Shah Wan 2020
Shah Wan 2020
Shah Wan 2020
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight
at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm
Abstract
Purpose – Using data on 51 firms traded in the Egyptian Exchange from 2014 to 2016, this paper to assess
the efficiency of corporate governance (CG) and intellectual capital (IC) practices and to explore their
influence on the probability of a firm's financial distress.
Design/methodology/approach – The relative efficiency of CG and IC practices has been measured under
the Malmquist data envelopment analysis model. A modified Z-score model was applied to assess firms'
financial distress.
Findings – The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed almost insignificant evidence regarding the improvement
of CG and IC efficiency over the study period. The efficiency score of CG practices had no impact on the
likelihood of financial distress. However, the efficiency score of IC negatively affected the probability of
financial distress.
Research limitations/implications – The integration of data envelopment analysis with Tobit regression was
required for identifying the significant drivers of efficient CG and IC.
Practical implications –The findings shed light on the role of CG and IC in alleviating the degree of financial
distress in Egypt as an emerging market, especially the need to raise firms' compliance with the Egyptian
CG code from a voluntary to mandatory status.
Originality/value – This study, using Malmquist data envelopment analysis, is among the first attempts to
assess the relative efficiency of CG and IC practices and their effects on financial distress.
Keywords Corporate governance index, Intellectual capital performance, Relative efficiency, Financial
distress, Egypt Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The existence of the “principal-agent problem” defined by Jensen and Meckling (1976) has
attracted the attention of numerous researchers and practitioners to investigate different
approaches for controlling conflict of interest between managers and shareholders. One of
the prominent approaches for handling such an agency problem is to adopt and implement
the best practices of corporate governance (CG). Many have sought to ascertain the quality
of CG practices and their role in improving a firm's financial performance and minimizing
different types of risks, particularly the risk of financial distress (eg Manzaneque et al.,
2016; Udin et al., 2017; Nasir and Ali, 2018; Luqman et al., 2018). For instance,
Gruszczynski (2006) confirms the negative association between the adoption of CG best
practices and the likelihood of the firm's financial distress. Mardly et al. (2018) point out
that the ownership structure as one of the basic dimensions of CG positively affects the Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2020
financial performance of Syrian firms. As argued by Wang and Deng (2006) and Oteng- pp. 403-430
Abayie et al. (2018), the adoption of high-quality CG mechanisms as a tool for controlling © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
the agency problem tends to sustain a high level of firm performance and preserve firms from the
DOI risk of financial distr
10.1108/JIC-06-2019-0143
Machine Translated by Google
JIC Moreover, Luqman et al. (2018) show that the voluntary adoption of CG attributes minimizes
the level of financial distress. However, Shahwan (2015) documents an insignificant negative
21.3
association between CG and the probability of financial distress. Pramudena (2017) also
concludes that the proportion of commissioners and the number of directors positively
influence the likelihood of financial distress.
In the context of intellectual capital (IC), numerous studies have also been directed to
examining the role of IC in enhancing financial performance and hence reducing the likelihood
404 of financial distress (eg Pour et al., 2014; Nadeem et al., 2016; Nawaz, 2017; Cenciarelliet
al., 2018). The key findings of these studies empirically support the role of IC as a strategic
asset in enhancing the firm's competitiveness, the firm value, asset management capabilities
and hence minimizing the financial distress risk.
Another stream of literature has also been directed to investigate the association between
CG mechanisms and IC (eg Ho and William, 2003; Safieddine et al., 2009; Altuner et al.,
2015; Nadeem et al., 2017). The empirical findings of these studies are not conclusive as
they show mixed evidence regarding such association and their impact on firm financial performance.
For instance, Faisal et al. (2016) show that board composition has no impact on IC efficiency
while CEO duality and board meetings negatively affect IC efficiency. Moreover, board size
and director's ownership positively affect IC efficiency.
Similarly, a high level of efficiency plays a critical role in achieving competitive advantage
and ensuring excellent performance. According to March and Sutton (1997), a high level of
efficiency may be key to ensuring the survival of any business organization. Failure to attain
this level adversely affects customers' expectations and their loyalty (Hackman and Wageman,
1995; Armstrong et al., 1997; Cook and Verma, 2002; Evans, 2011). Shenher et al. (1997)
argued that project efficiency is one of the four major dimensions required for assessing the
degree of project success. As documented by Serrador and Turner (2014), project efficiency
is correlated to 0.6 of a project's overall success. In addition, an accurate estimate of efficiency
tends to drive decision-makers to optimize the use of their organizational resources by
enhancing either pure technical efficiency or efficiency of scale. As a result, much effort has
been exerted to measure the relative efficiency of firms[1] in various industries via data
envelopment analysis (DEA) as an alternative to accounting indices[2]. In the retail industry,
Barros (2006) and Gandhi and Shankar (2014) have written papers; in banking, Luo et al.
(2012) and Shahwan and Hassan (2013); among health workers, Asanduluia et al. (2014); in
libraries and universities, Essid et al. (2010) and Shahwan and Kabe (2013); and in the airline
industry, Hong and Zhang (2010); Fuentes (2011). However, to the best of our knowledge, no
study has been conducted to investigate how a firm's relative performance in CG and IC
influences financial distress, especially in developing countries such as Egypt.
In Egypt (as an emerging market), a shift was observed in 1991 from the domination of a
central market economy to the adoption of a free market. One of the most important effects
of this economic transformation has been the increased interest in the level and quality of CG
practices within Egyptian corporations. In early 2001, through a joint project between the
World Bank and the Ministry of Foreign Trade, the quality of CG practices was assessed in
the light of the best practices formulated by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) (Shahwan, 2015) . In view of these developments, a voluntary Egyptian
code was issued in 2005 by the Egyptian Institute of Directors (Ebaid, 2011). Later, in October
2006, the Egyptian Businessmen's Association also issued a CG guide for family companies,
which was the first guide in Egypt and the Middle East for family business governance seeking
to develop sustainable business practices (Egyptian Institute of Directors [EIoD], 2016 ).
Then, in 2011, the Egyptian Institute of Directors (EIoD) issued the first amendment to the
CG code of 2005, so as to keep up to date with the best practices at the regional and
international levels. A second update was introduced by the EIoD in August 2016, in order to
Machine Translated by Google
help firms achieve the highest levels of efficiency and sustainability. The latest report on the Economic
observance of standards and codes (ROSC) issued by the World Bank shows that Egypt on convergence of
average has partially adopted and implemented the best practices of CG proposed by the
OECD (The World Bank, 2009).
output club
Regarding IC practices in Egypt, many of these practices are not well revealed due to a
high level of secrecy imposed by Egyptian firms. Moreover, the absence of mandatory
regulations decreases the disclosure level of the IC efficiency within Egyptian firms.
405
According to the Human Capital Index issued by the World Bank, Egypt achieved a score of
0.49 in 2018, where Egypt ranked 104 out of 157 countries worldwide (World Bank, 2019a, b).
Although many have studied ways of assessing the quality of CG and IC, the results have
not so far been comprehensive, for many reasons. First, no single CG indicator can be
considered appropriate for all (Munisi and Randoy, 2013; Rygh, 2016). Second, most scholars
have failed to assess the relative efficiency of CG and IC using DEA. Thus, this study helps
to extend the literature on efficiency analysis via the use of DEA to assess the relative
efficiency of Egyptian listed firms from two standpoints, CG and IC. Moreover, the present
study sheds light on the impact of these two types of efficiency on the probability of a firm's
financial distress. Accordingly, the present study investigates the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the relative efficiency scores of Egyptian listed firms with respect to
corporate governance and intellectual capital practices?
RQ2. Are there, on average, significant differences between the firms under study regarding
the efficiency of corporate governance practices?
RQ3. Are there, on average, significant differences between the firms under study regarding
the efficiency of the intellectual capital practices?
RQ4. Do the efficiencies of corporate governance and intellectual capital have any
significant negative impact on the likelihood of a firm's financial distress?
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. A literature review and the development of
hypotheses are covered in section 2. Section 3 presents the measurement of variables.
Section 4 describes the data collection and methodology. Section 5 reports the results and
analyses. Finally, the conclusions and implications are outlined in section 6.
JIC In addition, Shahwan (2015) points out that CG practices within Egyptian firms have an
insignificant impact on the likelihood of financial distress.
21.3
An additional growing body of literature has also investigated the impact of CG on a firm's
efficiency. Adnan et al. (2011) examine the linkage between CG mechanisms and efficiency of
Malaysian listed banks. The empirical findings support the positive effects of smaller board size
and a higher percentage of ownership concentration on bank efficiency. Peixoto et al. (2011)
demonstrate that a firm's efficiency is associated with good government, attributable to the
406 significant positive association between the governance index and the DEA efficiency score.
Oteng-Abayie et al. (2018) also investigated the impact of CG mechanisms on the technical
efficiency scores of rural and community banks (RCB) in Ghana. The findings reveal a
significant impact of the board member's number, the board meetings' frequency, and corporate
social responsibility on RCB efficiency. Moreover, Andrieÿet al. (2018) confirm that rigid and
the best practices of CG lead to an increase in both bank's cost and technical efficiency. It
should be noted that there is a scarcity of literature on this subject, particularly when the
Egyptian context and nonfinancial firms are considered.
In the context of IC efficiency and its impact on firm performance, the extant literature affirms
the positive association between the firm's competitive advantage and the performance of the
firm's IC (eg Barney, 1991; Marr and Schium, 2001; Tovstiga and Tulugurova, 2009; Kamukama
et al., 2011). For instance, Marr and Schium (2001) support the significant influence of IC on
the firm's competitive position and financial performance.
Kamukama et al. (2011) also assert this positive impact on micro-financed firms' financial
performance. At the same time, Kamukama et al. (2011) argue that competitive advantage as
a mediator affects the association between IC and financial performance, because the
uniqueness of a firm's intellectual assets makes it hard for others to imitate the firm's products.
In addition, the efficiency of IC may well be linked with resource-based theory, which postulates
that controlling the firm's tangible and intangible assets can earn sustainable advantage and
value-added, which are positively reflected in the firm's performance (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2003 ;
Chen et al., 2005). The value-added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) is increasing being used in
business and academic applications as an aggregate measure of IC capacity in a firm (eg
Yalama and Coskun, 2007; Muhammad and Ismail, 2009; Baye, 2014).
Overall, the aforementioned studies – on the one hand – have provided mixed evidence
regarding the impact of CG on the firm performance and the likelihood of financial distress. On
the other hand, the majority of studies have revealed that good practices of IC would enhance
a firm's long-term financial health. At the same time, the aforementioned studies pay little
attention to the use of DEA as a nonparametric technique for assessing the relative efficiency
of the decision-making units (DMUs) against their competitors with respect to CG practices and IC.
Based on these arguments, this study is, as far as could be discovered, one of the first attempts
to use Malmquist DEA for assessing the efficiency level of CG and IC practices within Egyptian
firms. To this end, the present study aims to test the following hypotheses:-
H1. On average, there were statistically significant differences in a firm's corporate
governance efficiency score over the study period.
H2. On average, there were statistically significant differences in a firm's intellectual
capital efficiency score over the study period.
2.2 The link between the efficiency of corporate governance, intellectual capital, and financial
distress risk The diversity of risks surrounding business organizations, especially the adverse
consequences of the last financial crisis, has threatened the continuity of the presence of
Machine Translated by Google
many institutions all over the world (OECD, 2009). In both developing and emerging Economic
economies, there are notable fluctuations in the likelihood of financial distress and bankruptcy.
Outecheva (2007) justifies such variations in the number of defaults as a reflection of the
convergence of
market's cyclicality. For instance, according to KPMG distressed debt investment and exit output club
strategy survey issued in (2007), the nonperforming loans in Germany gradually increased
from V100 billion in 2005 to V150.3 billion in 2007. Moreover, the report of corporate default
and recovery rates issued by Moody's investor service in (2018) indicates a decrease in total
defaults from 143 firms all over the world in 2016 to 91 firms in 2017, with $78 billion as a 407
total value of defaults in 2017. In the context of Egypt as an emerging market , the World
Bank report issued in 2019 shows that the average value of the nonperforming loans ratio
scored 4.2 percent in 2019, compared with the ratio of 19.3 percent during the financial crisis
in 2007. This remarkable decline in bank nonperforming loans to gross loans for Egypt and
other countries, on one hand, enhances the confidence in the financial system.
On the other hand, a high level of volatility in this ratio reflects uncertainty regarding the
efficiency of corporate borrowers' management.
Accordingly, this high level of fluctuations in the nonperforming loans ratio attracts the
attention of relevant stakeholders, that is, creditors, investors, employees, owners, and
managers for constructing a financial model to predict the risk of financial default before its
occurrence or identifying the significant determinants of the financial distress phenomenon.
In this vein, since the 1960s, many studies have focused on the development of financial
models and the trade-off among numerous quantitative and statistical methods in order to
develop an analytical method or mechanism for predicting the occurrence of a financial
distress well in advance ( Mselmi et al., 2017; Mansouri et al., 2016; Pustylnick, 2011;
Daines et al., 2010; Altman, 1983; Ohlson, 1980; Altman, 1968; Beaver, 1966).
In the framework of seeking to build such an early warning system for financial distress,
recent studies related to financial distress also suggest that CG mechanisms and IC could
have a significant impact on the likelihood of a firm's financial distress (Cardoso et al., 2019;
Udin et al., 2017; Shahwan, 2015; Elloumi and Gueyie, 2001; Demirkan and Platt, 2009; Liet
al., 2008; Lieu et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2002). For instance, Cardoso et al. (2019) support
the existence of a significant U-shaped format between the board size and the likelihood of
firm financial distress. Udin et al. (2017) examine the impact of ownership structure as a
major attribute of CG mechanisms on the financial distress using 146 Pakistani public limited firms.
The findings reveal a significant negative relationship between foreign shareholders and the
likelihood of financial distress. However, insider ownership has a significant positive
association with financial distress. Moreover, both government ownership and institutional
ownership have an insignificant impact on the probability of financial distress. Demirkan and
Platt (2009) show that firms are less likely to be engaged in accruals management under
good governance attributes. Li et al. (2008) also point out that ownership concentration,
state ownership, independent directors, and ultimate owner have a negative impact on the
probability of financial distress. However, the association between managerial ownership
and the probability of financial distress is insignificant. Lieu et al. (2008) argue that financial
distress is less likely to have occurred when a firm increasing depends on independent
directors and supervisors.
In a similar context, Muranda (2006) shows that the board's power imbalance can be
attributed to the small number of nonexecutive directors, hence, increasing the occurrence
of financial distress. This implies that increasing the number of nonexecutive directors would
restore the board balance. Elloumi and Gueyie (2001) also report that the composition of the
board of directors is the major determinant of financially distressed firms. However, Boyd
(1995) and Dowellet al. (2011) argue that the effectiveness of CG mechanisms for reducing
the firm's financial distress mainly depends on the firm and environmental characteristics.
Abdullah (2006) also finds no linkage between the financial distress status and both of board
Machine Translated by Google
JIC independence and the duality of CEO. It should be noted that there is an inconclusive
agreement regarding the impact of CG on a firm's financial distress.
21.3
In the context of the association between IC and financial distress risk, several studies
support the positive impact of IC on the likelihood of firm's financial distress (eg Kennedy
and Beyerlein, 2005; Cabrita and Bontis, 2008; Zeghal and Maaloul, 2010; Mehralian et al.,
2012; Ardalan and Askarian, 2014; Mollabashi and Sendani, 2014; Pour et al., 2014; Nadeem
et al., 2016; Dzenopoljac et al., 2016; Nawaz, 2017; Cenciarelliet al., 2018). For instance,
408 Yosano and Koga (2008) document a direct impact of IC indicators on the credit condition of
small and medium-sized Japanese firms. Guim on (2005) also supports the positive impact
of IC on the firm's financial health over the long term. Dumay and Tull (2007) concluded that
IC efficiency leads to a decline in a firm's cost of debt and an increase in its market value,
thus ensuring the stability of the firm's financial health. Tseng et al. (2013) confirm the
significant impact of IC on the firm's financial performance in years of prefinancial and
postfinancial crisis. Nadeem et al. (2016) concluded that IC indicators should be used as
significant predictors in the corporate financial distress model. Cenciarelliet al. (2018) also
concluded that IC has a negative impact on the likelihood of default. Based on the theoretical
framework and empirical results of the relationship between CG attributes, IC, and financial
distress, the current study is hypothesized that:
H3. The efficiency of corporate governance negatively affects a firm's financial distress.
H4. The efficiency of intellectual capital negatively affects a firm's financial distress.
3. Measuring corporate governance, intellectual capital, and financial distress 3.1 The
aggregate corporate governance index (ACGINX)
The present study makes use of the aggregate corporate governance index (ACGINX)
developed by Abousamak and Shahwan (2018). This index is constructed to assess the
quality of CG practices in accordance with the best practices mentioned in the Egyptian
corporate governance code issued in February 2011. The index contains 32 items divided
into four subindices, as follows: (1) board of directors subindex ( BODINX) with 10 items; (2)
disclosure and transparency subindex (DINX), with 11 items; (3) ownership and control
structure subindex (OWINX), with six items; and (4) shareholders' rights and investor
relations subindex (SRINX ), with five items. A detailed description of these items may be
found in Abousamak and Shahwan (2018, pp. 345–346).
Following Ferguson et al. (2002), and Kamel and Shahwan (2014), only insignificant
differences lie between the weighted and the unweighted approach in scoring the CG indices.
Here, the weighted dichotomous approach was deployed to score the ACGINX. Following
Shahwan (2015), each item within each subindex gets a score of “1” in the case of “item
availability” and “0” otherwise. The aggregate score for each subindex, namely BODINX,
DTINX, OWINX, and SRINX, is calculated by adding the sum of CG scores obtained for each
item within these subindices. Following Javaid and Saboor (2015), the aggregate CG score
for each firm is simply the average of the aggregated subindices scores. This implies that
equal weight has been assigned to each of those four subindices.
measure of IC performance. Chu et al. (2011) argue that the VAIC model and its components can be Economic
powerful predictors of firm financial performance. Mehralian et al. (2012) also support the use of
VAIC model as a good predictor for the firm's profitability rather than the firm's productivity. However,
convergence of
some studies point out some limitations of the VAIC model (Maditinos et al., 2011; Stahle et al., output club
2011). As argued by Stahle et al. (2011), the VAIC model can be merely considered as an investment
model in both labor and capital as the VAIC model has nothing to do with the IC. Iazzolino and Laise
(2013) concluded that the VAIC is not a proper proxy for the value of intellectual capital. Andriessen
(2004) also shows that the VAIC model does not differentiate between capital and expenditures. 409
Moreover, Cenciarelli et al. (2018) argue that the VAIC does not consider the holistic aspect of IC.
Accordingly, the VAIC should be used as an indicator for value creation via the IC contribution.
Moreover, the results of the VAIC model should be interpreted with caution due to the aforementioned
drawbacks.
Following Leitneret al., 2005; Al-Musali and Ismail (2012); Al-Musali and Ismail (2014); and Pour
et al. (2014), the VAIC can be mathematically described as: VAIC CEE HCE SCE
(1)
where CEE represents the efficiency of capital employed. HCE refers to human capital efficiency and
SCE refers to structural capital efficiency.
CEE is mathematically measured by dividing the value-added (VA) for a company to the book
value of the net asset (CE), where the value-added for company (VA) represents the sum of operating
profits (OP), total employee costs (EC), depreciation (D), and amortization (A).
HCE refers to human capital efficiency, which can be quantitatively measured by dividing
the value-added (VA) to the total salaries and wages (HC) for the company.
Finally, the structural capital efficiency (SCE) can also be computed by referring the structural
capital (SC) of a specific firm to its value-added (VA), where the structural capital (SC) for company
5 (VA–HC).
where:
JIC On one hand, firms with Z-score above 4.15 are classified as healthy ones. On the other
hand, firms with Z-score below 4.15 are treated as financially distressed firms. This implies
21.3
that “Z-Score” in the coming section (4.2.2) is either “1” if the firm is classified as a distressed
firm or “0” if it is a healthy one.
Regarding the control variables used in the present study, as argued by Daily and Dalton
(1994), Mollabashi and Sendani (2014), and Shahwan (2015), certain firm-specific variables,
namely, firm size, leverage, return on assets ( ROA), and industry type, were adopted as
410 control variables. The firm size was computed by taking the natural logarithm of the firm's
total assets. Previous studies indicate that firm size is one of the main determinants
influencing the firm's financial distress According to Dong et al. (2014) and Chakraborty et
al. (2018), large firms tend to be less risky due to their ability to diversify risks. Moreover,
Chung et al. (2010) argued that firm size also affects governance quality because of investor
interests and scrutiny. As a result, the corporate size is expected to be negatively associated
with corporate financial distress risk. The leverage was defined as the ratio of total debt to
total assets. Following Shahwan (2015), in an emerging market like Egypt where the capital
structure of Egyptian firms heavily depends on debt financing, it is expected in the current
study that leverage is positively associated with the corporate financial distress risk.
The ROA was calculated as the ratio of net income to total assets. Based on the pecking
order theory, Myers and Majluf (1984) argue that highly profitable firms heavily depend on
their internally generated cash flows rather than on debt as a source of funds. Thus, it is
expected that ROA is negatively associated with the firm's risks. The industry type was
defined as a dichotomous variable. The value of “1” was given when the firm belonged to the
sector and “0” otherwise.
leverage, and ROA) indicated a significant difference between the selected sectors at a
significance level of 0.05 or less.
Table III shows the descriptive statistics of the study variables. In the sample, the average
ACGINX was about 4,585 with a range of 2.75–6.50. The DTINX average was about 2003
with a range of 1.25–2.50. The BODINX average was about 0.892 with a range of 0.00–2.25.
The SRINX average was about 1.059 with a range of 0.75–1.25. The OWINX average was
about 0.631 with a range of 0.00–1.00. The VAIC average was about 8,513 with a range of
1,446–109.99. The CEE average was about 0.235 with a range of 0.003–0.931. The HCE
average was about 7,613 with a range of 1,082–108,926. The SCE average was about 0.666
with a range of 0.076–0.991. Tobin's Q average was about 1.092 with a range of 0.42–6.97.
The EPS average was about 3.28 with a range of 0.017–6 29,519. The Payout ratio average
was about 0.381 with a range of 0.00–4.626. The OE average was about 1.304 with a range of
0.00–37,277. The Altman Z00 Score as an indicator for financial distress average was about
0.34 with a range of 0.00–1.00. The mean of firm size was about 20,662 with a range of 17,319–
24,375. The leverage average was about 0.463 with a range of 0.059–0.844. Hence, it can be
inferred that these Egyptian firms depend heavily on debt for financing their activities. The
ROA average was about 0.083 with a range of 0.003–0.341.
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. ACGINX represents the aggregate score on the corporate
governance index, measured as an average score of the four subindices. DTINX represents the score of
disclosure and transparency subindex; BODINXis the score of the board of directors subindex; SRINXrefers to
the score of total shareholders' rights and investor relations subindex; OWINX is the score of total ownership
and control subindex; VAIC is the value-added intellectual coefficient model for assessing the intellectual
capital; CEE is a proxy of the capital employed efficiency; HCE refers to human capital efficiency; SCE refers to
structural capital efficiency; Tobin's Q is used as a proxy for firms' financial performance; EPS refers to
earnings per share; payout ratio is measured as dividends per share divided by earnings per share; OE refers to
Table II. operational efficiency as measured by the ratio of operating expenses to net sales; Z-score is an indicator of the
Kruskal–Wallis rank firm's financial distress; firm size is measured as the natural algorithm of the firm's total assets; leverage is
test of variables across measured as the ratio of total debt to total assets; and ROA refers to the return on assets as a proxy for firm
industrial sectors profitability
method estimates the production frontier on the basis of the best technical efficient units among the Economic
DMUs.
It was decided to adopt the DEA in this study because it has several distinguishing features, as
convergence of
follows. First, as argued by Abbott and Doucouliagos (2003), Percin and Ayan (2006), and Shahwan output club
and Hassan (2013), using DEA as nonparametric linear programming, it requires no prior assumptions
regarding the underlying functional form or the residuals.
Second, DEA is better than other traditional productivity ratios since it does not require any prior
information about the weight to give the various input and output factors (Zhu, 2000; Colbert et al.,
413
2000; Guan et al., 2006; Shahwan and Hassan, 2013; Shahwan and Kaba, 2013; Zhu, 2014). Finally,
the relative efficiency rating using DEA depends on the concept of best performance rather than the
concept of average performance (the central tendency) adopted in the regression analysis (Cooper
et al., 2000). However, the estimate of efficiency scores and the ranking of DMUs are highly affected
by the choice of the input and output factors to use in building the DEA model (Colbert et al., 2000).
In addition, DEA requires the variables of input and output to be positive (Charnes et al., 1978). As
pointed in Stancheva and Angelova (2004), DEA can be successfully applied to nonprofits and for-
profit business organizations. However, the DEA as a deterministic model could be affected by
measurement errors. Thus, as noted by Ruggiero (2006), the use of the aggregate data with DEA
would minimize such measurement errors through a reliable estimate of DMU performance.
Accordingly, among numerous tools for assessing efficiency, DEA, particularly Malmquist's DEA
seemed best for assessing the efficiency level of CG practices and IC in the Egyptian context and
best for exploring whether such practices had improved, using panel data for the three years from
2014 to 2016. Following Coelli (1996) and Desta (2016), the Malmquist DEA method was adopted
for assessing the efficiency changes between period t and period t1 since the observed characteristics
of the data set are panel data. These efficiency changes can be revealed in five efficiency indicators,
namely, technical efficiency change (effch), technological change (techch), pure technical efficiency
change (pech), scale efficiency change (sech), and total factor productivity change (tfpch).
where the value of m refers to the productivity change between two production points at time t and
tþ1. Xt and Yt refer to the input and the output at time t, Xtþ1 and Ytþ1 refer respectively to the input
and the output at time tþ1, and dt is the distance function assessing
0 Y atthe efficiency
time of obtaining
t in the light output
of the input X
available at time t.
We should note that, as documented by Fare et al. (1994), the computed score of >1 refers to an
efficiency increase, whereas the computed score of <1 is a signal of performance deterioration
(inefficiency), while the computed score of 5 1 reflects no change in the efficiency.
According to Desta (2016), this productivity change can be further divided into two subtypes of
efficiency: technical efficiency change and technological change. Mathematically, this can be rewritten
as follows:
dtþ1
0 Xtþ1; Ytþ1Þ dt 0ðXtþ1; Ytþ1Þ ss1
0ðXt ; YtÞ 3
M0ðXtþ1; Ytþ1; xt; Yt _ s1 Xtþ1;
(4)
Ytþ1Þ
0 0
dt 0ðXt; Yt ! 3 Xt; Yt !1 2
Machine Translated by Google
Similarly, the empirical findings related to IC reveal the association between human capital investment
and business performance (Mention and Bontis, 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Sydleret al., 2014; Rafiki et al.,
2014; Nawaz, 2017). Accordingly, the efficiency scores related to the IC practices of the data set have
been assessed by using three inputs, that is, capital employed efficiency (CEE), HCE, and SCE. Five
output variables, that is, the IC score as measured by the VAIC approach, Tobin's Q, EPS, the payout
ratio, and the OE were selected. It should be noted that the efficiencies of CG and IC were assessed
using the DEAP software program (Version 2.1).
4.2.2 The impact of corporate governance and intellectual capital efficiency on a firm's financial
distress. The logistic regression with panel data was used to test the impact of the efficiency of CG and
IC on financial distress assuming the CRS-DEA model (Shahwan, 2015).
Accordingly, this model, named Model 1, can be described as follows:
where Z-Scoreit represents the financial distress as measured by a dummy variable, that is, 1 refers to
a financially distressed firm and 0 otherwise in denoting firm i at time t. CGECRS is the score of corporate
governance efficiency (CGE) using the CRS-DEA model for each company (i) at time t; ICECRS is the
score of intellectual capital efficiency (ICE) using the CRS DEA model for each company (i) at time t;
SIZE refers to firm size; LEV refers to leverage; ROA refers to return on assets; Sec1 refers to the food
and beverage sector; Sec2 refers to the construction sector; Sec3 refers to the real estate sector; Sec4
refers to the industrial goods and services sector; Sec5 refers to the healthcare and pharmaceuticals
sector; Sec6 refers to the chemicals sector; Sec7 refers to the personal and household products sector;
Sec8 refers to the basic resources sector. 0 is a constant; i represents the logistic regression coefficients
of the independent variables; and it is the error term.
Similarly, the impact of the efficiency of CG and IC on the likelihood of a firm's financial distress was
retested using the aforementioned logistic regression model but assuming VRS DEA. Accordingly, this
model, named Model 2, can be described as follows:
where CGEVRS represents the score of CGE using the VRS-DEA model for each company (i) at time t.
ICEVRS represents the score of ICE using the VRS-DEA model for each company (i) at time t, and the
other variables are as previously defined.
Machine Translated by Google
Table IV, Panels A and B each give the Pearson correlation matrix among the proposed Economic
explanatory variables defined in Equations (5) and (6). As proposed by Anderson et al. (2000),
the correlation coefficients show no possibility that multicollinearity is in the model since the
convergence of
correlation coefficients are less than 0.7. output club
Economic
Panel A: Malmquist index summary of annual means convergence of
year Effch techch pech sech tfpch club output
Year 2 (2014–2015) 0.990 1.012 0.994 0.996 0.989 1.002
Year 3 (2015–2016) 0.997 1.004 0.993 1.001 0.999 0.986
Over the period 2014–2016 0.993 0.994 0.994
417
Panel B: Top nine firms with tfpch > 1 in rank sequence
Firm effch techch pech sech tfpch Rank based on
TFP change
Alexandria Pharmaceuticals and Chemical 1.009 1,420 1,005 1,005 1,433 1
Industries (AXPH)
Nozha International Hospital SAE (NINH) 1,000 1,262 1,000 1,000 1,262 1,242 2
Egypt Aluminum (EGAL) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,242 1,174 1,000 3
Oriental Weavers Carpet (ORWE) 1,000 1,000 1,174 1,128 1,000 1,000 1,128 4
Eastern Co SAE (EAST) 1,000 1,027 1,019 1,009 1,056 1,003 1,011 5
Elsewedy Electric Co SAE (SWDY) 1,028 1,026 1,041 6
Acrow Misr for Scaffolding and Formwork 1,037 7
(ACRO)
Egyptian Starch and Glucose (ESGI) 1000 1,038 1,000 1,000 1,038 1,030 8
Table V.
South Valley Cement Co SAE (SVCE) 1.005 1,005 1,000 1,036 9
The Malmquist index
Note(s): effch 5 Technical efficiency change (relative to a CRS technology); techch 5 Technological change; summary of annual
pech 5 Pure technical efficiency change (relative to a VRS technology); sech 5 Scale efficiency change; and means in terms of CG
tfpch 5 Total factor productivity (TFP) change efficiency changes
The Malmquist index annual means for year 2 (2014/2015) indicates that technological
progress was the main source of the increased efficiency of the total factor productivity index
of the selected firms. However, the reduced efficiency of TFP during year 3 (2015/2016) and
over the period of 2014–2016 is attributable only to technological retrogression. The results
are consistent with the previous empirical evidence (eg Yalama and Coskun, 2007; Campisi
and Costa, 2008; Murale et al., 2011; Costa, 2012; Kalantar, 2013; Kweh et al., 2013; Kweh et al.,
JIC
2015; Venugopal et al., 2018). They point out that “on average” DMUs do not operate at the
21.3 optimum level of technical efficiency. For instance, Murale et al. (2011) indicated a 10.3 percent
decrease in the TFP of IC efficiency during the study period. Kweh et al. (2015) pointed out
that there are only five of 25 DMU that are the best in terms of IC efficiency during the study
period.
Table VI, Panel B also indicates the top nine firms with respect to IC performance with
418 tfpch < 1 over the period of 2014–2016. The Alexandria Pharmaceuticals and Chemical
Industries firm (AXPH) achieved the best results in terms of improvement (1,419), followed by
the firm Elsewedy Electric Co SAE (SWDY) (1.218), with Egypt Aluminum the next firm
inline (EGAL) (1,163). The increases in the TFP of these top nine firms can be linked to
technological changes (technological progress) rather than to technical efficiency.
In the untabulated results regarding the Malmquist index summary of firm means, of the
51 firms selected, only 25 increased their total productivity index (tfpch < 1), the total
productivity factor (tfpch 5 1) of 10 firms did not change, and 16 firms showed a decline in
their total productivity index ((tfpch < 1). The increase of total productivity in these 25 firms
can be attributed to technological progress, given that 16 of them benefited from
technological change. Moreover, only seven firms were able to improve their technical
efficiency.
Regarding the pure technical efficiency changes in the sample, of 51 firms, one improved,
48 firms remained the same, and two firms deteriorated. In reference to scale efficiency
changes, eight firms increased their efficiency, 38 firms showed no change, and nine firms
were more inefficient. This implies that Egyptian listed firms showed almost no improvement
in IC performance over the period of 2014–2016.
After this discussion of the estimate of efficiency changes due to CG and IC over the period
of 2014–2016, attention turns to examining whether the changes count as significant
differences, on average. Do technical efficiency changes, pure technical efficiency changes,
and scale efficiency changes reflect the performance of CG practices and IC over the period of
study? The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test shown in Table VIIreveal no statistically
significant evidence regarding the improvement of CG and IC efficiency during the study.
Only the technical efficiency changes regarding the IC are statistically significant at the 10
percent significance level. Accordingly, H1 is not supported. However, the results partially
confirm H2.
Wilcoxon test
Efficiency dimensions Z-statistics p-value
Economic
CRS-DEA output-oriented model VRS-DEA output-oriented model
Independent Standard Z Standard Z convergence of
variables Coefficients error value p-value Coefficients error value p-value club output
CGE 3.1988 13.3200 0.24 0.810 17.0679 14.6233 1.17 0.2430
ICE 951.6778 336.2805 2.83 0.005** 1792.89 579.4984 3.09 0.002**
Size 0.1134 0.3327 28.3993
7.1641 0.34 0.733 3.96 0.0386 0.3409 0.11 0.9100
LEV 42.9857 13.52852.6140
6.7999 0.000*** 3.18 29.4796 7.5608 3.90 0.000*** 419
ROA 4.2979 2.3524 0.6513
2.2572 0.001*** 2.60 45.5614 13.9431 3.27 0.001***
Sec1 0.5845 2.1631 1.6573
2.7959 0.009** 1.83 6.9113 2.4349 2.84 0.005**
sec2 2.4843 2.4375 5.1800
2.8727 0.068* 0.29 0.773 6.7262 2.3938 2.81 0.005**
Sec3 1.5998 2.7118 0.27 0.787 0.59 1.3722 1.9876 0.69 0.4900
Sec4 935.7474 333.1977
0.6933. 0.553 1.02 0.308 1.7470 1.8949 0.92 0.3570
sec5 1.80 0.071* 0.59 1.5719 3.0361 0.52 0.6050
sec6 0.555 2.81 0.005** 3.0202 2.2574 1.34 0.1810
Sec7 5.3685 2.8149 1.91 0.0570
sec8 0.8405 2.5089 0.34 0.7380
Constant 1795.881 583.3851 3.08 0.002**
Table VIII.
Pseudo R2 0.7018
Summary of logistics
2 0.0000*** 137.64 0.0777*
regression results: CG,
N 153
IC, and financial
Note(s): *; **; and *** are significant at the 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively distress
was regressed on CG efficiency, IC efficiency, and 11 control variables. There are three points
to note under both the CRS and VRS output-oriented models. First, there is an insignificant
association between the efficiency of CG practices and the likelihood of a firm's financial
distress. Accordingly, H3 is not confirmed. The insignificant influence of CG efficiency on the
likelihood of financial distress is in line with the previous empirical evidence (Manzaneque
et al., 2016; Udin et al., 2017). They point out that ownership concentration and ownership
structure do not have an impact on financial distress. However, our finding is inconsistent
with the result shown in the Nasir and Ali (2018) study. This result is more or less what was
expected, where the due CG practices within the selected sample are inefficient. This finding
has critical implications in the Egyptian context revealing the need to improve the efficiency
level of CG practices within Egyptian firms.
Second, the IC efficiency has a significant negative impact on the probability of financial
distress. This is consistent with the results of Lev and Sougiannis (1996), who state that IC
influences the value of a company and reduces the probability of financial distress. Nadeem
et al. (2016) also show that IC indicators are useful in assessing the financial health of a firm.
Ardalan and Askarian (2014) document a significant negative association between IC and the
risk of financial distress. Moreover, Cenciarellie et al. (2018) support the positive relationship
between IC and long-term financial stability, which accordingly reduces the bankruptcy
risk (the likelihood of default). Accordingly, the results partially support H4 in stating that IC
efficiency negatively affects the likelihood of a firm's financial distress.
Third, of the 11 control variables analyzed, five are statistically significant at the 0.10
significance level or less, that is, the leverage (LEV), ROA, and the sector (whether Sec1, food
and beverages; Sec2, the construction sector; or Sec7, personal and household products) .
Under both the CRS and VRS output-oriented models, the LEV, Sec1, and Sec7 have a
significant positive impact on a firm's financial distress. This finding is consistent with Malik
(2013), Fel cio et al. (2018) andVo (2016) where greater leverage leads to higher risk. Both ROA
as a proxy for profitability and Sec2 have a negative impact on the likelihood of financial
distress. This finding is in line with Tasman and Masdupi (2014) and Masdupi et al. (2018)
where profitability is one of the crucial determinants of a firm's financial distress risk. To
Machine Translated by Google
JIC assess the quality of the two logistic regression models, pseudo R2 values for the fitted
models, under both the CRS and VRS output-oriented models, equal 0.6968 and 0.7018,
21.3
respectively. This implies that about 70 percent of the dependent variable variance can be
approximated and explained by the two logistic regression models (Model 1 and Model 2).
(3) Our findings also shed light on the need for disclosure of the firm's IC practices similar Economic
to the conventional financial reports in the Egyptian environment, where traditional
financial measures alone are insufficient in assessing the performance of companies, convergence of
especially the knowledge-based firms. According to Cenciarelli et al. (2018), the output club
inclusion of IC variables with the traditional models of financial distress prediction
would enhance their predictive accuracy. This implies that the existence of good IC
practices within Egyptian firms should be attributed to handling IC as a regulatory
concept rather than a moral one. 421
(4) Our findings will also attract the attention of academic researchers, investors, and
managers to the superiority of DEA over the traditional accounting indices in
assessing firm relative efficiency. Thus, specialized training courses related to the
assessment of efficiency via DEA should be designed and directed to various
organizations' stakeholders for enhancing their skills regarding the use of such a novel approach.
Overall, the empirical findings of the present study shed light on the use of Malmquist's DEA
to evaluate the relative efficiency of Egyptian listed firms in two areas: CG practices and IC.
Our empirical findings show that most Egyptian listed firms achieve only a low level of CG
and IC efficiency. The efficiency of CG practices, on the one hand, has no impact on a firm's
financial distress. On the other, the efficiency of IC has a significant negative impact on a
firm's financial distress. However, the results did not clarify the relationship between the
efficiency of CG and that of IC. Therefore, future studies are recommended to examine this
relationship. Moreover, analyzing the results of DEA via Tobit regression would extend the
current understanding of the efficiency of CG and IC by identifying the causes of inefficiency
and efficiency drivers. Another fruitful extension of the present study would be to investigate
the role of competitive advantage as a mediator of the relationship between CG efficiency
and a firm's financial performance.
Notes
1. The term efficiency could reflect different types of efficiency, namely technical and allocative efficiency.
Following Vitaliano (1998) and Shahwan and Hassan (2013), the allocative efficiency occurs when
the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit during the transformation process of the decision-
making unit's (DMU's) resources into services. However, the technical efficiency as defined by Shim
(2003) indicates the ability of DMU to achieve a specific level of outputs using the minimum inputs.
Moreover, the technical efficiency can be referred to as the ability of DMU to maximize the outputs
using a specific level of inputs. This type of efficiency is mainly adopted in the current study.
2. The superior performance of DEA in assessing the relative performance of decision-making units
against the accounting indices is due to its ability to assess the performance based on multiple
factors (inputs and outputs).
References
Abbott, M. and Doucouliagos, C. (2003), “The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment
analysis”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 89-97.
Abdullah, SV (2006), “Board structure and ownership in Malaysia: the case of distressed companies”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 582-594.
Abousamak, A. and Shahwan, T. (2018), “Governance mechanisms and earnings management
practices: evidence from Egypt”, International Journal of Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
316-346.
Achim, MV and Borlea, SN (2014), “The assessment of corporate governance system quality in the
Romanian sectors. Analysis of the companies listed on the Bucharest stock exchange”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 15, pp. 617-625.
Machine Translated by Google
Adnan, MA, Htay, SNN, Rashid, HMA and Meera, AKM (2011), “A panel data analysis on the relationship
JIC
between corporate governance and bank efficiency”, Journal of Accounting, Finance and
21.3 Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Al-Musali, MA and Ku Ismail, KN (2012), “Corporate governance, bank specific characteristics, banking
industry characteristics, and intellectual capital performance of banks in Arab Gulf Cooperation
Council countries”, Asian Academy Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol . 8
(Special issue Supp. 1), pp. 115-135.
422 Al-Musali, MA and Ku Ismail, KN (2014), “Intellectual capital and its effect on financial performance of
banks: evidence from Saudi Arabia”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 164, pp.
2001-207.
Altman, EI (1968), “Financial ratios, Discriminant analysis, and the prediction of corporate
bankruptcy”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 589-609.
Altman, E. (1983), Corporate Financial Distress: A Complete Guide to Predicting, Avoiding and Dealing
with Bankruptcy, Wiley, New York, NY.
Altman, EI (2005), “An Emerging market credit scoring system for corporate bonds”, Emerging
Markets Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 311-323.
Altman, EI and Hotchkiss, E. (2006), Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy: Predict and Avoid
Bankruptcy, Analyse and Invest in Distressed Debt, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Altman, EI, Hartzell, J. and Peck, M. (1995), Emerging Markets Corporate Bonds: A Scoring System,
Salomon Brothers, New York.
€
Altuner, D., elik, S. and Guleç, TC (2015), “The linkages among intellectual capital, corporate governance
and corporate social responsibility”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 491-507.
Anderson, JH, Lee, Y. and Murrell, P. (2000), “Competition and privatization amidst weak institutions:
evidence for Mongolia”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 527-549.
Andriessen, D. (2004), “IC valuation and measurement: classifying the state of the art”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 230-242.
Andrieÿ, AM, Capraru, B. and Nistor, S. (2018), “Corporate governance and efficiency in banking:
evidence from emerging economies”, Applied Economics, Vol. 50 Nos. 34–35, pp. 3812-3832.
Ardalan, B. and Askarian, H. (2014), “The impact of intellectual capital on the risk of financial distress of
listed companies in the Tehran Stock Exchange, Iran”, Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied
Life Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 840-853.
Armstrong, RW, Mok, C., Go, FM and Chan, A. (1997), “The importance of cross-cultural expectations in
the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 181-190.
Asanduluia, L., Roman, M. and Fatulescu, P. (2014), “The efficiency of healthcare systems in Europe: a
data envelopment analysis approach”, Procedia- Economics and Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 261-268.
Banker, R., Charnes, A. and Cooper, WW (1984), “Some models for estimating technical and scale
inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1078-1092.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol.
17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barros, CP (2006), “Efficiency measurement among hypermarkets and supermarkets and the identification
of the efficiency drivers: a case study”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 135-154.
Baye, FM (2014), “Impact of intellectual capital efficiency on the financial performance of financial
situations in Yaound e, Cameroon”, International Journal of Arts and Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp.
166-187.
Beaver, WH (1966), “Financial ratios as predictors of failure”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 4,
pp. 71-111.
Machine Translated by Google
Black, BS, Jang, H. and Kim, W. (2006), “Does corporate governance predict firm's market values? Economic
Evidence from Korea”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 366-413.
convergence of
Boyd, BK (1995), “CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model”, Strategic Management output club
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 301-312.
Cabrita, MDR and Bontis, N. (2008), “Intellectual capital and business performance in the Portuguese
banking industry”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 43 Nos 1–3, pp. 212-237.
423
Campisi, D. and Costa, R. (2008), “A DEA-based method to enhance intellectual capital management”,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 170-183.
Cardoso, GF, Peixoto, FM and Barboza, F. (2019), “Board structure and financial distress in Brazilian
firms”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 813-823.
Cenciarelli, VG, Greco, G. and Allegrini, M. (2018), “Does intellectual capital help predict bankruptcy?”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 321-337.
Chakraborty, A., Gao, L. and Sheikh, S. (2018), “Corporate governance and risk in cross-listed
and .Canadian only companies”, Management Decision, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-67, doi: 10.1108/
MD-10- 2017-1052 (accessed 30 December 2018).
Chan, KH (2009), “Impact of intellectual capital on organizational performance”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Charnes, A., Cooper, WW and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 429-444.
Chen, M., Cheng, SJ and Hwang, Y. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between
intellectual capital and firms' market value and financial performance”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 159-176.
Chen, L., Danbolt, J. and Holland, J. (2014), “Rethinking bank business models: the role of intangibles”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 563-589.
Chu, SKW, Chan, KH and Wu, WWY (2011), “Charting intellectual capital performance of the gateway to
China”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 249-276.
Chung, KH, Elder, J. and Kim, JC (2010), “Corporate governance and liquidity”, Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 265-291.
Coelli, T. (1996), A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1, A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program,
CEPA Working Paper No. 08, University of New England, Australia.
Colbert, A., Levary, RR and Shaner, MC (2000), “Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs
using DEA”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Cook, L. and Verma, R. (2002), “Exploring the linkages between quality system, service quality, and
performance excellence: service providers' perspectives”, Quality Management Journal (QMJ),
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 44-56.
Cooper, WW, Seiford, LM and Tone, K. (2000), Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with
Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Costa, R. (2012), “Assessing Intellectual Capital efficiency and productivity: an application to the Italian
yacht manufacturing sector”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, pp. 7255-7261.
Daily, CM and Dalton, DR (1994), “Bankruptcy and corporate governance: the impact of board composition
and structure”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1603-1617.
Daines, RM, Gow, ID and Larcker, DF (2010), “Ratings the ratings: how good are commercial governance
ratings?”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 439-461.
Machine Translated by Google
Demirkan, S. and Platt, H. (2009), “Financial status, corporate governance quality, and the likelihood
JIC
of managers using discretionary accruals”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.
21.3 93-117.
Desta, TS (2016), “Are the best African banks really the best? A Malmquist data envelopment analysis”,
Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 588-610.
Dong, Y., Meng, C., Firth, M. and Hou, W. (2014), “Ownership structure and risk-taking: comparative
evidence from private and state-controlled banks in China”, International Review of Financial
424 Analysis, Vol. 36, pp. 120-130.
Dowell, GW, Shackell, MB and Stuart, NV (2011), “Boards, CEOS and surviving a financial crisis:
evidence from the internet shakeout”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 1025-1045.
Dumay, JC and Tull, JA (2007), “Intellectual capital disclosure and price-sensitive Australian stock
exchange announcements”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 236-255.
Dzenopoljac, V., Janosevic, S. and Bontis, N. (2016), “Intellectual capital and financial performance in
the Serbian ICT industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 373-396.
Ebaid, IE-S. (2011), “Corporate governance practices and auditor's client acceptance decision:
empirical evidence from Egypt”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Egyptian Institute of Directors (EIoD) (2016), Egypt Code of Corporate Governance Guidelines and
Standards, Egyptian Financial Supervisory Authority, pp. 1-17, available at: http://ecgi.global/
Code/egyptian-Code-Corporate-governance (accessed 5 January 2017).
Elloumi, F. and Gueyie, J.-P. (2001), “Financial distress and corporate governance: an empirical
analysis”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Essid, H., Ouellette, P. and Vigeant, S. (2010), “Measuring efficiency of Tunisian schools in the
presence of quasi-fixed inputs: a bootstrap data envelopment analysis approach”, Economics of
Education Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 589-596.
Evans, JR (2011), Quality Management, Organization, and Strategy, 6th ed., South-Western, Cengage
Learning, Cincinnati.
Faisal, M., Hassan, M., Shahid, MS, Rizwan, M. and Qureshi, ZA (2016), “Impact of corporate
governance on intellectual capital efficiency: evidence from KSE listed commercial banks”,
Science International–Lahore, Vol . 28 No. 4, pp. 353-361.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M. and Zhang, Z. (1994), “Productivity growth, technical progress, and
efficiency change in industrialized countries”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 66-83.
Fel cio, JA, Rodrigues, R., Grove, H. and Greiner, A. (2018), “The influence of corporate governance
on bank risk during a financial crisis”, Economic Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1078-1090.
Ferguson, MJ, Lam, KC and Lee, GM (2002), “Voluntary disclosure by state-owned enterprises listed
in the stock exchange of Hong Kong”, Journal of International Financial Management and
Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 125-148.
Ferreira, RDN, Santos, ACD, Lopes, ALM, Nazareth, LGC and Fonseca, RA (2013), “Corporate
governance, efficiency, productivity and performance”, Mackenzie Administration Journal, Vol.
14 No. 4, pp. 134-164.
Fuentes, R. (2011), “Efficiency of travel agencies: a case study of Alicante, Spain”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Gandhi, A. and Shankar, R. (2014), “Efficiency measurement of Indian retailers using data envelopment
analysis”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp.
500-520.
Gruszczynski, M. (2006), “Corporate governance and financial performance of companies in Poland”,
International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 251-259.
Machine Translated by Google
Guan, JC, Yam, RCM, Mok, CK and Ma, N. (2006), “A study of the relationship between competitiveness Economic
and technological innovation capability based on DEA models”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 170 No. 3, pp. 971-986.
convergence of
Guim on, J. (2005), “Intellectual capital reporting and credit risk analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
output club
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Hackman, JR and Wageman, R. (1995), “Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical
issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 309-342.
425
Ho, CA and Williams, SM (2003), “International comparative analysis of the association between board
structure and the efficiency of value added by a firm from its physical capital and intellectual
capital resources”, The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 465-491.
Hong, S. and Zhang, A. (2010), “An efficiency study of airlines and air cargo/passenger divisions: a DEA
approach”, World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, Vol. 3 Nos 1-2, pp. 137-149.
Iazzolino, G. and Laise, D. (2013), “Value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) A methodological and
critical review”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 547-563.
Javaid, F. and Saboor, A. (2015), “Impact of corporate governance index on firm performance: evidence
from Pakistani manufacturing sector”, Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 1-21.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360.
Kalantar, F. (2013), “Evaluating the efficiency of intellectual capital through data envelopment analysis
approach (Case study: automotive industry and component manufacturers)”, European Online
Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1397-1406.
Kamel, H. and Shahwan, T. (2014), “The association between disclosure level and cost of capital in an
emerging market: evidence from Egypt”, Afro-Asian J. Finance and Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp.
203-225.
Kamukama, N., Ahiauzu, A. and Ntayi, JM (2011), “Competitive advantage: mediator of intellectual
capital and performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 152-164.
Kennedy, MF and Beyerlein, MM (2005), “Minimizing the impact of organizational distress on intellectual
and social capital through development of collaborative capital: creating intangible value”,
Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 11, pp. 237-284.
Khiari, W., Karaa, A. and Omri, A. (2007), Corporate Governance Efficiency: An Indexing Approach
Using the Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.
148-161.
Kocmanova, A. and Simberova, I. (2012), “Modelling of corporate governance performance indicators”,
Engineering Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 485-495.
KPMG (2007), KPMG Distressed Debt Investment and Exit Strategies Survey, KPMG Germany,
Frankfurt am Main.
Kweh, QI, Chan, YC and Ting, IWK (2013), “Measuring intellectual capital efficiency in the Malaysian
software sector”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 310-324.
Kweh, QI, Chan, YC and Ting, IWK (2015), “Intellectual capital efficiency and its determinants”,
Malaysian Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1 (Special Issue), pp. 105-124.
Lee, TS and Yeh, YH (2004), “Corporate governance and financial distress: evidence from Taiwan”,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 378-388.
Lee, YH, Huang, YL, Hsu, SS and Hung, CH (2013), “Measuring the efficiency and the effect of corporate
governance on the biotechnology and medical equipment industries in Taiwan”, International
Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 662-672.
Machine Translated by Google
Leitner, KH, Linzatti, MS and Wagner, RS (2005), “Data envelopment analysis as method for evaluating
JIC
intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 528-543.
21.3
Lev, B. and Sougiannis, T. (1996), “The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D”,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 107-138.
Li, H.-X., Wang, Z.-J. and Deng, X.-I. (2008), “Ownership, independent directors, agency costs and
financial distress: evidence from Chinese listed companies”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No.
5, pp. 622-636.
426
Lieu, P.-T., Lin, C.-W. and Yu, H.-F. (2008), “Financial early-warning models on cross-holding groups”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 8, pp. 1060-1080.
Lima, BF and Sanvicente, AZ (2013), “Quality of corporate governance and cost of equity in Brazil”,
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 72-80.
Lin, C., Ma, Y. and Su, D. (2009), “Corporate governance and firm efficiency: evidence from China's
publicly listed firms”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 193-209.
Luo, Y., Bi, G. and Liang, L. (2012), “Input/output indicator selection for DEA efficiency evaluation: an
empirical study of Chinese commercial banks”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 1118-1123.
Luqman, R., Hassan, MU, Tabasum, S., Khakwani, MS and Irshad, S. (2018), “Probability of financial
distress and proposed adoption of corporate governance structures: evidence from Pakistan”,
Cogent Business and Management, Vol . 5, pp. 1-14.
Maditinos, D., Chatzoudes, D., Tsairidis, C. and Theriou, G. (2011), “The impact of intellectual capital
on firms' market value and financial performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 132-151.
Makki, MAM and Lodhi, SA (2014), “Impact of corporate governance on intellectual capital efficiency
and financial performance”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 305-330.
Malik, RK (2013), “Determinants of financial distress evidence from KSE 100 index”, Business Review,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-19.
Mansouri, A., Nazari, A. and Ramazani, M. (2016), “A Comparison of artificial neural network Model
and logistics regression in prediction of companies' bankruptcy (A case study of Tehran stock
exchange)”, International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, Vol. 6 No. 24, pp. 81-92.
Manzaneque, M., Priego, AM and Merino, E. (2016), “Corporate governance effect on financial distress
likelihood: evidence from Spain”, Spanish Accounting Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 111-121.
Masdupi, E., Tasman, A. and Davista, A. (2018), “The influence of liquidity, leverage, and profitability
on financial distress of listed manufacturing companies in Indonesia”, Advances in Economics,
Business and Management Research, Vol. 57, pp. 223-228.
Matic, B. and Papac, N. (2014), “Measuring the quality of corporate governance in the banking sector
of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Economic Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 784-798.
Van der Meer, RB, Quigley, J. and Storbeck, JE (2005), “Using regression analysis to model the
performance of UK coastguard centres”, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol.
56 No. 6, pp. 630-641.
Machine Translated by Google
Mehralian, G., Rajabzadeh, A., Reza Sadeh, M. and Reza Rasekh, H. (2012), “Intellectual capital and Economic
corporate performance in Iranian pharmaceutical industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.
13 No. 1, pp. 138-158.
convergence of
Mention, A.-L. and Bontis, N. (2013), “Intellectual capital and performance within the banking sector of
output club
Luxembourg and Belgium”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 286-309.
Miglani, S., Ahemd, K. and Darren, H. (2015), “Voluntary corporate governance structure and financial
distress: evidence from Australia”, Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Vol. 11
427
No. 1, pp. 18-30.
Mollabashi, DF and Sendani, J. (2014), “The impact of intellectual capital on the risk of bankruptcy of
listed companies in Tehran stock exchange”, Applied Science Reports, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 150-160.
Moody's Investor Service (2018), Cross-sector: Annual Default Study: Corporate Default and Recovery
Rates, 1920-2017, Moody's investors services, Inc., Moody's Analytics, available at: http://
www.researchpool.com (accessed November 2019).
Mselmi, N., Lahiani, A. and Hamza, T. (2017), “Financial distress prediction: the case of French small
and medium-sized firms”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 50 No. 20, pp. 32-73.
Muhammad, NMN and Ismail, MKA (2009), “Intellectual capital efficiency and firm's performance: study
on Malaysian financial sector”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.
206-212.
Munisi, G. and Randoy, T. (2013), “Corporate governance and company performance across sub-
Saharan African countries”, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 70, pp. 92-110.
Murale, V., Raju, G. and Preetha, R. (2011), “An Malmquist DEA approach to intellectual capital
efficiency utilization of selected Indian firms”, Management and Change, Vol. 15 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-26.
Muranda, Z. (2006), “Financial distress and corporate governance in Zimbabwean banks”, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 643-654.
Murhadi, WR, Tanugara, F. and Sutejo, BS (2018), “The influence of good corporate governance on
financial distress”, Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Management (INSYMA
2018): Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities, Atlantis Press, New York, pp.
76-79.
Myers, SC and Majluf, NS (1984), “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have
information that investors do not have”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 187-221.
Nadeem, M., De Silva, T.-A. and Kayani, UN (2016), “Predicting corporate financial distress for New
Zealand listed firms using intellectual capital indicators”, New Zealand Journal of Applied
Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Nadeem, M., De Silva, T.-A., Gan, C. and Zaman, R. (2017), “Boardroom gender diversity and
intellectual capital efficiency: evidence from China”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 590-615.
Nanka-Bruce, D. (2011), “Corporate governance mechanism and firm efficiency”, International Journal
of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 28-40.
Nasir, NM and Ali, MM (2018), “Corporate governance and financial distress: a Malaysian perspective”,
Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
Nawaz, T. (2017), “Intellectual capital, financial crisis and performance of Islamic banks: does Shariah
governance matter?”, International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 211-226.
Ng, YC (2008), “The productive efficiency of the health care sector of China”, The Review of Regional
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 381-393.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2009), “The impact of the global
crisis on SME and entrepreneurship financing and policy responses”, available at: http://www.
oecd.org/cfe/smes/43183090.pdf (accessed April 2018).
Machine Translated by Google
Ohlson, J. (1980), “Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy”, Journal of
JIC
Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 109-131.
21.3
Oteng-Abayie, EF, Affram, A. and Mensah, HK (2018), “Corporate governance and efficiency of rural
and community banks (RCBs) in Ghana”, Econometric Research in Finance, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp.
93-118.
Outecheva, N. (2007), Corporate Financial Distress: An Empirical Analysis of Distress Risk, PhD
dissertation, University of St. Gallen, Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg.
428
Parker, S., Peters, GF and Turetsky, HF (2002), “Corporate governance and corporate failure: a survival
analysis”, Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
4-12.
Peixoto, FM, Ferreira, RD-N., Lopes, ALM and Fagundes, AFA (2011), “Corporate governance and
efficiency in the electricity sector using data envelopment analysis: a study in the Brazilian stock
market”, Revista de Ciencias da Administracao (RCA) Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 161-189.
Percin, S. and Ayan, TY (2006), “Measuring efficiency of commercial banks in a developing economy:
the case of Turkey”, Investment Management and Financial Innovations, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp.
217-231.
Portela, M., Thanassoulis, E. and Simpson, G. (2004). Negative data in DEA: a directional distance
approach applied to bank branches, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 55 No.
10, pp. 1111-1121.
Pour, ZA, Ghanbari, PM and Shidinavi, B. (2014), “Application of intellectual capital on the financial
distress model using neural network”, Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences,
Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 55-63.
Pramudena, SM (2017), “The impact of good corporate governance on financial distress in the consumer
goods sector”, Journal of Finance and Banking Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 46-55.
Pulic, A. (1998), 'Measuring the Performance of Intellectual Potential in Knowledge Economy', the 2nd
World Congress on Measuring and Managing Intellectual Capital by the Austrian Team for
Intellectual Potential, McMaster University, Hamilton.
Pustylnick, I. (2011), “Empirical algorithm of detection of manipulation with financial statements”, Journal
of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 54-67.
Rafiki, A., AlKhalifa, KM and Buchari, I. (2014), “Islamic human capital and firm performance: an
evidence of small and medium enterprises in Bahrain”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 173-181.
Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2003), “Intellectual Capital and Firm Performance of US Multinational firms: a study
of the resource-based and stakeholder views”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.
215-226.
Ruggiero, J. (2006), “Measurement error, education production and data envelopment analysis”,
Economics of Education Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 327-333.
Rygh, A. (2016), “Corporate governance and international business: essays on multinational enterprises,
ownership, finance and institutions”, BI Norwegian Business School, available at: https://
biopen.bi.no/bi-xmlui/ (accessed 15 December 2018).
Safieddine, A., Jamali, D. and Noureddine, S. (2009), “Corporate governance and intellectual capital
evidence from an academic institution”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 146-157.
Serrador, DP and Turner, JR (2014), “The relationship between project success and project efficiency”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 75-84.
Shahwan, TM (2015), “The effects of corporate governance on financial performance and financial
distress: evidence from Egypt”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 641-662.
Shahwan, T. and Hassan, Y. (2013), “Efficiency analysis of UAE banks using data envelopment
analysis”, Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Machine Translated by Google
Shahwan, T. and Kaba, A. (2013), “Efficiency analysis of GCC academic libraries: an application of data Economic
envelopment analysis”, Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 197-210.
Shenher, A., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997), “Mapping the dimensions of project success”, The
convergence of
Professional Journal of the PMI, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 5-13. output club
Shim, W. (2003), “Applying DEA technique to library evaluation in academic research libraries”, Library
Trends, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 312-332.
Shiu, H. (2006), “The application of the value-added intellectual coefficient to measure corporate 429
performance: evidence from technological firms”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No.
2, pp. 356-365.
Stahle, P., Stahle, S. and Aho, S. (2011), “Value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC): a critical
analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-551.
Stancheva, N. and Angelova, V. (2004), “Measuring the efficiency of university libraries using data
envelopment analysis”, 10th conference on professional Information Resources, Prague.
Sydler, R., Haefliger, S. and Pruksa, R. (2014), “Measuring intellectual capital with financial figures: can
we predict firm profitability?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 244-259.
Tan, HP, Plowman, D. and Hancock, P. (2007), “Intellectual capital and financial returns of
companies”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-95.
Tasman, A. and Masdupi, E. (2014), Determinant Factor of Financial Distress and Bankruptcy in
Miscellaneous Industry, The 2nd International Conference on Business and Economics 2014,
Economics Faculty, Andalas University Padang, Padang, available at: http:// repo.unand.ac.id/ id/
eprint/4987 (accessed September 21, 2019).
Tovstiga, G. and Tulugurova, E. (2009), “Intellectual capital practices: a four-region comparative
study”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
Tseng, K.-A., Lan, Y.-W., Lu, H.-C. and Chen, P.-Y. (2013), “Mediation of strategy on intellectual capital
and performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 1488-1509.
Udin, S., Khan, MA and Javid, AY (2017). “The effects of ownership structure on likelihood of financial
distress: empirical evidence”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 589-612.
Venugopal, D., Nambi, ST and Lakshmanan, M. (2018), “A data envelopment analysis approach to
performance efficiency of intellectual capital - case of Titan company limited”, SDMIMD Journal of
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Vitaliano, DF (1998), “Assessing public library efficiency using data envelopment analysis”, Annals
of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 107-122.
Vo, XV (2016), “Does institutional ownership increase stock return volatility? Evidence from Vietnam”,
International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 45, pp. 54-61.
Wahba, H. (2008), “Does the market value of corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical
examination”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.
89-99.
Wahba, H. (2015), “The joint effect of board characteristics on financial performance: empirical
evidence from Egypt”, Review of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
Wang, ZJ and Deng, XL (2006), “Corporate governance and financial distress: evidence from Chinese
listed companies”, The Chinese Economy, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 5-27.
Wang, JL, Jeng, V. and Peng, JL (2007), “The impact of corporate governance structure on the efficiency
performance of insurance companies in Taiwan”, The International Association for the Study of
Insurance Economics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 264-282.
World Bank (2009), Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes (CROS): A Corporate Governance
Country Assessment for the Arab Republic of Egypt, The World Bank, June, pp. 1-46, available at:
Machine Translated by Google
https://www.worldbank.org/en/search?q5AþCorporateþGovernanceþCountryþAssessmentþ
JIC
forþTheþArabRepublicþofþEgypt (accessed 4 October 2019).
21.3
World Bank (2019a), World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work, Washington,
DC, USA.
World Bank (2019b), “Bank Non-performing loans to gross loans for Egypt [DDSI02EGA156NWDB]”,
retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; available at : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/DDSI02EGA156NWDB (accessed November 22, 2019).
430
Yalama, A. and Coskun, M. (2007). “Intellectual capital performance of quoted banks on the Istanbul
stock exchange market”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 256-271.
Yosano, T. and Koga, C. (2008), “Influence of intellectual capital information on credit risk rating process/
criterion and credit conditions–survey analysis of Japanese financial institutions”, Proceedings of
4th Work Shop on Visualizing, Measuring and Managing Intangibles and Intellectual Capital,
Hasselt.
Zeghal, D. and Maaloul, A. (2010), “Analyzing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its
consequences on company performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Zhu, J. (2000), “Theory and methodology: multi-factor performance measure model with an application
to Fortune 500 companies”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp.
105-124.
Zhu, J. (2014), Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment
Analysis with Spreadsheets, 3rd ed., Springer, New York.
Further reading
Simberov a, I., Kocmanov a, A. and Nemecek, P. (2012), “Corporate governance performance
measurement–key performance indicators”, Economics and Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.
1585-1593.
Corresponding author
Tamer Mohamed Shahwan can be contacted at: tamershahwan74@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further
details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com