Sustainability governance and CEO compensation in MENA firms
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.24(1).2026.15
-
Article InfoVolume 24 2026, Issue #1, pp. 209-228
- 21 Views
-
4 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
This study examines whether CEOs receive higher compensation when their firms establish high-quality sustainability committees and obtain independent third-party assurance of their sustainability reports, and whether board gender diversity and CEO board membership moderate these relationships. The empirical dataset comprises publicly listed firms from 13 countries in the MENA region. It includes 2,183 firm-year observations drawn from 486 firms over the 2014–2023 period. The data were primarily obtained from the Refinitiv database and analyzed using panel regression models with firm and year-fixed effects. The results reveal that both sustainability committee quality and external assurance quality are positively associated with CEO compensation (r = 0.17, p < 0.05; r = 0.05, p < 0.05), supporting the signaling and stakeholder theories by emphasizing how robust ESG governance conveys legitimacy and aligns executive incentives with sustainable value creation. Board gender diversity weakened the positive effect of sustainability committee quality on pay (interaction β = –0.00, p < 0.01), suggesting stronger oversight and reduced symbolic ESG use. Conversely, CEO board membership shows no significant moderating effect, indicating limited influence in this context. Additional analyses confirm the robustness of these relationships and reveal that improvements in ESG and CO₂ performance partially mediate the link between governance structure and executive remuneration. This study offers practical insights for policymakers and boards aiming to align CEO compensation with sustainability objectives in contexts with limited regulatory enforcement.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G34, J33, M14
-
References48
-
Tables10
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual framework
-
- Table 1. Sample selection and distribution for MENA firms (2014–2023)
- Table 2. Variable definitions and measurements
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics
- Table 4. Pairwise correlations
- Table 5. Regression results for H1 and H2 (sustainability governance and CEO compensation)
- Table 6. Regression results for H3 and H4 (moderating effects of board diversity and CEO board membership)
- Table A1. Robustness checks using alternative measures
- Table A2. Robustness checks for omitted variables and simultaneity
- Table A3. Propensity score matching (PSM) robustness checks
- Table A4. Mechanism analysis: ESG performance and CO₂ emissions
-
- Aini, S. N., Harymawan, I., Setiawan, D., & Adhariani, D. (2025). Sustainability committee and ESG performance: A worldwide evidence. Business Strategy and Development, 8(3).
- AlHares, A., Dominic, G., & Al Abed, R. (2019). The corporate governance practices: Evidence from MENA countries. Theoretical Economics Letters, 9, 999-1019.
- Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. (2019). CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 233-252.
- Al-Shaer, H., Albitar, K., & Liu, J. (2023). CEO power and CSR-linked compensation for corporate environmental responsibility: UK evidence. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 60, 1025-1063.
- Arora, A. (2023). Board leadership structure and firm performance: Moderating effects of board independence. Journal of Emerging Market Finance, 23(1), 32-55.
- Basali, M. (2025). Impact of financial performance and corporate governance on ESG disclosure: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(18), Article 8473.
- Behlau, H., Wobst, J., & Lueg, R. (2024). Measuring board diversity: A systematic literature review of data sources, constructs, pitfalls, and suggestions for future research. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(2), 977-992.
- Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency–stakeholder perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103-126.
- Borges, M., Azevedo, G., & Oliveira, J. (2025). Gender diversity in the board of directors: The impact of European policies between 1957 and 2023. In A. Rocha, H. Adeli, A. Poniszewska-Marańda, F. Moreira, & I. Bianchi (Eds.), Emerging Trends in Information Systems and Technologies (pp. 179-187). Springer.
- Bouteska, A., Das Gupta, A., Boden, B., & Abedin, M. (2024). Who affects CEO compensation? Firm performance, ownership structure, and board diversity. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 35(2), Article 100501.
- Cabeza-García, L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Nieto, M. (2018). Do board gender diversity and director typology impact CSR reporting? European Management Review, 15(4), 559-575.
- Chen, G., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., & Rui, O.M. (2006). Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 424-448.
- Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression management in sustainability reports: An empirical investigation of the use of graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12, 16-37.
- Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1176-1248.
- Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.
- Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(3), 371-406.
- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
- Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.
- Edmans, A., & Gabaix, X. (2016). Executive compensation: A modern primer. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(4), 1232-1287.
- Flammer, C., Hong, B., & Minor, D. (2019). Corporate governance and the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in executive compensation: Effectiveness and implications for firm outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1097-1122.
- Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
- García-Sánchez, I. M., Gómez-Miranda, M.-E., David, F., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). The explanatory effect of CSR committee and assurance services on the adoption of the IFC performance standards, as a means of enhancing corporate transparency. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(5), 773-797.
- Haque, F. (2017). The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK firms. The British Accounting Review, 49(3), 347-364.
- Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641-660.
- Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391.
- Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2014). CEO duality: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(1), 256-286.
- Le, T. D., & Ngo, J. T. D. (2024). Linking executive pay to ESG goals: The role of board gender diversity. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 20(5), 1342-1367.
- Li, T., Li, Y., & Yang, H. (2025). Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Committees and Corporate Sustainable Development Performance: A Dual Legitimacy Perspective. Managerial and Decision Economics.
- Menla Ali, F., Wu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2024). ESG disclosure, CEO power and incentives, and corporate risk-taking. European Financial Management, 30(2), 961-1011.
- Mihail, B. A., Dumitrescu, D., Micu, C. D., & Lobda, A. (2022). The impact of board diversity, CEO characteristics, and board committees on financial performance in the case of Romanian companies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(1).
- Muazaroh, Lestari, W., & Sari, L. P. (2025). The role of gender diversity, board size, and ESG disclosure in improving performance and managing risks. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(1), 288-298.
- Odriozola, M. D., Blanco-González, A., & Baraibar-Diez, E. (2024). The link of ESG performance and board gender diversity in European firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 5656-5669.
- OECD. (2019). Corporate governance in MENA: Building a framework for competitiveness and growth. Paris: ECD Publishing.
- Oyinlola, B. (2025). Do CEO and board characteristics matter in the ESG performance of their firms? Corporate Governance, 25(8), 21-39.
- Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1546-1571.
- Reddy, D., Abidin, S., & You, L. (2015). Does corporate governance matter in determining CEO compensation in the publicly listed companies in New Zealand? An empirical investigation. Managerial Finance, 41, 301-327.
- Sánchez, I., Hussain, N., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2019). Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 832-848.
- Shakil, M. H. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resources Policy, 72.
- Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W.F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937-967.
- Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
- Tan, M., & Liu, B. (2016). CEO’s managerial power, board committee memberships and idiosyncratic volatility. International Review of Financial Analysis, 48, 21-30.
- Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320-337.
- Tumewang, Y. K., Almarayeh, T., & Alharasis, E. (2025). Sustainability committee, external assurance, and ESG performance: Empirical evidence from banking industry in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 2728-2745.
- Upadhyay, A., & Öztekin, Ö. (2021). What matters more in board independence? Form or substance: Evidence from influential CEO-directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 71, Article 102099.
- Veltri, S., Latella, P., & Ricciardi, A. (2025). ESG-based executive compensation: State of art and future research directions. Corporate Governance, 25(8), 101-131.
- Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 196-220.
- Yu, M. (2023). CEO duality and firm performance: A systematic review and research agenda. European Management Review, 20(2), 346-358.
- Zhu, C., Liu, X., Chen, D., & Yue, Y. (2024). Executive compensation and corporate sustainability: Evidence from ESG ratings. Heliyon, 10(12), Article e32943.


