Do Corporate Governance and Gender Diversity Matter in Firm Performance (ROE)? Empirical Evidence from Jordan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper under title “Corporate Governance, Gender Diversity and Non-Financial Corporate Performance: Empirical Evidence from Jordan” deals with the intersection of corporate governance characteristics and board gender diversity on firm financial performance. It utilizes a sample of Jordanian listed firms over the period 2018-2020. The paper could be of interest to an international audience, especially those interested on the middle east region. However, the paper has several weaknesses in terms of theoretical background and contribution to existing literature which make it unsuitable for publication in its current form. I urge author(s) to consider the following comments and revise-resubmit the paper to “Economies”.

1. Firstly, the title of the paper needs a correction since it mentions that examines the impact of corporate governance (hereafter CG), gender diversity on non-financial performance. Nevertheless, the dependent variable on the research design is ROE which is a purely accounting (financial) performance indicator. So, this needs to be addressed so as the reader to understand what the paper’s aim is.
2. The whole paper requires an extensive editing check since there are numerous words that are not separated, which make the text difficult to read. Also, there are whole pages without any paragraph separation.
3. On lines 75-76 author(s) mention that Muslim countries are similar to other Western countries on the issues that women face. I believe it is not so, and author(s) do mention it below to other parts of the text that religiosity and culture do affect the access of women on the corporate world. These differences should be elaborated by the author(s) and could be the main motivation for the study, which is not substantiated at the moment.
4. Also, the contribution of the study to existing literature needs better support and be more specific compared to other studies already published. Why is Jordan chosen as the focus of the study? What are the main features of this market warranting special investigation? The introduction only briefly discusses those issues.
5. The theoretical background section needs further discussion, is very brief and the study does not discuss some recent studies on the topic. The following list (fairly indicative) can help author(s) to improve this part of the text:

-Dimitropoulos, Panagiotis E., and Konstantinos Koronios. 2021. Board Gender Diversity and Cash

Holdings: Empirical Evidence from the European Sport and Leisure Sector. International Journal of Financial Studies 9: 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9040064

-Benkraiem, Ramzi, Sabri Boubaker, Souad Brinette, and Sabrina Khemiri. 2021. Board feminization and innovation through corporate venture capital investments: The moderating effects of independence and management skills. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163: 120467.

-Ben-Nasr, Hamdi, Sabri Boubaker, and Syrine Sassi. 2021. Board reforms and debt choice. Journal of Corporate Finance 69: 102009.

-Bernile, Gennaro, Vineet Bhagwat, and Scott Yonker. 2018. Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics 127: 588–612.

-Peillex, Jonathan, Sabri Boubaker, and Breeda Comyns. 2021. Does It Pay to Invest in Japanese Women? Evidence from the MSCI Japan Empowering Women Index. Journal of Business Ethics 170: 595–613.

-Wu, Jie, Orlando C Richard, Xinhe Zhang, and Craig Macaulay. 2019. Top management team surface-level diversity, strategic change, and long-term firm performance: A mediated model investigation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 26: 304–18.

6. It seems that authors base their discussion on section 3.1 on agency theory per se without providing a discussion on the conflicting results on the literature. So, this part needs to be elaborated to incorporate the opposing views on the topic.
7. Similarly, discussion on CEO duality and board size seem to be dominated by agency theory without any discussion as to why it is expected that or the opposite opinions existent on the literature. If evidence on the literature is contradictory the hypothesis could be started on the null form (see the study by Dimitropoulos and Tsagkanos 2012, for more details). Same argument is mead on H6.
8. The control variables need to be further explained regarding their expected impact on financial performance.
9. On section 4.1 author(s) mention that the sample is focused on industrial firms. There needs to be a justification as to the reason for selection this sector or why other sectors (beyond the financial sector) are excluded from the analysis, for example services or retails firms could yield important information to the analysis. Also, author(s) need to justify the regulatory environment of industrial firms and how is related to CG and gender diversity.
10. More details are required for the sample selection procedure. Why were 11 firms excluded from the sample? Is the sample balanced?
11. Why are author(s) using 2 models instead of one? Why GovOW is not included on model 1? The selection of the model’s functional form requires justification.
12. On page 9 (line 389) author(s) mention that mean IND is 48.5 and firms do not comply with JCGC. I think is the opposite since this number is above one-third of the board members as suggested by the code.
13. All tables need to have a title.
14. On table vii author(s) need to explain what instruments are used on the 2SLS estimation. It would be useful to the reader to include the first stage results on this table.
15. Have author(s) made any other sensitivity test to check the robustness of the main findings?
16. On page 14 (lines 509-512) author(s) mention that a gender-diverse board may lead to positive policies for performance effectiveness…. Unfortunately, author(s) cannot infer that since the coefficient on gender diversity was statistically insignificant on all model estimations. Gender diversity does not have an impact on financial performance so the whole discussion on the implications of the study needs to be modified and tailored to the empirical findings. The same issue is valid for the argument on page 15 (lines 585-586), referring to the main contribution of the study on evidence of the effect that gender diversity impacts the performance. This part of the text also needs correction.
17. The reference list needs to be edited consistently using the same type of citation style. For example, some citations include the terms “Vol” or “No” while other do not. Please be concise on this matter.

References

Dimitropoulos, P. and Tsagkanos, A. (2012), “Financial performance and corporate governance in the European football industry”, International Journal of Sport Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 280-308.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

1. Firstly, the title of the paper needs a correction since it mentions that examines the impact of corporate governance (hereafter CG), gender diversity on non-financial performance. Nevertheless, the dependent variable on the research design is ROE which is a purely accounting (financial) performance indicator. So, this needs to be addressed so as the reader to understand what the paper’s aim is.

       Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  has been done ,( Do Corporate Governance and Gender Diversity Matter to Firm Performance (ROE)?Empirical Evidence for Jordan)

1. The whole paper requires an extensive editing check since there are numerous words that are not separated, which make the text difficult to read. Also, there are whole pages without any paragraph separation.

Response:, we agree with the reviewer request about the importance of editing check and paragraph separation, where all of them have  been done

1. On lines 75-76 author(s) mention that Muslim countries are similar to other Western countries on the issues that women face. I believe it is not so, and author(s) do mention it below to other parts of the text that religiosity and culture do affect the access of women on the corporate world. These differences should be elaborated by the author(s) and could be the main motivation for the study, which is not substantiated at the moment.

Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more explanations have been done (see line 83)

1. Also, the contribution of the study to existing literature needs better support and be more specific compared to other studies already published. Why is Jordan chosen as the focus of the study? What are the main features of this market warranting special investigation? The introduction only briefly discusses those issues.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and better support have  been added (see line 110)

1. The theoretical background section needs further discussion, is very brief and the study does not discuss some recent studies on the topic.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and better support for theoretical background have  been added and all suggested references have been added(see line 164)

1. It seems that authors base their discussion on section 3.1 on agency theory per se without providing a discussion on the conflicting results on the literature. So, this part needs to be elaborated to incorporate the opposing views on the topic.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and better discussion for agency theory have  been added (see line 204)

1. Similarly, discussion on CEO duality and board size seem to be dominated by agency theory without any discussion as to why it is expected that or the opposite opinions existent on the literature. If evidence on the literature is contradictory the hypothesis could be started on the null form (see the study by Dimitropoulos and Tsagkanos 2012, for more details). Same argument is mead on H6.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and better discussion for on CEO duality and board size seem have  been added (see line 261 and 279)

1. The control variables need to be further explained regarding their expected impact on financial performance.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and further explanation for on The control variables have  been added (see line 366)

1. On section 3.1 author(s) mention that the sample is focused on industrial firms. There needs to be a justification as to the reason for selection this sector or why other sectors (beyond the financial sector) are excluded from the analysis, for example services or retails firms could yield important information to the analysis. Also, author(s) need to justify the regulatory environment of industrial firms and how is related to CG and gender diversity.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  justification for selection this sector has  been added (see page 391)

1. More details are required for the sample selection procedure. Why were 11 firms excluded from the sample? Is the sample balanced?

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  justification for excluded has  been added , Based on the observations conducted, 156 were readily available and useable for analysis. Companies with missing data were removed (see line 403)

1. Why are author(s) using 2 models instead of one? Why GovOW is not included on model 1? The selection of the model’s functional form requires justification.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  justification has  been added …. Phase 1 involved the testing of the endogeneity issue between gender-diversity(PWOMEN) and firm performance (ROE),and this was carried out following previous literature (Conyonet al., 2017; Li & Chen, 2018;Shahzadet al., 2020). At this stage, the influence of PWOMEN on ROE is analyzed gender-diversity has been instrumented by using lagged values of corporate governance proxies(e.g.,institutional ownership, board size, and independence of directors) as instrumental variables (IV) as suggested by(Larcker and Rusticus, 2007; Reed, 2015; Reguera-Alvarado et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2020; Shahzadet al., 2020).see line 454

1. On page 9 (line 389) author(s) mention that mean IND is 48.5 and firms do not comply with JCGC. I think is the opposite since this number is above one-third of the board members as suggested by the code.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  justification has  been added ….). The mean of IND is 48.5percent indicating that the firms in general do not comply to the JCGC recommendation of having 1/3 independent board members, which is not also in linewith the findings of Al-Haddad et al. (2019). see line 500

1. All tables need to have a title.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  title of all tables has  been added

1. On table vii author(s) need to explain what instruments are used on the 2SLS estimation. It would be useful to the reader to include the first stage results on this table.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  explain has  been added

1. On page 14 (lines 509-512) author(s) mention that a gender-diverse board may lead to positive policies for performance effectiveness…. Unfortunately, author(s) cannot infer that since the coefficient on gender diversity was statistically insignificant on all model estimations. Gender diversity does not have an impact on financial performance so the whole discussion on the implications of the study needs to be modified and tailored to the empirical findings. The same issue is valid for the argument on page 15 (lines 585-586), referring to the main contribution of the study on evidence of the effect that gender diversity impacts the performance. This part of the text also needs correction.

16. Response: we agree with the reviewer request and correction has  been added…. Unfortunately, in this investigation gender diversity has not enhanced the financial performance of Jordanian industrial firms… see line 677

1. The reference list needs to be edited consistently using the same type of citation style. For example, some citations include the terms “Vol” or “No” while other do not. Please be concise on this matter.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  reference and citations have been corrected

They generally focused on gender diversity with firm performance as a whole, and only a few studies have been conducted on CG (e.g. ownership structure and board characteristics) in Jordan,they ignored the important effect of CG beside gender diversity on firm performance

the ownership structure and board characteristics have been played an important role to determine firm performance

(Alhababsah, 2019).

Future study

this study opens the door for future studies to use board gender as a moderator variable in the relationship between ownership structure and FP using another regression analysis such as a fixed-effect estimator. In addition, future research may focus on the relationship between managerial ability and FP using MENA regions and board characteristics responds to calls for a new investigation

Responses We strongly appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, all suggestions have added

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper intends to explore the effect of managerial/board gender diversity and corporate governance structure on corporate performance in Jordan - a developing economy. The authors used data collected from non-financial companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE)from 2018-2020. Their findings show that women representation on the board of directors of Jordanian companies had a positive but insignificant effect on Corporate Performance as measured by ROE, indicating that this variable has no effect on the performance of companies in Jordan. Both family ownership and board size had negative significant effects on performance, but for the moderating effect, CG structure had no effect on the relationship between CEO duality, institution ownership, government ownership, and independent directors, and firm performance.

The following are some suggestions for improvement:

• There two sections: “Theoretical Background” and “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development”. I don't see the point in having 2 sections that overlap somewhat. In my opinion, I would join these two sections into only one, perhaps entitled: “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development”.
• The reasons/arguments for selection of control variables could be better explained.
• Considering even the comments of the authors at page 2 of the manuscript such as: “In the Jordanian context, an IFC report (2011) indicated that 52 out of 237 listed companies in 2012, had female board members indicating that the gender’s representation on the board among the firms in Jordan is quite low, which may be attributed to the culture of the country, preventing women from being corporate board members (Saidat et al., 87 2020). It seems that the Jordanian corporate culture is confining the advancement, growth and development of female entrepreneurs although a considerable number of firms in the country have been found to be family-dominated, whereby concentrated ownership dominates.” I am wondering why the authors did not consider as control variables some cultural dimensions such as Hofstede dimensions, for example?! Because in an Arabian country, the influence of cultural dimensions on gender diversity is obvious and I suppose the empirical results could be influenced. Perhaps a discussion of why culture was not included, or at least could be suggested for further research on this topic.
• Discussion of the results needs more comparison with prior studies. How are the results similar to or different from what has been done before in related papers? This will help highlight any unique findings.

Good luck with your paper!

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

• There two sections: “Theoretical Background” and “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development”. I don't see the point in having 2 sections that overlap somewhat. In my opinion, I would join these two sections into only one, perhaps entitled: “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development”.

              Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the join  has been done(see line 164)

• The reasons/arguments for selection of control variables could be better explained.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and further explanations for on The control variables have  been added (see line 366)

• Considering even the comments of the authors at page 2 of the manuscript such as: “In the Jordanian context, an IFC report (2011) indicated that 52 out of 237 listed companies in 2012, had female board members indicating that the gender’s representation on the board among the firms in Jordan is quite low, which may be attributed to the culture of the country, preventing women from being corporate board members (Saidat et al., 87 2020). It seems that the Jordanian corporate culture is confining the advancement, growth and development of female entrepreneurs although a considerable number of firms in the country have been found to be family-dominated, whereby concentrated ownership dominates.”I am wondering why the authors did not consider as control variables some cultural dimensions such as Hofstede dimensions, for example?! Because in an Arabian country, the influence of cultural dimensions on gender diversity is obvious and I suppose the empirical results could be influenced. Perhaps a discussion of why culture was not included, or at least could be suggested for further research on this topic.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more explanations have been done (see line 774)

• Discussion of the results needs more comparison with prior studies. How are the results similar to or different from what has been done before in related papers? This will help highlight any unique findings.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more comparison with prior studies have been done (see line 552-572)

Good luck with your paper!

Response to reviewers’ comments

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

• There two sections: “Theoretical Background” and “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development”. I don't see the point in having 2 sections that overlap somewhat. In my opinion, I would join these two sections into only one, perhaps entitled: “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development”.

              Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the join  has been done(see line 164)

• The reasons/arguments for selection of control variables could be better explained.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and further explanations for on The control variables have  been added (see line 366)

• Considering even the comments of the authors at page 2 of the manuscript such as: “In the Jordanian context, an IFC report (2011) indicated that 52 out of 237 listed companies in 2012, had female board members indicating that the gender’s representation on the board among the firms in Jordan is quite low, which may be attributed to the culture of the country, preventing women from being corporate board members (Saidat et al., 87 2020). It seems that the Jordanian corporate culture is confining the advancement, growth and development of female entrepreneurs although a considerable number of firms in the country have been found to be family-dominated, whereby concentrated ownership dominates.”I am wondering why the authors did not consider as control variables some cultural dimensions such as Hofstede dimensions, for example?! Because in an Arabian country, the influence of cultural dimensions on gender diversity is obvious and I suppose the empirical results could be influenced. Perhaps a discussion of why culture was not included, or at least could be suggested for further research on this topic.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more explanations have been done (see line 774)

• Discussion of the results needs more comparison with prior studies. How are the results similar to or different from what has been done before in related papers? This will help highlight any unique findings.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more comparison with prior studies have been done (see line 552-572)

Good luck with your paper!

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall

This manuscript investigates the corporate governance mechanisms in Jordan corporations. The hypotheses are followed as previous theoretical and empirical studies. The investigation itself is well fitted with corporate governance context. I have some concerns about this manuscript raising as follows. Especially, hypotheses developments and interpretation would be more persuasive after adding explanations.

1. Board Size and Independent Directors -Performance

The empirical study finds that board size is negative to performance. In addition, independent directors are not significantly positive to corporate performance, different from U.S. evidence. Some kind of interpretation of these inconsistent result is recommended to add.

Firstly, the stability of bank are best interests of bank shareholders (Anginer et al., 2018) and this suggests that good corporate governace such as smaller board size is not necessarily enhance performance in banks. Second, Board size is not related to corporate performance in the banking industry (Sakawa and Watanabel, 2018). They interpret that expected monitoring roles of board members might not be during corporate governance reforms. Author(s) had better cite the study and interpret Jordan’s evidence as in Japanese evidence.

2. Family ownership

The conflicting view that family ownership would behave steward to enhance corporate performance (e.g. Yoshikawa and Rasheed, 2010). Author(s) had better refer to the positive relation in their hypothesis building to cite the above study and other studies.

3. Institutional Ownership

The roles of Institutional investors are typically argued by previous studies worldwide. The positive monitoring view of institutional shareholders would be justified by other studies such as (Bena et al.,2017; Sakawa et al., 2021). They indicate that the positive relationships are stronger post the globalization movement. Thus, citing this study and adding the interpretation is encouraged (e.g. Under the movement of globalization, the effective monitoring roles of institutional shareholders would be contributed to improve performance in Jordan consistent with previous studies (Bena et al., 2017; Sakawa et al., 2021).

References

Anginer, D., Kunt, A. D., Huizinga, H., Ma, K. (2018). Corporate governance of banks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Economics, 130, 327-346.

Bena, J., Ferreira, M. A., Matos, P., & Pires, P, (2017) Are foreign investors locusts? The long-term effect of foreign institutional ownership. Journal of Financial Economics, 126, 122-146.

Sakawa, H. and Watanabel, N. (2018), “Board structures and performance in the banking industry: evidence from Japan”, International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 56, pp. 308-320.

Sakawa, H., Watanabel, N., Duppati, G., & Faff, R. (2021). Institutional ownership and corporate risk-taking in Japanese listed firms.  Applied Economics, 53(16), 1899–1914.

Yoshikawa, T. and Rasheed, A.A. (2010), “Family control and ownership monitoring in family controlled firms in Japan”, Journal of Management Studies, 47, pp. 274-295.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

This manuscript investigates the corporate governance mechanisms in Jordan corporations. The hypotheses are followed as previous theoretical and empirical studies. The investigation itself is well fitted with corporate governance context. I have some concerns about this manuscript raising as follows. Especially, hypotheses developments and interpretation would be more persuasive after adding explanations.

1. Board Size and Independent Directors -Performance

The empirical study finds that board size is negative to performance. In addition, independent directors are not significantly positive to corporate performance, different from U.S. evidence. Some kind of interpretation of these inconsistent result is recommended to add.

Firstly, the stability of bank are best interests of bank shareholders (Anginer et al., 2018) and this suggests that good corporate governace such as smaller board size is not necessarily enhance performance in banks. Second, Board size is not related to corporate performance in the banking industry (Sakawa and Watanabel, 2018). They interpret that expected monitoring roles of board members might not be during corporate governance reforms. Author(s) had better cite the study and interpret Jordan’s evidence as in Japanese evidence.

1. Family ownership

The conflicting view that family ownership would behave steward to enhance corporate performance (e.g. Yoshikawa and Rasheed, 2010). Author(s) had better refer to the positive relation in their hypothesis building to cite the above study and other studies.

1. Institutional Ownership

The roles of Institutional investors are typically argued by previous studies worldwide. The positive monitoring view of institutional shareholders would be justified by other studies such as (Bena et al.,2017; Sakawa et al., 2021). They indicate that the positive relationships are stronger post the globalization movement. Thus, citing this study and adding the interpretation is encouraged (e.g. Under the movement of globalization, the effective monitoring roles of institutional shareholders would be contributed to improve performance in Jordan consistent with previous studies (Bena et al., 2017; Sakawa et al., 2021).

References

Anginer, D., Kunt, A. D., Huizinga, H., Ma, K. (2018). Corporate governance of banks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Economics, 130, 327-346.

Bena, J., Ferreira, M. A., Matos, P., &Pires, P, (2017) Are foreign investors locusts? The long-term effect of foreign institutional ownership. Journal of Financial Economics, 126, 122-146.

Sakawa, H. and Watanabel, N. (2018), “Board structures and performance in the banking industry: evidence from Japan”, International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol. 56, pp. 308-320.

Sakawa, H., Watanabel, N., Duppati, G., & Faff, R. (2021). Institutional ownership and corporate risk-taking in Japanese listed firms.  Applied Economics, 53(16), 1899–1914.

Yoshikawa, T. and Rasheed, A.A. (2010), “Family control and ownership monitoring in family controlled firms in Japan”, Journal of Management Studies, 47, pp. 274-295.

Responses We strongly appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, all suggestions have added

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the author(s) for their efforts to incorporate all comments raised. I believe they have done a very good work and the paper has improved materially compared to its initial version.

One issue that needs to be clarified is on lines 500-502. Author(s) mention that "The mean of IND is 48.5 percent indicating that the firms in general do not 500 comply to the JCGC recommendation of having 1/3 independent board members, 501 which is not also in line with the findings of Al-Haddad et al. (2019)". Since 48.5% is higher than 1/3 (33.3%) how firms do not comply with the regulations? Does regulation instructs that board independence should be exactly 1/3 of board members, or at least that? Please specify.

Also, author(s) need to do another check for syntax and grammatical errors. There are parts on the text where words are not separated and there are confusing sentences.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comment

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

1. One issue that needs to be clarified is on lines 500-502. Author(s) mention that "The mean of IND is 48.5 percent indicating that the firms in general do not 500 comply to the JCGC recommendation of having 1/3 independent board members, 501 which is not also in line with the findings of Al-Haddad et al. (2019)". Since 48.5% is higher than 1/3 (33.3%) how firms do not comply with the regulations? Does regulation instructs that board independence should be exactly 1/3 of board members, or at least that? Please specify.

Response: We strongly appreciate and thank the reviewer's comment on this point. There was typos and the correction has been done to be as "The mean of IND is 0.35 suggesting that just less than half of Jordanian firms are broadly in line with ASE recommendations of at least one third independent board members, which is also in line with the findings of Al-Haddad et al. (2019)." See line 500

2. Also, author(s) need to do another check for syntax and grammatical errors. There are parts on the text where words are not separated and there are confusing sentences.

Response: We strongly appreciate and thank the reviewer's comment on this point. words not separated, syntax and grammatical errors all of them have been settled

Reviewer 2 Report

My recommendations were reasonably implemented by the authors.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

• There two sections: “Theoretical Background” and “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development”. I don't see the point in having 2 sections that overlap somewhat. In my opinion, I would join these two sections into only one, perhaps entitled: “Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development”.

              Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the join  has been done(see line 164)

• The reasons/arguments for selection of control variables could be better explained.

Response: we agree with the reviewer request and  the improvement  and further explanations for on The control variables have  been added (see line 366)

• Considering even the comments of the authors at page 2 of the manuscript such as: “In the Jordanian context, an IFC report (2011) indicated that 52 out of 237 listed companies in 2012, had female board members indicating that the gender’s representation on the board among the firms in Jordan is quite low, which may be attributed to the culture of the country, preventing women from being corporate board members (Saidat et al., 87 2020). It seems that the Jordanian corporate culture is confining the advancement, growth and development of female entrepreneurs although a considerable number of firms in the country have been found to be family-dominated, whereby concentrated ownership dominates.”I am wondering why the authors did not consider as control variables some cultural dimensions such as Hofstede dimensions, for example?! Because in an Arabian country, the influence of cultural dimensions on gender diversity is obvious and I suppose the empirical results could be influenced. Perhaps a discussion of why culture was not included, or at least could be suggested for further research on this topic.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more explanations have been done (see line 774)

• Discussion of the results needs more comparison with prior studies. How are the results similar to or different from what has been done before in related papers? This will help highlight any unique findings.
• Response: We strongly appreciate the reviewer's comment on this point, we have concentrated and more comparison with prior studies have been done (see line 552-572)

Good luck with your paper!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Basically, revised version fits with “Economies”.

There remain several typos in the manuscript. The corrections of them are necessary before publication.

(e.g.): P206. Institution Theory ⇒Institutional Theory

P279. , a board size with　⇒ a larger board size with

Before the submission, please carefully check the insufficient points.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comment

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for your insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

There remain several typos in the manuscript. The corrections of them are necessary before publication.

(e.g.): P206. Institution Theory ⇒Institutional Theory

P279. , a board size with　⇒ a larger board size with

Response: We strongly appreciate and thank the reviewer's comment on this point. words not separated, syntax and grammatical errors all of them have been settled and corrected