock, M. S., Mansi, S. A., & Maxwell, W. F. (2005). Does corporate governance matter to bondholders? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40(4), 693-719.
- Le, T. P., & Phan, T. B. N. (2017). Capital structure and firm performance: Empirical evidence from a small transition country. Research in International Business and Finance, 42, 710-726.
- Lee, R., Lee, J.-H., & Garrett, T. C. (2019). Synergy effects of innovation on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 99, 507-515.
- Li, H., & Chen, P. (2018). Board gender diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of firm size. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(4), 294-308.
- Li, M., Lu, Y., & Phillips, G. M. (2019). CEOs and the product market: when are powerful CEOs beneficial? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 54(6), 2295-2326.
- Liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., Abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2022). Product market competition and firm performance: Business survival through innovation and entrepreneurial orientation amid COVID-19 financial crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 790923.
- Michaelides, P. G., Tsionas, E. G., Konstantakis, K. N., & Xidonas, P. (2019). The impact of market competition on CEO salary in the US energy sector. Energy Policy, 132, 32-37.
- Mubeen, R., Han, D., Abbas, J., Álvarez-Otero, S., & Sial, M. S. (2021). The relationship between CEO duality and business firms’ performance: The moderating role of firm size and corporate social responsibility. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 669715.
- Mubeen, R., Han, D., Abbas, J., Raza, S., & Bodian, W. (2022). Examining the relationship between product market competition and Chinese firms performance: The mediating impact of capital structure and moderating influence of firm size. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 709678.
- Pham, P. K., Suchard, J.-A., & Zein, J. (2011). Corporate governance and alternative performance measures: Evidence from Australian firms. Australian Journal of Management, 36(3), 371-386.
- Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341-350.
- Salim, M., & Yadav, R. (2012). Capital structure and firm performance: Evidence from Malaysian listed companies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 156-166.
- Sattar, U., Javeed, S. A., & Latief, R. (2020). How audit quality affects the firm performance with the moderating role of the product market competition: Empirical evidence from Pakistani manufacturing firms. Sustainability, 12(10), Article 4153.
- Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237.
- Sheikh, S. (2018). CEO power, product market competition and firm value. Research in International Business and Finance, 46, 373-386.
- Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 39-42.
- Simerly, R. L., & Li, M. (2000). Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: A theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 31-49.
- Sridhar, S., Narayanan, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2014). Dynamic relationships among R&D, advertising, inventory and firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 277-290.
- Su, X., Xu, A., Lin, W., Chen, Y., Liu, S., & Xu, W. (2020). Environmental leadership, green innovation practices, environmental knowledge learning, and firm performance. Sage Open, 10(2).
- Sulong, S., Saleem, Q., & Ahmed, Z. (2018). The role of stock market development in influencing the firms’ performance: A study based on Pakistan stock market. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 10(12), 104-114.
- Ting, I. W. K., Tebourbi, I., Lu, W.-M., & Kweh, Q. L. (2021). The effects of managerial ability on firm performance and the mediating role of capital structure: Evidence from Taiwan. Financial Innovation, 7(1), Article 89.
- Tingvall, P. G., & Poldahl, A. (2006). Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(2), 101-118.
- Wernerfelt, B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1988). Tobin’s q and the importance of focus in firm performance. The American Economic Review, 78(1), 246-250.
- Zou, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H., & Xie, X. (2015). Top executives’ compensation, industrial competition, and corporate environmental performance: Evidence from China. Management Decision, 53(9), 2036-2059.
-
-
Conceptualization
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal
-
Data curation
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal
-
Formal Analysis
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal, Padam Raj Joshi
-
Investigation
Prakash Kumar Gautam
-
Methodology
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal
-
Project administration
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal, Padam Raj Joshi
-
Software
Prakash Kumar Gautam
-
Supervision
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal, Padam Raj Joshi
-
Validation
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal, Padam Raj Joshi
-
Writing – original draft
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Prem Prasad Silwal
-
Writing – review & editing
Prakash Kumar Gautam, Padam Raj Joshi
-
Funding acquisition
Padam Raj Joshi
-
Resources
Padam Raj Joshi
-
Conceptualization
-
Non-financial factors affecting the operational performance of hospitality companies: Evidence from Vietnam
Trung Kien Phan , Thi Hong Thuy Nguyen , Thu Ha Dang , Van Thuan Tran , Kim Ngoc Le doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.05Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #4 pp. 48-62 Views: 9204 Downloads: 1422 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯNon-financial factors including quality of services, the flexibility of a company, utilization of resources, and market orientation are regarded as significant determinants that enhance the profitability-based performance of a service company or a hotel. The study investigated the interaction between these factors and hotel operating performance measured by the hospitality performance and results indicators. Data on 346 executives of Vietnam’s hospitality companies were collected. A structural equation modeling (SEM) method was utilized to examine the positive-direct and moderating effects of non-financial factors on hotel performance in terms of occupancy rate (OCR), average daily rate (ADR), and the revenue per available room (RevPAR). The findings showed that service quality ( = 0.118, p < 0.05), flexibility ( = 0.173, p < 0.05) and resource utilization (= 0.172, p < 0.05) positively affected the performance of Vietnam’s hospitality companies. Meanwhile, innovation showed no direct influence (p = 0.068) but an indirect impact on the performance through service quality ( = 0.311, p < 0.05). Market orientation did not impact the performance (p = 0.076) but it positively affected both innovation ( = 0.322, p < 0.05) and service quality ( = 0.146, p < 0.05). The study contributed to a theoretical enhancement of the current level of knowledge on the factors that affect the performance and developed a reliable scale for measuring the performance of hotels in Vietnam.
-
Exploring fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) small, medium and micro enterprises manufacturers’ need for innovation to achieve growth
Lawrence Mpele Lekhanya , Nze Grace Olajumoke , Dorasamy Nirmala doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(2).2017.01Environmental Economics Volume 8, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 8-16 Views: 5604 Downloads: 1179 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the problems of the sustainable development, to explore the level of innovation in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturing SMMEs sectors, which most affects on the state of the environment, to identify the causes of low innovation in the industry and to examine these factors influence on the effectiveness of SMMEs manufacturers innovation strategies, as well as to invent a new innovation strategic approach to overcome innovation problems in the economic growth of fast moving consumer goods SMMEs manufacturers. The study is aimed to determine the level of innovation and factors contributing to low innovation in fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) SMMEs manufacturers, which hinder their economic performance. Mixed approach of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire is used for primary data collection. Sample consists of 120 SMMEs. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (23.0) was employed for data analysis. The study results are presented with figures and diagrams. This study will be a useful tool for general public and relevant stakeholders in this sector.
-
Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 19-35 Views: 4554 Downloads: 1726 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯCorporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.