Abstract
This study defends the view that the adoption of corporate governance provisions should not be seen as a detriment to firms’ financial performance. On the contrary, we contend that some combinations of corporate governance provisions may indeed lead to higher firm performance among U.S. restaurant firms. Using a set-theoretic method, such as the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), our findings revealed that there are three configurations of governance provisions that lead to superior financial performance. The presence of poison pills appeared as a core condition in all solutions. Negated analysis indicates that the inappropriate bundling of governance provisions leads to poor firm performance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
