Date of submission: July 11, 2022; date of acceptance: December 6, 2022. * Contact information: brishti.acct@mbstu.ac.bd, Department of Accounting, Maw- lana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Santosh, Tangail-1902, Dhaka, Bangla- desh, phone: +880 173 448 89 73; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-4612-1794. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting e-ISSN 2300-3065 p-ISSN 2300-12402023, volume 12, issue 1 Chakraborty, B. (2023). Does Board Structure and Ownership Structure Influence The Perfor- mance of Listed Companies: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Industry of Bangla- desh?. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 12(1), 29–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ CJFA.2023.002 brishti chaKraborty* Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University Does boarD structure anD ownership structure influence the performance of listeD companies: eviDence from pharmaceuticals anD chemical inDustry of banglaDesh? Keywords: ownership structure, board structure, two-stage least squares, firm per- formance. J E L Classification: M14, M41. Abstract: This study examines the influence of board structure and ownership struc- ture on a firm’s financial performance in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Bangladesh. The data of this study is based on all listed companies in the pharma- ceuticals and chemical industry on Dhaka Stock Exchange. Data was collected from the annual reports of the concerned industry from 2015 to 2020. To examine the data, the study has applied descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, VIF test, and the two- stage least squares (2SLS) estimator using Eviews software. Based on existing empir- ical studies, seven major attributes (board size, board independence, board gender, managerial ownership, institutional ownership, audit committee size, and frequency of audit committee meetings) have been selected to identify their influence on a firm’s performance. Findings from the study show that there is an insignificant negative rela- tionship among board size, board gender, frequency of meetings, and the firm’s finan- http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2023.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2023.002 Brishti Chakraborty3030 cial performance but a significant relationship with board independence, institutional ownership, and frequency of meetings. The study has proposed that board size can be smaller but should be representative. This study will contribute to the literature on corporate governance and profitability in an emerging economy like Bangladesh.  Introduction Introduction Corporate governance refers to the collection of rules, principles, laws, poli- cies, and regulations which impact the administration, governance, and overall controlling systems of a business. Several empirical studies have claimed that an organization can enhance its market value through good performance and good governance within the organization (Jan, Lai & Tahir, 2021). It is crucial as good governance delivers the ability of a firm to surge the competitive ad- vantage, proficiency, and efficiency of companies (Maher & Andersson, 2005). Firm efficiency largely requires aligning the interest between the stockhold- ers and the executives. Hence, board and ownership characteristics are indis- pensable elements of the governance mechanism. Because board member’s ef- fectiveness plays a critical starring role in controlling the managing body and poring over their decision (Waheed & Malik, 2019). Therefore, the necessity to have empirical studies on corporate governance and its branches has increased in recent times, particularly in emerging countries. The effectiveness and effi- cacy of the board are influenced by several aspects such as board quality and board structure, size of boards, the duality of CEO/Chairman positions, board diversity and ownership, information maladjustment, and board culture (Kyer- eboah-Coleman & Biekpe, 2006). Corporate governance could support aligning different parties’ interests, such as individuals, shareholders, societies, com- munities, and other stakeholders, building a fundamental moral basis. In this way, it works for fulfilling the owner’s long-lasting tactical goals, in turn boost- ing up shareholder value and market value. The board generally acts to for- mulate market-related strategies and resource allocation strategies, which is crucial to surviving in the competitive market. The board also evaluates and approves strategic decisions that drive firm performance along with market- related strategy and resource allocation strategies. Therefore, it’s pertinent to understand those board characteristics contributing most to performance (Vairavan & Zhang, 2020). doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 3131 Literature review Literature review Corporate governance has been well-known as a very rigorous and divisive area of the business administration literature (Karmańska, 2014). Therefore it is highly needed to be aware of the relationship between governance com- ponents and firm performance. The greater boards size is found to be favora- ble, while the excessive participation of independent directors is claimed to be unfavorable (Waheed & Malik, 2019). Wang, Abbasi, Babajide, and Yeki- ni (2020) has found board size, diversity, independence, and board meetings have an insignificant effect on firm performance. Whereas, Prashar and Gupta (2020) have stated that board size impact significantly and positively firm per- formance. Similarly, Puni and Anlesinya (2020) have found board size, rate of recurrence of board meetings, and ownership structure positively related to financial performance. On the other hand, Limpaphayom and Connelly (2006) have claimed that there is no connection between board size and firm perfor- mance based on their study. As per the governance guidelines of 2006, the ra- tio of independent directors ought to be at least one-tenth of overall directors. Afterward, in 2012, the proportion has been enlarged to one-fifth of the entire Board of directors (Singla & Singh, 2019). Stewardship theory and agency theo- ry explains the importance of board independence to mitigate conflict between principal and CEO since firm agents act for the amelioration of individual wel- fare rather than principal (Nawaz Khan, Hussain, Ur-Rehman, Maqbool, Engku Ali & Numan, 2019). Wijethilake, Ekanayake and Perera (2015) have suggested that independent boards are supposed to deliver a level of unbiased and con- scientious supervision for companies. The resource dependency theory advo- cates that independent directors can take exorcism judgments, and it leads to heightened firm performance (Singla & Singh, 2019). The attendance of inde- pendent directors acts as improved monitoring of managers’ performance to defend the minority stockholders’ interest. Perhaps, they can reduce agency costs and deliver resources to the business and management (M & Sasidharan, 2020). Consequently, a higher proportion of independent directors on the board may drive greater financial performance (Prashar & Gupta, 2020) While Al-Matari (2020) has found an insignificant relationship between these. The enhancement of gender variety on the company board structure as a means to expand corporate governance (CG) structure has been incorporated into the agendas of many academic researchers and corporate board member (Fran- Brishti Chakraborty3232 coeur, Labelle & Sinclair-Desgagné, 2008). Numerous preceding studies (Khan, Khidmat, Bin, & Awan, 2021; Ullah Fang & Jebran, 2020; Unite, Sullivan & Shi, 2019) have advocated positive influence of participating female directorship on business’s performance. Board diversity might contribute to the argument, discussion of thoughts, and performance of the group. Boards Gender diversi- ty is a disputed theme, which has attained remarkable attention of legislators, academics, and shareholders (Song, Yoon & Kang, 2020). Gender role theory has advised a positive and significant effect of gender diversity on perfor- mance. Board Diversity is an important variable in accessing firm performance (Bouteska, 2020; Saini & Singhania, 2018). Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álva- rez (2020) have claimed the inclusion of female board members can raise firm earnings. Similarly, (Martín-Ugedo, Mínguez-Vera, & Rossi, 2019) and (Prashar & Gupta, 2020) have shown women’s participation has a positive effect on the performance. Likewise, Saleh, Zaid, Shurafa, Maigoshi, Mansour and Zaid (2020) have demonstrated a positive but insignificant effect on gender diversi- ty and firm performance. But Vairavan and Zhang (2020) have found no direct consequence of board diversity on firm performance. Therefore, the connec- tion between women’s participation and the efficacy of boards is noteworthy. Whereas, Khan et al. (2021) have elucidated an inverted U- shape relationship between women board members and a bank’s performance and claimed that only gender-balanced increase the performance. Former studies have claimed that high-level executive ownership contrib- utes to achieving both the interests of managers and stockholders and boom- ing firm performance. Generally, it is the responsibility of the Board of direc- tors to advocate and implement the foremost strategies of the company. Puni and Anlesinya (2020) have advocated that both institutional and managerial ownership can expand financial performance (Neffati, Khiari & Lajmi, 2020). The agency theory recommends having managerial ownership in a situation where executives own shares and are directly engaged in the everyday firm’s operation. In this way, managerial ownership can abate conflict of interest and the agency problem. Whereas, Al Farooque Buachoom and Sun (2020) have stated the ownership structure has an insignificant effect on performance. In- stitutional investors are the foremost governance mechanism that plays a key role in augmenting firm performance. Institutional stockholders can play an important role in raising the financial performance, which is compatible with the agency theory that insider ownership supports to protect of the interest of stockholders with those of the executives and therefore increases perfor- doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 3333 mance (Din, Arshad Khan, Khan & Khan, 2021). Wang et al. (2020) have stat- ed that performance increases with institutional ownership. Whereas, Daryaei and Fattahi (2020) have found an adverse and significant linkage with institu- tional ownership. Besides firm size have been found to have positive and sig- nificant impact in increasing performance (Sanyaolu, Adejumo & Kadiri, 2021). In Bangladesh legal resolution of corporate governance matters is not consid- ered effective compared to developed countries. Therefore, monitoring man- agers’ behavior becomes more crucial. Another component, audit committee is an important component of the interior corporate governance mechanism, which helps to ensure transparency and answerability inside the organiza- tion. It is claimed that it is possible to reduce the agency problem by ensuring the effective role of the audit committee (Detthamrong, Chancharat & Vithes- sonthi, 2017). Because all directors are supposed to be present in the meeting as it is one of the requirements to have re-nomination as a board member. All resolutions are approved through the meetings (Eluyela, Akintimehin, Okere, Ozordi, Osuma, Ilogho & Oladipo, 2018). It is observed that the size of the audit committee is positively related to firm performance (Bowrin, 2013). Eluyela et al. (2018) also have found a positive link between board meeting rate of re- currence and firm performance. Nevertheless, too many meetings are not sug- gested for an effective board because of the diverse topics of board meetings. Therefore, only the quantity of meetings cannot elucidate good monitoring (Ji, Talavera & Yin, 2020). Likewise, El Mir and Seboui (2008) have claimed that a bigger audit committee can drive to inexpert governance resulting from re- current meetings, which consequently increase expenses and thus, adversely affects company performance. Thus, along with the frequency of meeting the quality of meeting which indicates the efficacy and effectiveness should be keep in mind. The pharmaceutical sector is the third developed technology sector among all industries contributing a good portion of government revenues (Mohd Saad, Haniff & Ali, 2020; wikipedia, 2022). The sector affords 98% of the entire me- dicinal demand of the country as well as exports drugs to international mar- kets, including Europe (Hossan, 2021; (www2)). Thus, the goal of this research is to examine the influence of corporate board structure, Ownership struc- ture, and corporate control on a firm’s performance in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry of Bangladesh. From the previous study, we did not catch on the perfect view of the result because of previous studies compared with lim- ited variables. Moreover, there are very few studies conducted on board struc- Brishti Chakraborty3434 ture, and ownership structure of pharmaceuticals industries and most of the studies are conducted in the banking sector. Therefore, the study enhances and contributes to the body of research using data collected on pharmaceutical and chemical companies of Bangladesh and evaluating the impact of board struc- ture and ownership structure on the financial performance of the companies. Methodology and the course of the research processMethodology and the course of the research process This paper analyses data from the pharmaceuticals and chemical industry list- ed on the Dhaka Stock exchange (DSE) for five financial years. The study tries to find a relationship between firm performance with board characteristics and ownership structure, and some control variables such as: 1. Board size, 2. Board independence, 3. Board gender, 4. Managerial own- ership, 5. Institutional ownership, 6. Audit committee size, 7. Audit committee meeting, 8. Other Control variable like firm size, firm age, growth and leverage. Sample selectionSample selection This study is conducted on all 20 pharmaceutical and chemical companies list- ed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) under the category of pharmaceutical and chemical industries from 2015 to 2020. The data needed for the research was primarily secondary. The genesis of data includes annual reports and fi- nancial statements of the listed companies. Variables such as return on equi- ty (ROE), and return on assets (ROA) (Aifuwa, 2020; Desai & Desai, 2019) are considered and adopted as the indicators of performance. The data regarding board structure, board gender (BG), ownership, and corporate control infor- mation was acquired from the Web sites and annual reports of the various com- panies. A regression analysis was used to establish the presence or otherwise of a significant relationship between the dependent and independent variables while controlling for firm age, firm size, sales growth, and leverage ratio. We have applied the two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimator in Eviews Software for analysis. doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 3535 Table 1. summary of the dependent, independent and control variables Name of Variable Symbol Explanation Return on Assets ROA Net income divided by Total Assets Return on Equity ROE Net income divided by shareholders equity Board size BS Number of directors present in the board Board independence BI The proportion of independent directors who are members of the board Board gender BG Number of female director on the board Managerial ownership MIO The proportion of equity held by the board of directors and other managerial person Institutional ownership INO The proportion of equity held by the financial and non-finan- cial companies Audit committee size ACS Number of members in audit committee Frequency of audit committee meetings FM Frequency of audit committee meetings held Firm size FS natural logarithm of total assets Firm Age AGE natural logarithm of the number of years since the establish- ment Sales Growth Growth total sales of the current year minus total sales in the previous year divided by total sales in the current year Leverage LEV ratio of long term debt to the total assets S o u r c e : own elaboration. Research ModelResearch Model There are a total of seven independent variables that are applied in the research model, namely board size, board independence, board gender, managerial own- ership, institutional ownership, audit committee size, and audit committee meeting frequency. In addition, there are four control variables, firm age, size, growth, and leverage. The association between corporate governance mecha- nism and firm performance is tested through the following regression model: Brishti Chakraborty3636 ROA = β0 +β1BS + β2BI + β3BG + β4MIO + β5INO + β6ACS + β7FM + β8FS + β9AGE + β10GROWTH + β11LEV+ε (1) ROE = β0+ β1BS + β2BI + β3BG + β4MIO + β5INO + β6ACS + β7FM + β8FS+ β9AGE + β10GROWTH + β11LEV+ε (2) Where: Dependent variables (ROA, ROE) Independent variables (BS, BI, BG, MIO, INO, ACS, FM) Control variables (FS, AGE, GROWTH and LEV) Coefficient β, Error term ε. Empirical Result &AnalysisEmpirical Result &Analysis Table 2. Unit Root Test Result Variables At level First difference T static P value T static P value ROA -7.5962 0.0000 ROE -10.5621 0.0000 BS -5.7670 0.0000 BI -10.96 0.0000 BG -3.6349 0.0046 MIO -2.9174 0.0465 INO -4.4189 0.0005 ACS 3.7195 0.0049 FS -2.7332 0.0714 -10.2584 0.0000 AGE -2.2423 0.1927 -10.7791 0.0000 FM -4.5024 0.0003 SG -11.9237 0.0000 LEV -6.2471 0.0000 S o u r c e : own study and data of Annual reports from Dhaka Stock Exchange. doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 3737 The descriptive analysis and correlation test were conducted. Table 2 shows the results of the Unit root test based on the Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation to test whether the data is stationary or non-stationary where the P-value is significant at a 95% confidence level. Here, the data of all variables are found as stationary at levels except FA and FS. Whereas, FS and FA are not stationary at level but at First difference. Moreover, the P-values of ROA, ROE, BS, BI, BG, MIO, INO, AGE, FM, SG, and LEV is less than 0.05 (P<0.05) at the level, and the value of FS and FA are less than 0.05 (P<0.05) at First difference. There- fore, these are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level, and the data are suitable to precede further analysis and draw realistic results from regres- sion analysis. Table 3. Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) Coefficient Centered Variable Variance VIF C 0.123068 NA BS 3.17E-05 1.563498 BI2 0.000935 1.081412 BG 5.02E-05 1.553568 MIO 0.006790 2.008380 INO 0.012220 1.782164 ACS 0.000305 1.498931 FM 0.000105 1.342733 FS 8.63E-05 2.171139 AGE 0.000624 2.050644 SG 7.27E-05 1.065019 LEV 0.008419 1.237518 S o u r c e : own study and data of Annual reports from Dhaka Stock Exchange. A multicollinearity test is conducted to ascertain whether the independent var- iables have a strong correlation among themselves. The test is important be- cause the reliability of the results is questionable in the event of the existence Brishti Chakraborty3838 of multicollinearity. Literature has suggested the value of centered VIF value should be below 10. It means that there is no multicollinearity issue in the stud- ied model. Table 3 shows that the centered variance inflation factors are less than the standard value 10. Therefore multicollinearity is not a problem in this model. Table 4. Regression Analysis The impact of board structure and ownership structure on return on asset Regression model (dependent variable: return on asset) Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. BS -0.002932 0.005632 -0.520620 0.6038 BI 0.180433 0.030581 -5.900212 ***0.0000 BG -0.008582 0.007084 -1.211475 0.2285 MIO 0.059018 0.082400 0.716239 0.4755 INO -0.184038 0.110543 -1.664864 *0.0990 ACS -0.002408 0.017451 -0.137997 0.8905 FM 0.024293 0.010233 2.373956 ***0.0195 FS 0.038664 0.009288 4.162655 ***0.0001 AGE -0.065121 0.024981 -2.606821 ***0.0105 SG 0.017183 0.008526 2.015206 **0.0465 LEV -0.181771 0.091756 -1.981020 **0.0503 C 1.002566 0.350810 2.857859 ***0.0052 R-squared 0.464838 Prob. (J-statistic) 0.000361 Adjusted R-squared 0.407124 Prob. (F-statistic) 0.000000 Note: Here ***, **, * indicate statistical significant at the 1, 5, and 10 percent level. S o u r c e : own study and data of Annual reports from Dhaka Stock Exchange. Table 4 indicates that BS has a negative but insignificant relationship with ROA. The negative association indicates that companies with a relatively lower BS tend to perform better performance (ROA) than companies with a larger BS and the result is aligned with (Lipton & Lorsch, 1992) who concluded that smaller boards are more efficient than larger boards. The regression result reveals that doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 3939 (P<0.05) significant positive relationship between BI (0.00) and ROA at a 1 per- cent level of significance. This indicates that listed companies board independ- ence tends to perform better. This result is supported by (Abor & Bokpin, 2010) who found a significant positive relationship between BI and firm profitabili- ty. The frequency of meeting is found to be positively related with firm perfor- mance at a 1% significance level. It also shows that institutional ownership has a negative but significant relationship with ROA at a 10 percent level of signifi- cance. Among the control variables firm size and firm age is positively related with firm performance that means firm tends to perform better when they are relatively experienced and they hold relatively larger capital. Table 5. Regression analysis The impact of board structure and ownership structure on return on equity Regression model (dependent variable: return on equity) Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. BS 0.015534 0.015440 1.006097 0.3167 BI 1.947641 0.083834 23.23208 ***0.0000 BG -0.026079 0.019421 -1.342827 *0.0823 MIO 0.172134 0.225890 0.762027 0.4478 INO -0.330521 0.303041 -1.090681 *0.0780 ACS -0.053581 0.047841 -1.119962 0.2654 FM 0.027813 0.028053 0.991470 **0.0238 FS 0.029142 0.025463 1.144496 0.2551 AGE -0.031051 0.068483 -0.453419 0.6512 SG 0.081601 0.023374 3.491036 ***0.0007 LEV 0.263565 0.251540 1.047805 0.2972 C -18.04673 0.961709 -18.76526 ***0.0000 R-squared 0.855834 F-statistic 0.0000 Adjusted R-squared 0.840287 Prob(J-statistic) 55.04718 Note: Here ***, **, * indicate statistical significant at the 1, 5, and 10 percent level. S o u r c e : own study and data of Annual reports from Dhaka Stock Exchange. Brishti Chakraborty4040 Table 5 points out that board independence has a positive but significant im- pact on ROE at a 1 percent level of significance. BG or the proportion of female board members does have a negative but significant impact on ROE whose p-value is 0.08. The managerial institution has a positive but insignificant im- pact on ROE. When the majority of shareholders become managers of a firm, Managerial ownership may result in poor performance. However, the opposite view is evident in the case of an executive who takes up a share and becomes the owner of the firm. In this case, when they try to gain more equity and inter- est in the firm, their efforts usually result in an improvement in the firm per- formance. On the contrary, institutional ownership has a negative but signifi- cant impact on ROE at 10% significant level. Findings indicate that the number of members on the audit committee (ACS) does not significantly influence ROE, as its p-value lies above the level of confidence. But the frequency of audit com- mittee meetings has a positive and significant impact on ROE (p< 0.05). Discussion and contributionDiscussion and contribution From the analysis of table 4, it can be concluded that a more portion of the share of the company holds by the institutional investors, it will enhance firm perfor- mance and the firm can gain more return. In addition to this, the audit commit- tee size has a negative with an insignificant relationship with ROA that means smaller committee tends to be efficient. On the contrary, the number of times audit committee meetings were held also influenced performance. The more meetings of the committee, the better the monitoring mechanism will be which can motivate executives to perform their duties better. As a result higher fre- quency of audit meetings leads to an improvement in the firm performance. In the control variables, firm size and sales growth have a positive and signifi- cant impact on ROA. But the control variable firm age and leverage have a nega- tive but significant effect on ROA. It shows that firm age significantly impacts firm performance, which means a more experienced firm has more impact on enhancing performance. In the control variable, firm size and leverage have a positive but insignificant impact on ROE. On the other hand, firm age has neg- ative and insignificant whereas sales growth has a positive and significant ef- fect on ROE. Here the control variable sales growth is a vital factor in changing the firm value. The study has exposed a mixed result in terms of the impact of corporate governance on firm performance. Results originated from the data doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 4141 analysis show a strong negative association between board size and a firm’s fi- nancial performance. Moreover, larger board size tends not to be good as per the findings which indicate that a smaller but representative board performs well. Therefore, this study has advised a small but representative board size for pharmaceutical and chemical companies in Bangladesh. During Covid 19 pandemic period pharmaceutical industry seems to have a strong social aspect to the policies, and have an access to medicine is an imperative part of the Sus- tainable Development Goals. People expect that when there is the production of the COVID-19 vaccine, it should be accessible to all. It would be deplorable when the public goes through suffering because extensive profits are provided only for the benefit of shareholders. Therefore, the Pharmaceuticals and chemical industries need to balance corporate governance and profit distribution (Glob- al Union, 2020) (www2). We believe that a study covering a wider period could develop the quality of results originated. Besides, this study has deliberated 7 important factors as independent variables. So, there is a motive for consid- ering more factors as corporate governance mechanisms. Finally, due to the ab- sence of data for some firms listed on the exchange, our study could not include all the listed firms on the exchange in our sample.  Conclusion and recommendation Conclusion and recommendation The objective of the study is to empirically examine the impact of board struc- ture, ownership structure, and corporate control on financial performance in listed pharmaceutical companies in Bangladesh. Inclusion of female direc- tors as board members does not work as a greater indicator to enhance perfor- mance as it has a negative and insignificant relationship between female direc- tors on the board and performance indicators. While managerial ownership can drive firm performance positively. On the other hand, institutional own- ership has a strong negative effect on performance. This study also shows that the frequency of meetings has a significant impact on firm performance be- cause of better monitoring assurance. In the case of big companies, board meet- ings are more frequent compared to smaller companies confirming increased monitoring. Among control variables, firm size, firm age, and leverage have a positive relationship with firm performance. Across all the indicators used, our results demonstrate overwhelming support for the impact of good corpo- rate governance on firm performance. Above all, the findings suggest pharma- Brishti Chakraborty4242 ceuticals’ and chemical industry focus on managerial ownership and the fre- quency of meeting held which will ultimately improve their good governance and performance. When company have frequent meeting, they can discuss on critical issues and find solutions immediately. In this way they can monitor eve- ry aspect and handles them effectively. Thus, along with the frequency of meet- ing the quality of meeting which indicates the efficacy and effectiveness should be keep in mind. Moreover, board independence is found to be another signifi- cant variable of good governance which can drive profitability positively and should be maintained by these companies. This is our view that brings out the necessity is not only for identical corporate governance regulations for compa- nies in an emerging market but also for industry-specific approaches of good governance practice. The practical implication of this study is to contribute to the understanding of how good corporate governance practices affect firm per- formance for both academics and particularly Bangladeshi policymakers.  References References Abor, J., & Bokpin, G.A. (2010). Investment opportunities, corporate finance, and divi- dend payout policy: Evidence from emerging markets. Studies in Economics and Fi- nance, 27(3), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/10867371011060018. Aifuwa, H.O. (2020). Sustainability Reporting and Firm Performance in Developing Climes: a Review of Literature. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 9(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.12775/cjfa.2020.001. Al Farooque, O., Buachoom, W., & Sun, L. (2020). Board, audit committee, ownership and financial performance – emerging trends from Thailand. Pacific Accounting Review, 32(1), 54–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2018-0079. Al-Matari, E.M. (2020). Do characteristics of the board of directors and top executives have an effect on corporate performance among the financial sector? Evidence using stock. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 20(1), 16–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11- 2018-0358. Bouteska, A. (2020). Do Board Characteristics Affect Bank Performance? Evidence from the Eurozone. Journal of Asset Management, 21(6), 535–548. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41260-020-00181-2. Bowrin, A.R. (2013). Corporate social and environmental reporting in the Caribbean. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2011- 0074. Daryaei, A.A., & Fattahi, Y. (2020). The asymmetric impact of institutional ownership on firm performance: panel smooth transition regression model. Corporate Govern- ance (Bingley), 20(7), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0254. doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 4343 Desai, J., & Desai, R. (2019). Capital Structure As Determinant of Financial Performance: Review of Literature. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 8(4), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2019.021. Detthamrong, U., Chancharat, N., & Vithessonthi, C. (2017). Corporate governance, capital structure and firm performance: Evidence from Thailand. Research in International Business and Finance, 42, 689–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.011. Din, S.U., Arshad Khan, M., Khan, M.J., & Khan, M.Y. (2021). Ownership structure and corporate financial performance in an emerging market: a dynamic panel data analysis. International Journal of Emerging Markets. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJO- EM-03-2019-0220. El Mir, A., & Seboui, S. (2008). Corporate governance and the relationship between EVA and created shareholder value. Corporate Governance, 8(1), 46–58. https://doi. org/10.1108/14720700810853392. Eluyela, D.F., Akintimehin, O.O., Okere, W., Ozordi, E., Osuma, G.O., Ilogho, S.O., & Olad- ipo, O.A. (2018). Board meeting frequency and firm performance: examining the nexus in Nigerian deposit money banks. Heliyon, 4(10), e00850. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00850. Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., & Sinclair-Desgagné, B. (2008). Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management . Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 83–95. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9482-5. Global Union. (2020). Eyes on pharmaceutical industry in the Covid-19 fight Industri- ALL. https://www.industriall-union.org/eyes-on-pharmaceutical-industry-in-the- covid-19-fight (accessed: 15.09.2022). Hossan, S. (2021). Pharmaceutical Industry of Bangladesh: Prospects and Future Chal- lenges - Business Inspection BD. https://businessinspection.com.bd/pharmaceuti- cal-industry-of-bangladesh/ (accessed: 15.09.2022). Jan, A.A., Lai, F.W., & Tahir, M. (2021). Developing an Islamic Corporate Governance framework to examine sustainability performance in Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315(March 2020), 128099. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128099. Ji, J., Talavera, O., & Yin, S. (2020). Frequencies of board meetings on various topics and corporate governance: evidence from China. In Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, (Vol. 54, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-018- 00784-2. Karmańska, A. (2014). The imperative of sustainable growth and reporting integration. The fourth era in the corporate reporting development. Copernican Journal of Fi- nance & Accounting, 3(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.12775/cjfa.2014.017. Khan, H. ur R., Khidmat, W. Bin, & Awan, S. (2021). Board diversity, financial flexibili- ty and corporate innovation: evidence from China. Eurasian Business Review, 11(2), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-020-00171-9. Kyereboah-Coleman, A., & Biekpe, N. (2006). The relationship between board size, board composition, CEO duality and firm performance: Experience from Ghana. Corporate Ownership and Control, 4(2 A), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv4i2p11. Brishti Chakraborty4444 Limpaphayom, J., & Connelly, P. (2006). Board characteristics and firm performance: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Thailand Chulalongkorn. Journal of Economics, 16(2), 101–124. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=952453 (accessed: 15.09.2022). Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J.W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance: Business source. Business Lawyer, 42(1), 59–78. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.eserv. uum.edu.my/bsi/detail?vid=19&sid=e3a1315c-d940-4744-b224-1ce498b43ead@ses sionmgr4005&hid=4114&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU=#db=bth&AN=5963897 (accessed: 15.09.2022). M., T., & Sasidharan, A. (2020). Does board independence enhance firm value of state- owned enterprises? Evidence from India and China. European Business Review, 32(5), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2019-0224. Maher, M.E., & Andersson, T. (2005). Corporate Governance: Effects on Firm Perfor- mance and Economic Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal, February. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.218490. Martín-Ugedo, J.F., Mínguez-Vera, A., & Rossi, F. (2019). Female directors and firm per- formance in Italian and Spanish listed firms: Does masculinity matter? Academia Re- vista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 32(3), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ARLA-06-2018-0124. Mohd Saad, N., Haniff, M.N., & Ali, N. (2020). Corporate governance mechanisms with conventional bonds and Sukuk’ yield spreads. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 62, #pagerange#. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2019.02.001. Nawaz Khan, S., Hussain, R.I., Ur-Rehman, S., Maqbool, M.Q., Engku Ali, E.I., & Numan, M. (2019). The mediating role of innovation between corporate governance and or- ganizational performance: Moderating role of innovative culture in Pakistan textile sector. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2 019.1631018. Neffati, Am., Khiari, W., & Lajmi, A. (2020). Corporate governance and post - merger performance : evidence from US banks. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2020.014. Prashar, A., & Gupta, P. (2020). Corporate boards and firm performance: a meta-analytic approach to examine the impact of contextual factors. International Journal of Emerg- ing Markets, 16(7), 1454–1478. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-10-2019-0860. Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2020). Do board characteristics drive firm performance? An international perspective. In Review of Managerial Science (Vol. 14, Issue 6). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019- 00330-x. Puni, A., & Anlesinya, A. (2020). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm perfor- mance in a developing country. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2019-0076. Saini, N., & Singhania, M. (2018). Corporate governance, globalization and firm perfor- mance in emerging economies: Evidence from India. International Journal of Pro- ductivity and Performance Management, 67(8), 1310–1333. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJPPM-04-2017-0091. doEs Board struCturE and ownErshiP struCturE influEnCE… 4545 Saleh, M.W.A., Zaid, M.A.A., Shurafa, R., Maigoshi, Z.S., Mansour, M., & Zaid, A. (2020). Does board gender enhance Palestinian firm performance? The moderating role of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 21(4), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2020-0325. Sanyaolu, W.A., Adejumo, B.T., & Kadiri, I. (2021). Board Diligence and Financial Per- formance: Evidence From Nigerian Deposit Money Banks. Copernican Journal of Fi- nance & Accounting, 9(3), 145. https://doi.org/10.12775/cjfa.2020.017. Singla, M., & Singh, S. (2019). Board monitoring, product market competition and firm performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 1036–1052. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2018-1482. Song, H.J., Yoon, Y.N., & Kang, K.H. (2020). The relationship between board diversity and firm performance in the lodging industry: The moderating role of internation- alization. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 86(May 2019), 102461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102461. Ullah, I., Fang, H., & Jebran, K. (2020). Do gender diversity and CEO gender enhance firm’s value? Evidence from an emerging economy. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 20(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2019-0085. Unite, A.A., Sullivan, M.J., & Shi, A.A. (2019). Board Diversity and Performance of Philip- pine Firms: Do Women Matter? International Advances in Economic Research, 25(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-018-09718-z. Vairavan, A., & Zhang, G.P. (2020). Does a diverse board matter? A mediation analysis of board racial diversity and firm performance. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 20(7), 1223–1241. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2020-0081. Waheed, A., & Malik, Q.A. (2019). Board characteristics, ownership concentration and firms’ performance: A contingent theoretical based approach. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 8(2), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-03-2018-0031. Wang, Y., Abbasi, K., Babajide, B., & Yekini, K.C. (2020). Corporate governance mech- anisms and firm performance: evidence from the emerging market following the revised CG code. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 20(1), 158–174. https://doi. org/10.1108/CG-07-2018-0244. Wijethilake, C., Ekanayake, A., & Perera, S. (2015). Board involvement in corporate per- formance: evidence from a developing country. Accounting in Emerging Economies, 1(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2012-0050. (www1) Consultancy.eu. (2020). How covid-19 is impacting the global chemicals in- dustry. https://www.consultancy.eu/news/4078/how-covid-19-is-impacting-the- global-chemicals-industry (accessed: 15.09.2022). (www2) wikipedia. (2022). pharmaceutical industry in bangladesh - Google Search. https:// www.google.com/search?q=pharmaceutical+industry+in+bangladesh&oq=&aqs=chro me.0.69i59l3.30827325054j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed: 15.09.2022).