Corporate Governance and Banking Performance: The Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Among OIC Countries
Corporate Governance and Banking Performance: The Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Among OIC Countries
DOI 10.1108/CG-08-2020-0312 VOL. 21 NO. 1 2021, pp. 111-136, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 111
(Al-Khazali et al., 2014; Bourkhis and Nabi, 2013; Rosman et al., 2014), maintained better
asset quality (Mwamba et al., 2017) and has lower loan default rates (Mollah et al., 2017).
In the past few decades, the world is experiencing substantial growth in Islamic financial
institutions, especially in Muslim countries. The financial stability of Islamic financial
institutions (IFIs) and the recent global financial crises 2007/2008 have attracted the
attention of the world towards the IFIs. These institutions are less susceptible to insolvency
due to their unique structure of investment and contracts. Rosman et al. (2014) argue that
Islamic financial institutions outperform the conventional banks during the financial crisis
due to their unique activity and funding structures such as risk-sharing principles and real
economic transactions backed by tangible assets (Ajili and Bouri, 2018).
The subprime crisis 2007/2008 has instigated many issues with lack of governance and
intellectual capital (IC) deficiency being one of the major issues (Chazi et al., 2018; Mollah
et al., 2017; Nawaz, 2017). However, IBs are prospering by showing strong resilience
during the financial crises. Even though IBs appear to be more resilient than their
conventional counterpart, they need to be more cautious and must focus on a good
governance mechanism to avoid these types of uncertain shocks. Therefore, a good
corporate governance (CG) structure has a significant role in banking operations as it helps
these IBs to withstand external shocks, including exterior financial distress (Berger et al.,
2016). Quality board members structures a good CG, discipline, accountability, fairness,
independence, responsibility, transparency, social responsibility and shareholder rights
(AlSagr et al., 2018; Farag et al., 2018; Zagorchev and Gao, 2015).
Moreover, continuous growth in IFIs allows them to be competitive in the industry. They too
need to be more focused on their IC sources because the organizations which have high
intellectual resources contribute greatly to the dynamic efficiency of the economic system
(Nawaz, 2019). Al-Musalli and Ismail (2012) stated that knowledge-based IC is a primary
factor as compared to the financial and physical capital for value creation and to achieve
competitive advantage for the organizations. Today, the world financial economy is
knowledge-based (Rochmadhona et al., 2018), so the organizations have to create value
through intangible sources rather than only depend on physical sources (Duho and
Onumah, 2019; Khairiyansyah and Vebtasvili, 2018; Tahir et al., 2018).
Currently, organizations are trying to surge their IC sources to obtain a competitive advantage
through the extension of trained humans as unique assets for performance enhancement (Basyith,
2016; Duho and Onumah, 2019; Nawaz, 2017; Rochmadhona et al., 2018). In the financial sector,
banks generally require a massive number of relational capital and human capital for durability
(Khairiyansyah and Vebtasvili, 2018; Nawaz, 2019) as this is a highly skill-based, knowledge-
intensive and relationship-rich industry (Alhassan and Asare, 2016). Thus, a typical operation of
the banking sector will involve direct customer interactions for better information on new products
and services (Arifin, 2016; Rochmadhona et al., 2018). Furthermore, the financial industry, may it
be locally or globally, demands the board to be more efficient in using their tangible and intangible
resources to enhance wealth. Thus, IC is viewed as one of the significant assets for banks to
increase their yield (Grove et al., 2011; Jetmiko, 2018; Nawaz, 2019).
CG and IC are associated with each other due to their significant role to attain the objective
of the organization, and it assures survival and growth (Saeed et al., 2015). The board of
directors in banks is liable to constitute strategies to use human and structural resources
efficiently to improve banking performance (Nawaz, 2017). Thus, the combination of IC and
CG has become a keystone for IBs to generate good profit and sustainable growth (Basyith,
2016; Nawaz, 2019). Henceforth, the current study uses IC as a mediator between CG and
the performance of the Islamic banking Industry.
The remaining of this paper has proceeded as follows. Section 2 addresses the literature review
and develops the hypotheses. Section 3 provides a detailed description of data collection and
the methodological approach. Section 4 provides detail of empirical analyses and related
2.3.1 Human capital efficiency. Human capital efficiency is the primary and significant
component of IC that helps the organizations to sustain their competitive advantage
(Alhassan and Asare, 2016; Duho and Onumah, 2019). Zeghal and Maaloul (2010) stated
that human capital efficiency represents knowledge, experience, education and the skills of
employees which they seize when they depart from the organization. According to Hamdan
(2018), human capital efficiency is recognized as the main driver for national economic
activity, competitiveness and prosperity. Hence, it is directly corresponding to the
propensity to service innovativeness to satisfy customers’ needs and improve the
organization’s value. Alhassan and Asare (2016) found that higher productivity and
creativity can be enhanced by investing in employees’ training. Studies such as Jetmiko
(2018) and Hashim et al. (2015) in Malaysia, Widowati and Pradono (2017) in Indonesia and
Alhassan and Asare (2016) in Africa found a positive relationship between human capital
efficiency and firm performance. Furthermore, Widowati and Pradono (2017) suggested
that bankers who control their skills and capabilities in terms of business can increase the
value of banks. Based on the human capital efficiency relationship with performance, the
following hypothesis is formulated:
H 3.1: IBs with greater human capital efficiency gain higher performance.
2.3.2 Structural capital efficiency. Structural capital efficiency is the knowledge that remains
with the organization even though after employees leaving the organization (Jetmiko, 2018).
Abdulsalam et al. (2011) stated that structural capital efficiency is the result of human
capital’s past performances. Hence, Nawaz (2017) determined that structural capital
efficiency is the non-human knowledge which includes the organizational charts,
databases, process manuals, routines, strategies and other things of which value is higher
than its material value. Aslam et al. (2016) studied Australian banks and found that
structural capital efficiency has less influence than the other determinants of IC efficiency. In
contrast, Khalique et al. (2011) observed that structural capital efficiency is positively
related to performance. Similarly, several prominent studies found that structural capital
efficiency is significantly associated with performance (Haris et al., 2019; Jetmiko, 2018;
Nawaz, 2017; Poh et al., 2018; Rochmadhona et al., 2018). Based on the results in different
studies, as discussed above, the following hypothesis is:
H 3.2: IBs with greater structural capital efficiency gain higher performance.
2.3.3 Relational capital efficiency. The relational capital efficiency grants the infrastructure
and necessary resources to human capital and structural capital efficiency with the best
utilization of resources to increase the overall performance of the organization (Widowati
and Pradono, 2017). Moreover, organizations are creating the best value by using the best
combination of human capital efficiency with structural capital efficiency and relational
capital efficiency (Basyith, 2016). Nowadays, the banking industry largely relies on stable
and long-lasting relationships with their clients and this can be made possible with the
numbers of employees in the organization (Rochmadhona et al., 2018). There are several
studies which observed that relational capital efficiency as the most influential element of
the IC efficiency that helps to create higher value for the organizations in a competitive
environment (Aslam et al., 2016; Rochmadhona et al., 2018). Besides, the study of
Rochmadhona et al. (2018) identified that organization survival depends on its ability to
innovate and learn customer service and organizational intelligence. Based on the above
discussion, the hypothesis is stated as follows:
H 3.3: IBs with greater relational capital efficiency gain higher performance.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and methods
The sample of this study consists of a balanced data set of 1,290 observations
corresponding to 129 Islamic commercial banks from 29 countries of the Middle East, South
Asia and Southeast Asia regions and the detail is shown in Table 1. The data collected for
the study covers a period of 10 years, from 2008–2017. This period is selected due to the
starting practices of the IBs in most of the Muslim countries. The sample frame structure is
confined to full-fledged IBs and Islamic windows which provide complete information on the
variables.
1 Azerbaijan 1
2 Bahrain 14
3 Bangladesh 5
4 Brunei Darussalam 3
5 Egypt 3
6 Libya 2
7 Indonesia 8
8 Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran) 3
9 Iraq 7
10 Jordan 7
11 Kuwait 2
12 Kyrgyzstan 1
13 Lebanon 4
14 Malaysia 15
15 Maldives 2
16 Mauritania 1
17 Nigeria 1
18 Oman 2
19 Pakistan 9
20 Qatar 6
21 Saudi Arabia 5
22 Senegal 1
23 Sudan 9
24 Syrian Arab Republic 1
25 Tunisia 1
26 United Arab Emirates 7
27 Turkey 4
28 West Bank and Gaza 2
29 Yemen 3
Total Sample of Islamic Banks 129
X
5 X
7
HCEit ¼ a0 þ HCEit1 þ B1 CGit þ B2 Xit þ « it 1.1
k L
X
5 X
7
SCEit ¼ a0 þ SCEit1 þ B1 CGit þ B2 Xit þ « it 1.2
k L
X
5 X
7
RCEit ¼ a0 þ RCEit1 þ B1 CGit þ B2 Xit þ « it 1.3
k L
In model 1.1 to 1.3 HCE, SCE, RCE refers to human capital efficiency, structural capital
efficiency and relational capital efficiency, respectively, for bank i at time t. CG is a vector of
IBs’ CG variables (BS- Board Size, BIND-Board Independence, CD – CEO Duality, AUDC –
Audit Committee, SB – Shariah Board). X is a vector of a set of control variables (GEND-
Gender, BM-Board Meetings, TA-Total Asset, LEV-Debt to Equity ratio, INF-Inflation, GDP-
economic growth and FOWN-Foreign Ownership) and « refers to the error term.
Secondly, we investigate the impact of CG on banking efficiency and we estimate a series
of 2SYS-GMM regressions of banking performance on CG and a set of control variables.
To test H2.1–H2.5, which predict the effect of the CG on banking performance, we estimate
a series of Equation (2) using 2SYS-GMM regressions as follows:
X
5 X
7
ATOit ¼ a0 þ ATOit1 þ B1 CGit þ B2 Xit þ « it 2.1
k L
In models 2.1 and 2.2, ATO refers to asset turnover and NPM refers to net profit margin for
bank i at time t. CG is a vector of IBs’ CG variables (BS, BIND, CD, AUDC, SB). X is a vector
of a set of control variables (GEND, BM, TA, DE, INF, GDP and FOWN) and « refers to the
error term.
Thirdly, we evaluate the impact of IC on banking performance, and we estimate a series of
2SYS-GMM regressions of banking performance on IC and a set of control variables.
To test H3.1–H3.3, which predict the effect of IC on banking performance, we estimate a
series of Equation (3) using 2SYS-GMM regressions as follows:
X
3 X
5
ATOit ¼ a0 þ ATOit1 þ B1 ICit þ B2 Xit þ « it 3.1
M L
X
3 X
5
NPMit ¼ a0 þ NPMit1 þ B1 ICit þ B2 Xit þ « it 3.2
M L
In models 3.1 and 3.2, where ATO refers to asset turnover and NPM refers to net profit
margin for bank i at time t. IC is a vector of IC with three proxies (HCE – human capital
efficiency, SCE-structural capital efficiency, RCE-relational capital efficiency). X is a vector
of a set of control variables (TA, DE, INF, GDP and FOWN) and « refers to the error term.
Finally, we evaluate the impact of CG on banking performance along with the mediating role
of IC, and we estimate a series of 2SYS-GMM regressions of banking performance on IC
and a set of control variables.
To test H3.1–H3.3, which predict the effect of CG on banking performance along with the
mediating role of IC, we estimate a series of Equation (4) using 2SYS-GMM regressions as
follows:
X
5 X
3 X
5
ATOit ¼ a0 þ ATOit1 þ B1 CGit þ B1 ICit þ B2 Xit þ « it 4.1
k M L
X
5 X
3 X
5
NPMit ¼ a0 þ NPMit1 þ B1 CGit þ B1 ICit þ B2 Xit þ « it 4.2
k M L
In models 4.1 and 4.2, where ATO refers to asset turnover and NPM refers to net profit
margin for bank i at time t. CG is a vector of IBs’ CG variables (BS, BIND, CD, AUDC, SB).
IC is a vector of IC with three proxies (HCE, SCE, RCE) use as a mediating variable. X is a
vector of a set of control variables (GEND, BM, TA, DE, INF, GDP and FOWN) and « refers
to the error term.
Bank performance
indicators
I Asset turnover AST Interest or commission income/Average total assets
II Net profit margin NPM Net income/non-interest expenses
1 Corporate governance
mechanisms (independent)
I Board size BS Total number of members on the board
II Board independence BIND Total number of members of non-executive directors
III CEO duality CD If the CEO also hold chairman position, then the value is
one and if it is separate then the value is zero
IV Shariah board SB Total number of members of Shariah Board
V Audit committee AUDC Total number of members in the audit committee
2 Intellectual capital
(independent)
I Human capital efficiency HCE Value-added = gross income-operating expenses
Value-added/total expenses for employees
II Structural capital efficiency SCE Value-added/expenditure related to research and
development
III Relational capital efficiency RCE Value-added/expenditure related to marketing cost
Bank characteristics
(controls)
I Bank size LNTA Natural log of total assets
II Leverage LEV The proportion of total debt over equity
III Foreign ownership FOWN Dummy variable that takes the value of one if foreign
firms have an ownership in the firm or zero otherwise
Board features (controls)
I Gender GEND if the CEO is male, the value is one and if the CEO is
female then the value is zero
II Board meetings BM Total number of board meetings
Macro-economic (controls)
I Inflation INF Natural log of the consumer price index
II Country growth GDP Natural log of total gross domestic product
specific and country-specific control variables (Mahmood et al., 2014). The full descriptions
of the variables are in Table 2.
Performance
Asset turnover Mean 0.141 0.051 0.181 0.043 0.043 0.029 0.028 0.301 0.385 0.506 0.284
std 0.905 0.240 0.300 0.186 0.171 0.099 0.091 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.049
med 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Net profit margin Mean 0.652 0.544 0.426 0.450 0.554 0.530 0.519 0.511 0.547 0.665 0.540
std 1.562 1.252 1.348 1.183 1.060 0.912 0.917 0.908 1.172 1.083 1.155
med 0.600 0.360 0.300 0.340 0.400 0.460 0.380 0.420 0.350 0.380 0.380
Corporate governance attributes (independent)
Board size Mean 8.310 8.302 8.457 8.473 8.659 8.651 8.674 8.558 8.775 8.783 8.564
std 3.018 2.933 2.958 2.773 2.737 2.715 2.911 3.132 2.897 2.741 2.879
med 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 9.000 8.000
CEO duality Mean 0.080 0.070 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.090 0.070 0.070 0.060 0.060 0.070
std 0.270 0.026 0.270 0.270 0.280 0.280 0.026 0.026 0.024 0.024 0.026
med 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Board independence Mean 4.465 4.488 4.566 4.636 4.876 4.876 4.922 4.860 5.132 5.202 4.802
std 2.158 2.208 2.050 2.103 2.129 2.050 2.320 2.311 2.170 2.104 2.168
med 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000
Shariah board Mean 4.465 3.698 3.698 3.674 3.729 3.767 3.752 3.667 3.760 3.729 3.716
std 2.158 1.418 1.361 1.318 1.356 1.433 1.495 1.465 1.530 1.368 1.416
med 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Audit committee Mean 3.357 3.395 3.442 3.450 3.496 3.527 3.481 3.450 3.519 3.535 3.465
std 0.950 0.888 0.799 0.829 0.772 0.801 0.821 0.968 0.867 0.857 0.856
med 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Intellectual capital (mediating)
Human capital efficiency Mean 0.765 0.732 0.801 0.875 1.094 1.104 1.124 1.228 1.312 1.258 1.033
std 1.961 1.979 2.142 2.388 2.988 3.102 2.651 2.947 3.145 3.009 2.675
med 0.140 0.140 0.160 0.150 0.160 0.140 0.140 0.160 0.150 0.160 0.170
(continued)
Total assets Mean 3,294.03 3,499.78 3,967.94 4,418.14 5,041.58 5,715.04 5,595.03 5,848.49 6,151.92 6,677.22 5,020.92
std 8,045.76 81,26.40 8,894.89 10,007.59 11,164.41 12,740.25 11,361.50 11,933.96 12,610.93 13,397.12 11,004.06
med 660.22 750.16 867.35 933.71 918.50 1,206.70 1,317.14 1,457.63 1,634.40 1,658.19 1,040.75
Leverage Mean 6.841 7.178 7.094 7.084 7.090 7.290 7.395 7.762 7.754 8.047 7.356
std 5.964 6.579 6.258 6.203 5.731 6.487 7.757 8.932 9.461 9.528 7.419
med 5.260 5.850 5.880 6.150 6.370 6.910 6.720 6.950 7.010 7.200 6.470
Inflation Mean 92.450 95.540 100.000 106.150 113.990 123.190 133.570 140.130 144.750 150.530 120.033
std 7.850 4.080 1.230 5.960 16.237 31.766 51.230 64.120 69.720 76.940 47.860
med 95.410 97.570 100.000 104.170 108.250 111.160 114.390 114.970 115.390 119.610 108.520
Gross domestic product (GDP) Mean 27.746 27.760 27.810 27.850 27.890 27.930 27.970 28.000 28.040 28.070 27.910
std 3.800 3.807 3.810 3.820 3.820 3.820 3.830 3.830 3.850 3.851 3.810
med 27.380 27.360 27.430 27.490 27.540 27.590 27.640 27.690 27.730 27.790 27.660
Foreign ownership Mean 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.209
std 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.408 0.407
med 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
remains between 8.03 and 8.8 throughout the sample, similar to the other studies (Chazi
et al., 2018; Hassan et al., 2017). Besides that, the BIND is 58% of the total board size of the
pooled sample. This size is more significant than the mean size of BIND in the studies of
Almutairi and Quttainah (2017) and Najwa et al. (2019). The maximum number of BIND is
found in the year 2016. Hence, the mean value of BIND fluctuated in the whole sample
period.
The mean of SB is 3.71 of the pooled sample, the SD value is 1.46 and the median value is
3. A similar size of SB was found by Najwa et al. (2019) in the sample of Southeast Asia IBs.
The largest average SB size is found in 2008, and then later it remains constant between the
average of 3.69 and 3.76 throughout the sample period. The average mean of AUDC is 3.46
of the pooled sample, and the median value is 3, similar to (Khan et al., 2017) in Pakistan.
The average size of AUDC moves between 3.35 and 3.53 throughout the sample period.
According to the OECD, this size of AUDC is right for the organizations (AlSagr et al., 2018;
Kallamu and Saat, 2015). In addition, the average mean of CD of the pooled sample is 7%,
SD value is 2.6% and the median value is 0 representing most of the banks that do not
practice CEO duality (Bukair and Abdul Rahman, 2015).
Regarding the IC variables; the mean of human capital efficiency (HCE) of the pooled
sample is 1.03, the SD value is 2.67 and the median value is 0.17. The average amount of
HCE steadily increased throughout the study period. The continuous increase in HCE is
because of Islamic banking expansion, so they invest more in human capital (Nawaz,
2017). The average value of relational capital efficiency (RCE) is 2.09 of the pooled sample,
the SD value is 5.21 and the median value is 0.45. These results indicate that IBs invested
more in structural capital as compared to human capital. Overall, the mean value of SCE
also varies throughout the sample period.
The mean value of relational capital efficiency (RCE) of the pooled sample is 0.543, the SD
value is 1.547 and the median value is 0.080. The lowest mean value is noticed in the year
2009 and the highest mean value is seen in the year 2017. Overall, the mean value
continued to increase throughout the sample period except for the year 2014. These results
indicate that IBs invest more money in their structural capital rather than the HCE and RCE;
this could be due to IBs priority change in the expansion of their infrastructure. The mean
value of SCE steadily increased until the year 2016 because IBs have enough
infrastructures, and in a position to invest in SCE and RCE for competitive advantage.
As per the control variables, the mean value of total assets (TA) is US$5,020m for the
pooled sample, with the SD value of US$11,004 million and the median value is US$1,040m.
Hence, the mean value of the total asset value of IBs consistently increased throughout the
sample period. The average value of debt to equity (LEV) of the pooled sample is 7.35, the
SD value is 7.41 and the median value is 6.47. These results show that IBs have more debt
as compared to equity. Concerning the macroeconomic variables, the average mean of the
inflation is 120 of the pooled sample, the SD value is 47 and the median value is 108. The
average value of GDP is 27.91 of the pooled sample, the SD value is 3.81 and the median
value is 27.66. The mean value of GDP slightly increased throughout the sample period. The
result indicates that the average income of the people increased in the sample period.
AST 1
NPM 0.9749 1
BS 0.024 0.0083 1
BIND 0.0125 0.0119 0.6802 1
CD 0.0353 0.0307 0.0178 0.0041 1
AUDC 0.0874 0.0761 0.3075 0.3048 0.0658 1
SB 0.0366 0.0391 0.3728 0.3745 0.2087 0.4036 1
BM 0.024 0.0099 0.1288 0.0726 0.1433 0.062 0.1891 1
GEN 0.045 0.042 0.0757 0.0476 0.0458 0.1136 0.0274 0.1088 1
HCE 0.0179 0.0157 0.0458 0.0211 0.0102 0.0604 0.0291 0.0859 0.0894 1
RCE 0.0537 0.0626 0.0641 0.0898 0.0586 0.023 0.0406 0.0484 0.3103 0.3627 1
SCE 0.0205 0.0193 0.0324 0.024 0.018 0.065 0.0347 0.1386 0.0882 0.9564 0.3773 1
LNTA 0.0492 0.0294 0.0001 0.0921 0.0799 0.1184 0.1434 0.0029 0.0535 0.0694 0.0019 0.1155 1
LEV 0.0817 0.0948 0.0418 0.0045 0.0213 0.0376 0.2032 0.0413 0.134 0.2221 0.1038 0.2303 0.0222 1
FOWN 0.073 0.0982 0.0023 0.0516 0.1151 0.1057 0.027 0.0937 0.0832 0.0755 0.051 0.0896 0.0688 0.067 1
INF 0.056 0.0372 0.0381 0.0034 0.0338 0.0084 0.0557 0.2313 0.0867 0.155 0.0312 0.2046 0.1828 0.0826 0.0953 1
GDP 0.007 0.0212 0.0395 0.0747 0.023 0.0978 0.0848 0.2 0.0249 0.2098 0.0158 0.2349 0.116 0.0577 0.1074 0.0452 1
Variance inflation factor 2.03 1.99 1.11 1.3 1.56 1.3 1.19 2.73 1.34 3.75 1.11 1.19 1.08 1.25 1.14
Notes: AST, asset turnover; NPM, net profit margin; BS, board size; BIND, non-executive directors; CD, CEO duality; SB, Shariah board; AUDC, HCE, human capital efficiency; SCE,
structural capital efficiency; RCE, relational capital efficiency; audit committee; GEND, the gender of CEO; BM, board meeting; LNTA, bank size; LEV, leverage; FOWN, foreign
ownership; INF, inflation; GDP, gross domestic product
coefficients of explanatory variables are below 0.8, so there is no issue of collinearity.
Besides, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is computed to detect the presence of
multicollinearity. If an independent variable in a model has a VIF value of more than or equal
to 10, it indicates the presence of multicollinearity in the model (Wooldridge, 2005). As
shown in Table 4, the VIF value of all variables is less than 10, so there is no multicollinearity
problem in this study.
board has diversified skills, it has a detrimental effect on the performance of IBs. This
finding is parallel with the findings of (Almutairi and Quttainah, 2017; Wang et al., 2012)
which stated that a larger board harms the bank’s performance in terms of ATO. It can be
enlightened by the fact that a large board size might have problems in coordination and
decision-making due to their large size. BIND remains negative and has a significant
relationship with ATO and a positive and significant relationship with NPM. The positive
relationship supports the finding of (Haris et al., 2019), who argued that BIND protected the
rights of shareholders and played a significant role in enhancing the organization’s
performance. Hence, this study suggested that IBs can thrive their performance by adding
well qualified and experienced persons to be as independent board members.
CEO duality shows a positive and significant relationship with IBs performance (ATO and
NPM). This study supports Pillai and Al-Malkawi (2018), who argued that CEO duality is
beneficial to boost the performance of IBs. This significant impact advocates that CEO as
chairperson has more understanding of the entire operation of the business, and then he
can take better decisions to improve the performance of the IBs. The same Shariah board
(SB) remains positive and significant, but it has a negative and significant relationship with
NPM. This finding indicates that large SB has various experiences and knowledge on Fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence), which can boost IBs performance. This might be because of the
additional support for the board to foster the performance of IBs in terms of ATO.
Furthermore, concerning the relationship of AUDC with performance, the ATO remains a
positive and significant factor in thriving for the performance of IBs. Thus, the findings of the
study are in line with (Wang et al., 2012), who argued that AUDC enhances the
5. Conclusion
Corporate governance is the ongoing hot debate among scholars, especially after the
financial crisis. For this purpose, this study investigates whether strong CG mechanisms
affect the performance of IBs. While empirical results appear to be mixed, many
researchers believe that a strong CG mechanism helps to improve banking performance
(AlSagr et al., 2018; Detthamrong et al., 2017; Farag et al., 2018; Hassan et al., 2017;
Hussien et al., 2019). In this study, we explore a large data set of CG and bank-specific
variables from 129 IBs of 29 OIC countries during the period of 2008–2017. The study used
2SYS-GMM to analyse the relationships between CG, IC and banking performance.
Based on the empirical findings, CG (i.e. board size, board independence, CEO duality,
audit committee, Shariah board) has a significant relationship with IC (HCE, SCE, RCE) and
banking performance (ATO, NPM). However, IC (HCE, SCE, RCE) was found to partially
mediate the CG relationship with the performance of IBs. To the best of our knowledge, this
is the first study to show that CG exerts an indirect effect on the performance of IBs via IC in
OIC countries. The finding of this study also contributes through its justification of the
underpinning resource dependence theory in providing insights into banking performance
in OIC countries.
This study is expected to add significant contributions to the assortment of information to
the academicians, regulators and practitioners of the banking industry to draw the rules and
regulations to improve the existing standards and guidelines of CG practices to strengthen
its performance. It also underlines the need for banking regulatory bodies to draw
guidelines on how to use the IC resources to enhance their competency and financial value
of IBs. Thus, a good CG mechanism and the identification of IC can increase the value of
IBs in the eyes of investors. Finally, this study also recommends the regulatory bodies of IBs
to generate an awareness programme relating to the issue of CG and IC.
This study nevertheless has its limitations; firstly, the study is limited to examining the
mediating effect of IC on the relationship between CG and Islamic banking performance in
OIC countries. Future studies can embark on this examination with the same variables in
other regions such as Europe, Africa and so forth. This study is also limited in confining its
mediating role testing to the IC. In this regard, future studies can use other mediating
variables such as board characteristics, Shariah board characteristics, audit committee
characteristics and banking leverage, among others on the CG mechanism and banking
performance. The study is also limited in its use of ATO and NPM for the proxies of banking
performance. Future studies can use other alternative accounting and marketing base
measures to account for banking performance. Finally, this study applies only full-fledged
IBs in OIC countries and future studies can include the other Islamic institutions (i.e.
Modarabah, Musharakah and Takaful), as well as the non-financial organizations.
Abdullah, D.F. and Sofian, S. (2012), “The relationship between intellectual capital and corporate
performance”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 537-541.
Abdulsalam, F., Al-Qaheri, H. and Al-Khayyat, R. (2011), “The intellectual capital performance of Kuwaiti
banks: an application of VAIC model”, iBusiness, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 88-96.
Ahmed, H.A. and Ghazali, M.N.A. (2013), “A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital disclosures
and corporate governance attributes in Malaysia”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Ajili, H. and Bouri, A. (2018), “Corporate governance quality of Islamic banks: measurement and effect on
financial performance”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 470-487.
Alhassan, A.L. and Asare, N. (2016), “Intellectual capital and bank productivity in emerging markets:
evidence from Ghana”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 589-609.
Alizadeh, R., Chashmi, S. and Bahnamiri, A. (2014), “Corporate governance and intellectual capital”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 181-186.
Al-Khazali, O., Lean, H.H. and Samet, A. (2014), “Do Islamic stock indexes outperform conventional stock
indexes? A stochastic dominance approach”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 29-46.
Al-Malkawi, H.A.N. and Pillai, R. (2018), “Analyzing financial performance by integrating conventional
governance mechanisms into the GCC Islamic banking framework”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 44 No. 5,
pp. 604-623.
Al-Musali, M.A.K.M. and Ku Ismail, K.N.I, and (2015), “Board diversity and intellectual capital
performance: the moderating role of the effectiveness of board meetings”, Accounting Research Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 268-283.
Al-Musalli, M.A.K. and Ismail, K.N.I.K. (2012), “Intellectual capital performance and board characteristics
of GCC banks”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 219-226.
Almutairi, A.R. and Quttainah, M.A. (2017), “Corporate governance: evidence from Islamic banks”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 601-624.
AlSagr, N., Belkhaoui, S. and Aldosari, A. (2018), “The effect of corporate governance mechanisms on
bank performance evidence from Saudi banking sector”, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 8
No. 8, pp. 1111-1125.
Al-Sartawi, M. and Abdalmuttaleb, M.A. (2018), “Corporate governance and intellectual capital: evidence
from Gulf cooperation council countries”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Andreeva, T. and Garanina, T. (2017), “Intellectual capital and its impact on the financial performance of
Russian manufacturing companies”, Ajpcaqn, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
praru, B. and Nistor, S. (2018), “Corporate governance and efficiency in banking:
Andries, , A.M., Ca
evidence from emerging economies”, Applied Economics, Vol. 50 Nos 34/35, pp. 3812-3832.
Appuhami, R. and Bhuyan, M. (2015), “Examining the influence of corporate governance on intellectual
capital efficiency: evidence from top service firms in Australia”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 30
Nos 4/5, pp. 347-372.
Arifin, J. (2016), “Corporate governance and intellectual capital on financial performance of bank sector
companies: Indonesia stock exchange 2008-2012”, Journal of Administrative Sciences and Policy
Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-82.
Aruppalal, D., Wickramasinghe, V. and Mahakalanda, I. (2015), “Intellectual capital and financial
performance in Sri Lankan banks”, Working Paper, pp. 37-49.
Aslam, E. and Haron, R. (2020a), “Does corporate governance affect the performance of islamic banks?
New insight into Islamic countries”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1073-1090.
Aslam, E., Haron, R. and Ahmad, S. (2020), “A comparative analysis of the performance of islamic and
conventional banks: does corporate governance matter? ”, Int. J. Business Excellence, VoLVol. 20 No. 3, early
cite.
Aslam, E., Haron, R. and Tahir, M.N. (2019), “How director remuneration impacts firm performance: an empirical
analysis of executive director remuneration in Pakistan”, Borsa Istanbul Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 186-196.
Aslam, E., Ijaz, F. and Iqbal, A. (2016), “Does working capital and financial structure impact profitability of
Islamic and conventional banks differently? Islamic banking and”, Finance Review, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 50-67.
Aslam, E., Kalim, R. and Fizza, S. (2019), “Do cash holding and corporate governance structure matter
for the performance of firms? Evidence from KMI 30-and KSE 100-Indexed firms in Pakistan”, Global
Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 313-330.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1194.
Basyith, A. (2016), “Corporate governance, intellectual capital and firm performance”, Research in
Applied Economics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 17-41.
Beltratti, A. and Stulz, R.M. (2009), “Why did some banks perform better during the credit crisis? A cross-
country study of the impact of governance and regulation”, National Bureau of Economic Research,
pp. 1-35.
Berger, A.N., Imbierowicz, B. and Rauch, C. (2016), “The roles of corporate governance in bank failures
during the recent financial crisis”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 729-770.
Bourkhis, K. and Nabi, M.S. (2013), “Islamic and conventional banks’ soundness during the 2007–2008
financial crisis”, Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 68-77.
Buallay, A. (2018), “Audit committee characteristics: an empirical investigation of the contribution to
intellectual capital efficiency”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 183-200.
Buallay, A. (2019), “Intellectual capital and performance of Islamic and conventional banking”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 680-700.
Bukair, A.A. and Abdul Rahman, A. (2015), “Bank performance and board of directors attributes by
Islamic banks”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 291-309.
Chahal, H. and Bakshi, P. (2015), “Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage relationship:
role of innovation and organizational learning”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 376-399.
Chazi, A., Khallaf, A. and Zantout, Z. (2018), “Corporate governance and bank performance: Islamic
versus non-Islamic banks in GCC countries”, The Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 109-126.
Chou, T.K. and Buchdadi, A.D. (2017), “Independent board, audit committee, risk committee, the
meeting attendance level and its impact on the performance: a study of listed banks in Indonesia”,
International Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 24-36.
Detthamrong, U., Chancharat, N. and Vithessonthi, C. (2017), “Corporate governance, capital structure
and firm performance: evidence from Thailand”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 689-709.
Duho, K.C.T. and Onumah, J.M. (2019), “The determinants of intellectual capital performance of banks in
Ghana: an empirical approach”, Journal of Intellectual, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The Proven Way to Establish Your Company’s
Real Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower, Piatkus.
Faisal, M., Hassan, M., Shahid, M.S., Rizwan, M. and Qureshi, Z.A. (2016), “Impact of corporate
governance on intellectual capital efficiency: evidence from KSE listed commercial banks”, Scientific
International, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 353-361.
Grassa, R. and Matoussi, H. (2014a), “Corporate governance of Islamic banks: a comparative study
between GCC and southeast Asia countries”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance
and Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 346-362.
Grassa, R. and Matoussi, H. (2014b), “Is corporate governance different for Islamic banks? A
comparative analysis between the Gulf cooperation council and southeast Asian countries”, International
Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 27-51.
Grove, H., Patelli, L., Victoravich, L.M. and Xu, P.T. (2011), “Corporate governance and performance in
the wake of the financial crisis: evidence from US commercial banks”, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 418-436.
Hamdan, A. (2018), “Intellectual capital and firm performance: Differentiating between accounting-based
and market-based performance”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 139-151.
Haris, M., Yao, H., Tariq, G., Malik, A. and Javaid, H.M. (2019), “Intellectual capital performance and
profitability of banks: evidence from Pakistan”, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 56-69.
Hashim, M.J., Osman, I. and Alhabshi, S.M. (2015), “Effect of intellectual capital on organizational
performance”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 211 No. 1, pp. 207-214.
Hassan, M., Rizwan, M. and Sohail, H.M. (2017), “Corporate governance, Shariah advisory boards and
Islamic banks’ performance”, Pakistan Journal of Islamic Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 359-366.
Hussain, T., Ridzuan, M. and Mahfuzur, R.M. (2020), “Impact of board attributes on the firm dividend
payout policy: evidence from Malaysia”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 919-437.
Hussien, M.E., Alam, M.M., Murad, M.W. and Wahid, A. (2019), “The performance of Islamic banks
during the 2008 global financial crisis: evidence from the Gulf cooperation council countries”, Journal of
Islamic Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 407-420.
Islam, A.A.I.O.G. and Mohd, S.N. (2020), “Audit committee versus other governance mechanisms and
the effect of investment opportunities: evidence from Palestine”, Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 527-544.
Jamei, R. (2017), “Intellectual capital and corporate governance mechanisms: evidence from Tehran
stock exchange”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 86-92.
Jetmiko, J. (2018), “Analysis on the effect of intellectual capital on growth and financial performance of
Islamic banking”, Indonesian Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 92-109.
Kallamu, B.S. and Saat, N.A.M. (2015), “Audit committee attributes and firm performance: evidence from
Malaysian finance companies”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 206-231.
Khairiyansyah, K. and Vebtasvili, V. (2018), “Relationship between intellectual capital with profitability
and productivity in Indonesian banking industry”, Jurnal Keuangan Dan Perbankan, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 127-136.
Khalique, M., Shaari, J. and Isa, A. (2011), “Relationship of intellectual capital with the organizational
performance of commercial banks in Islamabad, Pakistan”, International Journal of Current Research,
Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 1-12.
Khan, I., Khan, M. and Tahir, M. (2017), “Performance comparison of Islamic and conventional banks:
empirical evidence from Pakistan”, International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 419-433.
Li, J., Mangena, M. and Pike, R. (2012), “The effect of audit committee characteristics on intellectual
capital disclosure”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 98-110.
Mahmood, M., Khan, S., Ijaz, F. and Aslam, E. (2014), “Determinants of profitability of Islamic banking
industry: an evidence from Pakistan”, Determinants of Profitability of Islamic Banking Industry: An
Evidence from Pakistan, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 27-46.
Mohammad, A., Mehrdad, G., Babak, J. and Aliasghar, T. (2019), “Does board independence moderate
the relationship between environmental disclosure quality and performance? Evidence from static and
Mollah, S. and Zaman, M. (2015), “Shari’ah supervision, corporate governance and performance:
conventional vs. Islamic banks”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 418-435.
Moudud-Ul-Huq, S., Zheng, C. and Das, A. (2018), “Does bank corporate governance matter for bank
performance and risk-taking? New insights of an emerging economy”, Asian Economic and Financial
Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 205-230.
Mwamba, J.W.M., Hammoudeh, S. and Gupta, R. (2017), “Financial tail risks in conventional and Islamic
stock markets: a comparative analysis”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Najwa, N.A., Ramly, Z. and Haron, R. (2019), “Board size, chief risk officer and risk-taking in Islamic
banks: role of Shariah supervisory board”, Jurnal Pengurusan, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Nawaz, T. (2017), “Momentum investment strategies, corporate governance and firm performance: an
analysis of Islamic banks”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 192-211.
Nawaz, T. (2019), “Exploring the nexus between human capital, corporate governance and performance:
evidence from Islamic banks”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 157 No. 2, pp. 567-587.
Nguyen, T., Locke, S. and Reddy, K. (2014), “A dynamic estimation of governance structures and
financial performance for Singaporean companies”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Nomran, M.N. and Haron, R. (2019), “Dual board governance structure and multi-bank performance: a
comparative analysis between Islamic banks in Southeast Asia and GCC countries”, Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1377-1402.
Nomran, M.N., Haron, R. and Hassan, R. (2018), “Shari’ah supervisory board characteristics effects on Islamic
banks’ performance: evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Oppong, G.K. and Pattanayak, J.K. (2019), “Does investing in intellectual capital improve productivity?
Panel evidence from commercial banks in India”, Borsa Istanbul Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 219-227.
Pearse, N.J. (2009), “The role of experiences in creating and developing intellectual capital”,
Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 371-382.
Pillai, R. and Al-Malkawi, H.A.N. (2018), “On the relationship between corporate governance and firm
performance: evidence from GCC countries”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 394-410.
Poh, L.T., Kilicman, A. and Ibrahim, S.N.I. (2018), “On intellectual capital and financial performances of
banks in Malaysia”, Cogent Economics and Finance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Pulic, A. (2000), “VAICTM–an accounting tool for IC management”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 20 Nos 5/6/7/8, pp. 702-714.
Purnomo, H. (2018), “Intellectual capital approach for a better corporate governance of sharia banking”,
Iqtishadia: Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Islam STAIN Kudus, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 105-128.
Rochmadhona, B.N., Suganda, T.R. and Cahyadi, S. (2018), “The competitive advantage between
intellectual capital and financial performance of banking sector in ASEAN”, Jurnal Keuangan Dan
Perbankan, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 321-334.
Rosman, R., Wahab, N.A. and Zainol, Z. (2014), “Efficiency of Islamic banks during the financial crisis: an
analysis of Middle Eastern and Asian countries”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Saeed, S., Rasid, S.Z.A. and Basiruddin, R. (2015), “The mediating role of intellectual capital in corporate
governance and the corporate performance relationship”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 209-219.
Tahir, M., Shah, Q.A., Khan, M.M. and Afridi, M.A. (2018), “ Intellectual capital and financial performance
of banks in Pakistan”, Dialogue (Pakistan), Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 105-118.
Vo, D.H. and Nguyen, T.M. (2014), “The impact of corporate governance on firm performance: empirical
study in Vietnam”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 1-13.
Wahyudin, A. and Solikhah, B. (2017), “Corporate governance implementation rating in Indonesia and its
effects on financial performance”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 250-265.
Wang, W.K., Lu, W.M. and Lin, Y.L. (2012), “Does corporate governance play an important role in BHC
performance? Evidence from the US”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 751-760.
Widowati, E.H. and Pradono, N.S.H. (2017), “Management background, intellectual capital and financial
performance of Indonesian banks”, KINERJA, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 172-187.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2005), “Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel
data models with unobserved heterogeneity”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Xu, J. and Wang, B. (2018), “Intellectual capital, financial performance and companies’ sustainable
growth: evidence from the Korean manufacturing industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Zagorchev, A. and Gao, L. (2015), “Corporate governance and performance of financial institutions”,
Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 17-41.
Zeghal, D. and Maaloul, A. (2010), “Analysing 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.
Corresponding author
Ejaz Aslam can be contacted at: [email protected]
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: [email protected]