Effect of Intellectual Capital, Environmental, Social and Governance Performance, and Competitive Advantage on Firm Value in Asian Companies: The Role of Board Gender Diversity as a Moderating Variable

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to examine the effects of intellectual capital (IC), environmental, social, and governance (ESG), and competitive advantage (CA) on firm value (FV), with board gender diversity (BGD) as a moderating variable. Methodology/Design/Approach: The population comprises companies in the Asian region from 2015 to 2023. Companies were based on specific criteria, resulting in 637 companies with 5733 observations. The study used multiple regressions and moderated multiple regressions in data analysis. Finding/Result: The findings indicate that IC has a negative and significant effect on FV. ESG performance has a positive and insignificant effect on FV, while CA has a positive and significant effect on FV. BGD moderates the relationship between IC, ESG, and CA on FV. It strengthens the effect of CA on FV and weakens the relationship between IC and ESG on FV. Practical Implications: Companies must pay attention to IC, CA and BGD, these variables influence investor’s reactions in determining investments. The government should monitor ESG-related corporate activities to ensure alignment with sustainable business strategies. Institutions related to sustainability issues develop standardized ESG disclosure. Originality/Value: The results contribute to signaling theory and resource-based theory. Limited prior research utilizes BGD as a moderating variable, highlighting the novelty of this study.

1. Introduction

Intellectual capital (IC), environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, competitive advantage (CA), and board gender diversity (BGD) have become central constructs in contemporary corporate governance and sustainability research. Intellectual capital refers to firms’ knowledge-based resources—including human expertise, structural systems, and relational networks, which support innovation and long-term value creation (Xu & Liu, 2021; Dumay et al., 2020). ESG performance reflects the extent to which firms integrate environmental responsibility, social accountability, and governance quality into strategic decision-making, thereby influencing investor perception and risk evaluation (Velte, 2022; Buallay, 2022). CA denotes the firm’s ability to generate superior performance through effective resource orchestration and strategic positioning (Teece, 2020). BGD, meanwhile, represents a governance characteristic that may enhance monitoring quality, broaden strategic perspectives, and strengthen transparency (Ramiah, 2026).

Asian capital markets have experienced significant structural transformation in recent years, driven by digitalization, regulatory reforms, and growing investor emphasis on sustainability. Empirical evidence indicates a steady increase in ESG engagement across Asian listed firms. For instance, Refinitiv ESG data show that median ESG scores among major Asian markets increased from approximately 45–50 in 2019 to over 50–55 in 2021–2022, reflecting sustained growth in sustainability disclosure and governance practices. Regional evidence from ASEAN markets similarly documents an upward trend in ESG reporting intensity between 2020 and 2022 (Velte, 2022). Despite this progress, the valuation of intangible resources in Asia remains heterogeneous due to differences in institutional maturity, investor protection, and governance enforcement (Xu & Liu, 2021). This heterogeneity raises an important question regarding how markets interpret and price intellectual capital and sustainability-related signals in different institutional environments.

This study used the non-financial elements that affect FV, such as IC, ESG, and CA, which are explained by signaling theory and RBT. When making investment decisions, individuals find value in every piece of information that a firm possesses and publishes (Duan et al., 2023; Bui et al., 2023). IC is a business asset that pertains to the development of highly innovative and creative goods and services. It evaluates the company’s potential for future growth. The market interprets the disclosure of IC information as a positive signal, which influences investor’s reactions and FV (Kesuma & Ratnawati, 2025). ESG performance reflects how effectively a business establishes a positive reputation by considering ESG issues (Chang & Lee, 2022). The market benefits from this information (Al-Issa et al., 2022). Similarly, CA contributes to FV, as firms with strong CA attract customers, increase profit margins, and create opportunities that rivals find difficult to copy, increasing shareholder value. Better financial and market success can result from cost effectiveness, product differentiation, superior technology, a strong brand, and sustained innovation (Distanont & Khongmalai, 2020).

This study builds upon signaling theory and the resource-based view (RBV), extending them through contemporary IC and ESG. Signaling theory posits that firms disclose value-relevant information to reduce information asymmetry and influence investor behavior (Choudhury, 2024; Spence, 1973). ESG reporting and governance characteristics may function as credibility-enhancing signals, particularly in markets with information frictions. RBV suggests that sustainable CA arises from valuable, rare, and inimitable resources (Barney, 1991). IC constitutes such a strategic resource; however, recent scholarship reconceptualizes IC not merely as an efficiency indicator but also as a dynamic capability that enables innovation, digital transformation, and ESG integration (Dumay et al., 2020; Xu & Liu, 2021; Teece, 2020). Within this dynamic governance perspective, the value relevance of IC and ESG depends on governance quality and institutional context.

Despite the growing body of literature, several gaps remain. First, many prior studies examine IC, ESG, and governance separately rather than integrating them into a unified analytical framework. Second, empirical findings on the relationship between IC and FV are inconsistent, with studies reporting positive, insignificant, and even negative associations (Schiuma et al., 2024; Salvi et al., 2020). These inconsistencies suggest that the market valuation of intangible assets may be conditional rather than automatic. Third, although BGD has been widely studied, its role as a moderating governance mechanism influencing IC, ESG, and CA translation into FV remains underexplored in Asian contexts characterized by institutional diversity.

Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question: how do IC, ESG performance, and CA relate to FV in Asian capital markets, and does BGD moderate these relationships? Using a longitudinal panel of listed companies across Asian markets from 2015 to 2023, this study employed panel regression techniques to examine both direct associations and moderating effects within a dynamic governance framework. The analysis is limited to firms headquartered in Asia to ensure alignment between the theoretical framework and empirical context.

This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it integrates IC, ESG performance, CA, and BGD within a single dynamic governance framework, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how strategic resources are translated into firm value. Second, it advances intellectual capital research by examining its valuation effect in conjunction with governance and sustainability mechanisms, rather than treating IC solely as an efficiency construct. Third, by focusing on heterogeneous Asian institutional environments, the study provides contextual evidence on how sustainability and governance structures condition the market valuation of intangible resources. Rather than claiming novelty solely on the inclusion of BGD, the study refines the existing governance literature by demonstrating how governance characteristics shape the credibility and effectiveness of strategic resource signals in emerging and Asia-Pacific capital markets.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature and develops the research hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research methodology, including data, variables, and model specifications. Section 4 presents the empirical results and discussion. Finally, Section 5 concludes the study, outlines its implications, and provides suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Signaling Theory

Spence (1973) initially introduced signaling theory, which explains that agents convey information to principals to reduce information asymmetry, with market participants responding accordingly. Under this perspective, parties possessing superior information are expected to disclose relevant signals to those with less information (Choudhury, 2024). In corporate settings, companies disclose information on IC, ESG performance, and CA in their annual reports as strategic signals reflecting significant assets, sustainability, and long-term growth prospects. Such disclosures aim to enhance market confidence, foster favorable investor sentiment, and ultimately increase FV. By reducing information asymmetry, transparent reporting of IC, ESG, and CA can attract investment and improve firm valuation (Zhang et al., 2020). However, signaling theory does not assume that all signals are automatically effective; market responses depend on the credibility, costliness, and verifiability of the disclosed information (Xiao et al., 2025). In heterogeneous Asian institutional environments, IC and ESG disclosures may be perceived as symbolic or difficult to verify, which helps to explain inconsistent empirical findings, including the negative impact of IC on firm value. Thus, the effectiveness of IC and ESG as signals is conditional on governance quality (Reboredo & Sowaity, 2022). In this context, board gender diversity is viewed as a governance mechanism that influences signal credibility. Gender-diverse boards may enhance monitoring quality, ethical sensitivity, and transparency, thereby strengthening the impact of IC, ESG, and CA on firm value. Conversely, if diversity is symbolic without substantive influence in board decision-making, signal credibility may not improve. Accordingly, this study proposes a conditional signaling framework in which the market response to IC, ESG, and CA depends on the effectiveness of governance structures, particularly BGD, within Asian companies.

2.2. Resource-Based View

Barney (1991) introduced the resource-based view (RBV), arguing that a firm’s competitive advantage derives from its ability to manage internal resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN), buildings on Wernerfelt’s (1984) insights on the strategic importance of resource control. RBV emphasizes how firms deploy strategic resources to establish and sustain CA and enhance FV. From this standpoint, IC, ESG performance, and CA represent critical internal resources that support long-term sustainability and superior performance. IC—comprising human, structural, and relational capital—is a unique strategic asset that enables continuous innovations and the maintenance of CA, particularly because developing high-quality IC and strong ESG performance requires long-term commitment and organizational transformation (Aljuboori et al., 2022). ESG performance further reinforces competitive positioning by enhancing corporate reputation and reflecting a firm’s tangible response to sustainability challenges aligned with the SDGs (Aguiar & Moxotó, 2025). However, RBV does not assume that all intangible resources automatically generate economic value; their effectiveness depends on the firm’s capability to integrate, coordinate, and exploit them efficiently (Alonso et al., 2025). Theoretical tension emerges when IC, despite being conceptually strategic, shows a negative effect on firm value in some empirical findings (Keter et al., 2024). From a dynamic RBV perspective, this may occur because IC investments can increase organizational complexity, coordination costs, and the risk of overinvestment if not supported by effective governance mechanisms. In Asian companies, where institutional maturity and investor protection vary, the transformation of IC and ESG into CA may be suboptimal, leading to heterogeneous impacts on FV. In this context, BGD is viewed as a governance capability that influences the effective utilization of strategic resources. Gender-diverse boards may enrich perspectives, enhance monitoring quality, and strengthen strategic decision-making, thereby increasing the likelihood that IC and ESG are successfully converted into sustainable CA. Conversely, if diversity is merely symbolic without substantive influence on corporate strategy, its contribution to FV may be limited (Mnasri et al., 2025). Accordingly, this study extends RBV by proposing that the relationship between IC, ESG, CA, and FV is conditional upon governance effectiveness—particularly BGD—in optimizing strategic resources within the heterogeneous institutional environments of Asian companies.

2.3. Intellectual Capital: From VAIC to Strategic and Dynamic Perspectives

Intellectual capital (IC) is the fundamental determinant of long-term firm growth and sustainability (Alkhatib & Valeri, 2024). It encompasses intangible resources such as knowledge, expertise, organizational routines, stakeholder relationships, and corporate reputation, that all contribute to competitive advantage and future profitability (Rong et al., 2025; Mukhtaruddin et al., 2023). Traditionally, IC is measured using the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) model, which measures the efficiency of value creation through three primary components: capital employed efficiency (VACA), human capital efficiency (VAHU), and structural capital efficiency (STVA) (Mukhtaruddin et al., 2023; Pulic, 2008). Human capital reflects employees’ knowledge, skills, and experience; structural capital includes organizational systems, processes, and intellectual property; and capital employed captures the efficient utilization of financial and physical resources in generating value.

While VAIC remains widely adopted in empirical research, contemporary intellectual capital theory has moved beyond efficiency-based measurement toward a more strategic and dynamic perspective. The recent literature reconceptualizes IC as a multidimensional and integrative knowledge system that incorporates human and structural capital, relational capital, digital capability, and innovation capacity, as well as sustainability-oriented assets (Cai et al., 2026; Yaseen et al., 2023). From this advanced perspective, IC operates as a dynamic capability that enables firms to integrate knowledge resources, adapt to technological change, and align organizational strategy with long-term sustainability objectives. Rather than functioning solely as an accounting efficiency indicator, IC represents a strategic architecture that connects organizational learning, digital transformation, stakeholder engagement, and ESG integration within a coherent governance structure.

Within a dynamic governance framework, the value relevance of IC depends on how effectively firms embed knowledge resources into ESG strategies and governance mechanisms. Governance structures such as board oversight and diversity enhance transparency, monitoring quality, and strategic alignment, thereby influencing how markets interpret intangible resources (Khatri et al., 2025). Consequently, the contribution of IC to firm value is conditional rather than automatic. When IC is measured primarily through VAIC, the metric may underrepresent its transformational and sustainability-driven dimensions emphasized in modern theory. This limitation is particularly salient in heterogeneous Asian markets, where institutional quality, investor sophistication, and regulatory environments vary. Firms may invest heavily in knowledge assets without achieving immediate strategic integration or clear market communication, leading investors to discount IC-intensive firms.

Therefore, IC should not be interpreted merely as an efficiency construct but also as a multidimensional strategic system whose market valuation depends on governance effectiveness, ESG alignment, and contextual factors. This integrative perspective strengthens the theoretical foundation of the study and provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding the complex relationship between IC and FV.

2.4. Previous Study

The researcher expanded on an earlier study that employed non-financial elements impacting FV, including IC, ESG, and CA, due to the inconsistencies in prior findings, as shown in Table 1. Key improvements include extending the time period to 2015–2023 and broadening the sample companies listed on Asian stock markets, providing a more comprehensive perspective. Asia was chosen because, in terms of gross domestic product, it has the biggest continental economy and the quickest rate of economic expansion. Additionally, some of the strongest modern economic booms in the globe have occurred in the continent. One unique aspect of this study is the inclusion of BGD as a moderating variable. Reflecting gender equality, the fifth Sustainable Development Goal, BGD influences how the market perceives a firm and amplifies the effects of IC, ESG, and CA on FV. A summary of research findings indicates that IC, ESG, and CA significantly affect FV as follows:

Table 1. The summary of previous studies on the determinants of firm value.

Variable	Authors	Result
Intellectual Capital	Kesuma and Ratnawati (2025); Ousama et al. (2020)	+
	Pratiwi and Komalasari (2025); Rismayanti et al. (2023)	−
	Qudratulloh and Desmiza (2024); Ionita and Dinu (2021)	Na
Environmental, Social and Governance	Ahmed and Khalaf (2025); Seok et al. (2024)	+
	Passos and Campos-Rasera (2023); Aydogmus et al. (2022)	−
	Pramesti et al. (2024); Rohendi et al. (2024)	Na
Competitive Advantage	Saxena et al. (2025); Rohendi et al. (2024); Kohls et al. (2023)	+
	Widayanto et al. (2023); Setiany et al. (2023)	Na
+ (positive effect), − (negative effect), NA (no effect)

Note: + (positive); − (negative); NA (no effect). Source: author’s compilation based on prior empirical studies.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

IC represents a strategic intangible resource that reflects firms’ knowledge base, human expertise, and organizational capabilities (Mukhtaruddin et al., 2023; Pulic, 2008). From the resource-based view (RBV), IC is a valuable and inimitable resource that can generate sustainable competitive advantage when effectively managed (Barney, 1991). Contemporary research further conceptualizes IC as a dynamic capability that supports innovation, digital transformation, and sustainability alignment (Dumay et al., 2020; Xu & Liu, 2021). Empirical studies indicate that efficient and strategically integrated IC enhances firm valuation, particularly when supported by strong governance structures (Kesuma & Ratnawati, 2025; Schiuma et al., 2024; Buallay, 2022; Salvi et al., 2020).

H1. 

Intellectual capital has a positive effect on firm value.

ESG performance reflects firms’ commitment to sustainability, transparency, and responsible governance. From signaling theory, ESG disclosure reduces information asymmetry and communicates the company’s long-term strategic orientation to investors (Choudhury, 2024). Sustainability integration enhances reputational capital, risk management, and operational efficiency (Velte, 2022). Empirical evidence shows that ESG performance improves FV when investors perceive sustainability practices as credible and strategically embedded (Ahmed & Khalaf, 2025; Wu et al., 2022; Buallay, 2022). Within a dynamic governance framework, ESG reflects the firm’s ability to align sustainability initiatives with strategic and governance systems.

H2. 

ESG has a positive effect on firm value.

CA reflects the firm’s ability to generate superior returns and sustain market positioning through effective resource orchestration. According to RBV, sustainable CA arises from the strategic deployment of valuable and rare resources (Barney, 1991). CA signals operational strength and long-term viability to the market. Empirical studies show that firms with stronger competitive positioning exhibit higher FV and performance sustainability (Rohendi et al., 2024; Kohls et al., 2023; Saxena et al., 2025; Aydogmus et al., 2022). In dynamic markets, CA represents the successful transformation of strategic resources into value recognized by investors.

H3. 

Competitive advantage has a positive effect on firm value.

BGD represents a governance mechanism that enhances monitoring quality, transparency, and strategic decision-making (Saeed et al., 2024). Diverse boards improve oversight effectiveness and sustainability orientation (Ramiah, 2026; Velte, 2022). Empirical studies indicate that BGD strengthens the relationship between ESG performance and FV by enhancing governance credibility (Buallay, 2022). Within a dynamic governance framework, BGD functions as a governance enabler that conditions how IC, ESG performance, and CA translate into FV.

H4a. 

Board gender diversity can moderate the relationship between intellectual capital and firm value.

H4b. 

Board gender diversity can moderate the relationship between environmental, social, and governance and firm value.

H4c. 

Board gender diversity can moderate the relationship between competitive advantage and firm value.

3. Methods

3.1. Population and Sample

The population of this study consisted of 32,534 companies operating across Asia. Using a purposive sampling method, the final sample included 637 companies from 19 Asian countries, resulting in 5733 firm-year observations during the 2015–2023 period. Japan contributed the largest number of samples (233 companies), followed by Taiwan (75), the Republic of Korea (52), China (50), Hong Kong (48), and India (47). The remaining samples were drawn from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, and Sri Lanka.

Based on industry classification, most sample companies were drawn from the manufacturing sector (279 companies), followed by financial services (105), property and real estate (62), and general mining, oil, and gas (55). The remaining companies were distributed across the telecommunications, transportation services and toll roads, broadcasting and advertising, marine industry, lifestyle and healthcare, and energy and renewable energy sectors. This distribution indicates that the sample represents diverse institutional and industrial settings across Asian countries. The financial and ESG scores were obtained from the Refinitiv database (Thomson Reuters), which provides standardized and internationally comparable firm level information across capital markets. The use of Refinitiv ensures consistency in ESG measurement and enhances cross country comparability within heterogeneous Asian institutional environments.

3.2. Variable Definition and Measurement

3.2.1. Intellectual Capital

IC is defined as a set of intangible resources based on knowledge that contribute significantly to FV creation and CA. These resources include human capital, structural capital, and relational capital, which collectively enable firms to generate innovation, improve efficiency, and sustain long-term performance. Recent studies emphasize that intellectual capital represents not only accumulated knowledge but also the firm’s capability to transform that knowledge into economic value and strategic outcomes in increasingly knowledge-based economies (Hasanein & Al-Romeedy, 2026). Furthermore, IC is increasingly viewed as a critical determinant of firm competitiveness and financial performance, particularly in environments characterized by rapid technological change and digital transformation (Pedro et al., 2025).

From an operational perspective, IC reflects the firm’s ability to effectively manage and utilize its intangible assets to support value creation processes. It encompasses employee competencies, organizational systems, innovation capacity, and relational networks that enhance business performance and sustainability. Empirical evidence highlights that IC plays a crucial role in improving FV by strengthening knowledge utilization and strategic decision-making processes (Jordão et al., 2025).

3.2.2. Environmental, Social and Governance

According to Espinosa-Méndez et al. (2023) and Duan et al. (2023), businesses must manage sustainability comprehensively, which makes the three ESG components essential in today’s business environment. ESG performance disclosure consists of three components: (1) environmental aspects, including pollution, mitigation efforts, and climate change sustainability; (2) social aspects, which reflect engagement with communities, employees, and clients; and (3) governance aspects, which indicate adherence to best corporate governance practices and a balance between stakeholder and shareholder interests (Kong et al., 2023). Understanding and implementing these three elements allows companies to improve sustainability and strengthen their performance in the eyes of stakeholders. ESG performance improves a company’s image, making firms more attractive to sustainability-conscious investors. Concerns about sustainability are becoming more widespread and are being included in company plans. Investors use ESG data to evaluate how effectively companies manage these factors and mitigate sustainability-related risks, with high or low ESG scores providing critical insights into corporate sustainability performance.

3.2.3. Competitive Advantage

A company’s capacity to compete in the global market by outperforming its rivals is referred to as CA. When rivals find it impossible or too expensive to copy a company’s business model or strategy, sustainable CA is created (Javed et al., 2024; Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2020; Battisti et al., 2020). According to Javed et al. (2024) and Baia et al. (2020), CA may also be defined as a company’s capacity to use its resources and competencies in a unique way to reduce expenses, take advantage of market opportunities, and defeat competitive threats. By putting strategies into place that effectively produce value using resources with good and valued competences, CA may be formed (De Guimarães et al., 2023). CA is measured through a resource-focused approach. When a business can provide returns from its corporate resources that are higher than the industry average cost of equity, CA takes place. Return on invested capital (ROIC) and weighted average cost of capital (WACC) are compared in order to measure CA. When a firm’s return on invested capital (ROIC) exceeds its weighted average cost of capital (WACC), it demonstrates CA, indicating that the firm generates return above the cost of capital and effectively leverages its resources relative to competitors (Danov, 2023; Mohammad & Wasiuzzaman, 2021).

3.2.4. Firm Value

According to Keter et al. (2024), FV is defined as investors’ assessment of a company’s success as represented in the stock price. FV is significant because it indicates investor confidence in the firm’s future potential. A company’s market value, which is determined by transactions between buyers and sellers on the stock exchange, is considered an accurate indication of the asset’s actual value. The market’s trust in the company’s present performance and potential for future growth may be inferred from a high stock price (Jaunanda et al., 2024; Du et al., 2024). Tobin’s Q is used to measure FV. This ratio, which is computed by adding the market value of outstanding shares and the company’s total debt and dividing by total assets, contrasts the market value of a business with the book value of its assets (Lindenberg & Ross, 1981). Because it reflects investors’ perceptions of the company’s potential for future growth, Tobin’s Q is employed as an indicator to evaluate FV (El-Deeb et al., 2023). A Tobin’s Q greater than 1 suggests strong growth expectations, indicating that the market values the firm above its book value, whereas a ratio below 1 suggests that the firm is undervalued and expected to grow more slowly than companies with higher Tobin’s Q (Duan et al., 2023).

3.2.5. Board Gender Diversity

The United Nations’ 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, particularly target number 5, gender equality, are being implemented by having women on the board of directors. In addition to taking into consideration the role and impact of women in board decision-making, BGD refers to the percentage of women on corporate boards of directors that have balanced or nearly balanced representation with males (Wang et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2023). The presence of women on the board of directors creates opportunities for more strategic, sustainable, and well-informed decision-making, which enhances the company’s performance and reputation (Lawrences & Raithatha, 2023). Women offer unique viewpoints, experiences, and ideas to the board of directors, according to proponents of gender parity in CEO roles (Singh et al., 2023).

An operational definition in research explains the characteristics and attributes of a variable, allowing it to be measured or observed in the study. The definitions and measurement of each variable can be seen in the following Table 2.

Table 2. Definition and measurement of variables.

Variable	Definition	Measurement
Intellectual Capital (IC)	A company’s intangible assets, including knowledge, networks, and reputation, play a role in providing competitive advantage and future profitability (Mukhtaruddin et al., 2023; Pulic, 2008).	VAICTM = VACA + VAHU + STVA
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)	Company information disclosure related to performance in environmental, social, and governance aspects as an evaluation of company sustainability (Espinosa-Méndez et al., 2023).	ESG scores were obtained from the Refinitiv database (Thomson Reuters).
Competitive Advantage (CA)	The company’s ability to achieve higher profits compared to its competitors (Alkhatib & Valeri, 2024; Mohammad & Wasiuzzaman, 2021).	ROIC-WACC
Firm Value (FV)	Investors’ perception of the success rate of the company’s management in managing the company’s resources (Duan et al., 2023; Bui et al., 2023).	Tobin’s Q
Board Gender Diversity (BGD)	The proportion of women compared to men in the company’s top management members (Lin et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024).	Number of women in the board/total number of board members

Source: authors’ compilation based on prior literature.

3.3. Analysis Technique

The empirical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 software. Statistical Methods Using SPSS provides a practical approach for better understanding the advanced statistical concepts that are applied in business, economics, epidemiology, public health, agriculture and other areas of data analytics. Advanced statistical methods or advanced statistical techniques for analyzing data arise because of the complex nature of datasets that cannot be analyzed using the basic or usual and common analytical techniques (Okello, 2024). Panel regression techniques were applied to examine both direct and moderating relationships among variables. A panel dataset is one that follows a given sample of units over time. Thus, panel data analysis refers to econometric tools that deal with the estimation of relationships that combine time series and cross sectional data. Appropriate estimation methods are discussed depending on the characteristics of the data (Ciarreta et al., 2023).

Descriptive analytics is a fundamental component of data science that focuses on analyzing historical data to identify patterns and trends. By applying statistical methods and visualization techniques—such as dashboards, charts, and heat maps—a clearer understanding of complex datasets is enabled. It also uses statistical measures to examine the central tendency and dispersion of data. Overall, descriptive analytics helps researchers and practitioners to generate meaningful insights that support informed decision-making across various fields (Geetha & Sujatha, 2024).

Data quality (DQ) has been defined as “fitness for use” of the data (also called information quality). A single aspect of data quality is defined as a “dimension” such as “consistency”, “accuracy”, “completeness”, or “timeliness”. In order to assess and improve data quality, “methodologies” have been defined. Data quality methodologies are a set of guidelines and techniques that are designed for assessing and perhaps improving data quality in a given application or organization. Most data quality methodologies use a pre-defined list of dimensions to assess the quality of data (Vaziri & Mohsenzadeh, 2012).

The regression for each model is specified as follows:

FVit = α + β₁ICit + β₂ESGit + β₃CAit + έ

(1)

FVit = α + β₁ICit + β₂ESGit + β₃CAit + B₄BGDAit + B5IC × BGDit + B6ESG × BDGit +
B6CA × BGDit + έ

(2)

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The results of the statistical tests are shown in the following Table 3.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
IC	5733	0.01	9.40	3.2264	1.35016
ESG	5733	0.04	0.93	0.5544	0.18146
CA	5733	−53.87	59.97	6.4264	6.04235
FV	5733	0.01	19.87	1.0571	1.18282
BGD	5733	0.00	0.73	0.1095	0.10356
Valid N (listwise)	5733

Source: Processed research data, 2025.

Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics for all variables based on 5733 firm-year observations from Asian listed companies between 2015 and 2023. This section aims to describe distributional properties of the dataset rather than to infer relationships among variables.

Intellectual capital (IC), measured using the VAIC approach, has a mean of 3.2264 and a standard deviation of 1.35016, with values ranging from 0.01 to 9.40. The wide range indicates substantial cross-sectional heterogeneity in IC efficiency across firms. However, these values should not be interpreted as indicators of superior or inferior performance, as VAIC captures accounting-based efficiency rather than the broader strategic dimensions of intellectual capital. The dispersion simply reflects variation in value-added efficiency among firms in the sample.

ESG performance exhibits a mean of 0.5544 and a standard deviation of 0.18146, with scores ranging from 0.04 to 0.93. This distribution suggests moderate variability in sustainability engagement across firms. The absence of clustering at extreme values indicates that ESG practices vary across institutional contexts; however, the descriptive statistics alone cannot indicate whether ESG disclosure is perceived positively, negatively, or neutrally by investors.

Competitive advantage (CA), proxied by ROIC minus WACC, displays a mean of 6.4264 and a relatively high standard deviation of 6.04235. The minimum (–53.87) and maximum (59.97) values suggest the presence of extreme observations. Such dispersion may reflect structural differences across industries, market conditions, or capital intensity. Given the potential influence of extreme values, subsequent regression analyses incorporate appropriate controls and robustness considerations to ensure that results are not driven by outliers.

Firm value (FV), measured by Tobin’s Q, has a mean of 1.0571 and a standard deviation of 1.18282, with a maximum of 19.87. The high upper bound indicates right-skewness, a common feature of market-based valuation measures. This suggests that a subset of firms may exhibit disproportionately high growth expectations. Accordingly, multivariate analyses are interpreted cautiously to mitigate potential distortions arising from skewed distributions.

Board gender diversity (BGD) has a mean of 0.1095, indicating that women constitute approximately 11% of board members on average. Values range from 0.00 to 0.73, highlighting the variation in board composition across firms. The relatively low mean suggests limited female representation in several firms; however, descriptive statistics alone cannot determine governance effectiveness or its implications for firm valuation.

4.2. Data Testing and Discussion of Results

Based on Table 4, the regression model in this study is as follows:

FVit = 0.5661 − 0.067IC + 0.061ESG + 0.105CA

FVit = 0.511 − 0.036IC + 0.163ESG + 0.076CA + 1.643BGD − 0.299IC × BGD −
2.364ESG × BDG + 0.229CA × BGD

Table 4. The result of data processing.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2
	Β	Prob-Value	Significant	Β	Prob-Value	Significant
IC	−0.067	−6.438	0.000 *	−0.036	−2.373	0.018 *
ESG	0.061	0.822	0.411	0.163	1.601	0.109
CA	0.105	45.055	0.000 *	0.076	21.432	0.000 *
BGD				1.643	2.933	0.003 *
ICxBGD				−0.299	−2.971	0.003 *
ESGxBGD				−2.364	−3.214	0.001 *
CAxBGD				0.229	10.544	0.000 *
Constant	0.566			0.511
Adjusted R2	0.268			0.286
F prob-Value	698.876			328.822
Significant	0.000 *			0.000 *

Dependent variable: FV. * significant 0.05. Source: processed research data, 2025.

The results show that IC is significantly and negatively associated with FV in Asian companies. Because this study employs correlational panel regression, the finding reflects a statistical association rather than a causal effect. Although signaling theory and the resource-based view (RBV) suggest that strategic intangible resources enhance firm value, the negative association indicates that the economic benefits of IC are conditional on institutional context, governance quality, and market perception. In emerging and heterogeneous Asian markets, investments in IC may increase organizational costs and operational complexity without generating immediate or easily observable returns. Investors may also discount IC when its future benefits are uncertain or difficult to verify. These findings align with Pratiwi and Komalasari (2025), Rismayanti et al. (2023), Kesuma and Ratnawati (2025), and Ousama et al. (2020), who report a negative association between IC and firm value, while Qudratulloh and Desmiza (2024) and Ionita and Dinu (2021) find no significant relationship, highlighting empirical inconsistency. Importantly, the negative association may reflect limitations in traditional measurement approaches rather than a fundamental weakness of IC itself. Contemporary IC theory extends beyond efficiency based measures, such as VAIC, to emphasize dynamic capabilities, knowledge integration, digital transformation, and long-term sustainability alignment (Sari & Setiawati, 2025). These advanced perspectives argue that firms create value by leveraging intellectual capital to support continuous learning, innovation, and strategic adaptation. When IC is measured primarily through accounting-based indicators, such as VAIC, it may underrepresent these strategic dimensions and fail to capture the long-term value embedded in organizational knowledge and digital capabilities. Consequently, the negative empirical result may indicate a measurement gap rather than a diminished strategic role of IC. Overall, the findings suggest that the market valuation of intellectual capital depends on measurement approaches, governance effectiveness, institutional conditions, and the extent to which firms integrate IC into broader dynamic and sustainability oriented strategies.

The results show that ESG performance is positively but not significantly associated with FV. Because the analysis is correlational, this finding reflects a statistical association rather than a causal effect. Although ESG is widely regarded as a strategic resource aligned with sustainability goals, the market may not consistently price ESG performance in the sampled Asian firms. As ESG practices become more common, their signaling value may decline, reducing their impact on investor perception. This finding does not contradict signaling theory or the resource-based view (RBV) but indicates that the value relevance of ESG is conditional. Prior studies report mixed results: Ahmed and Khalaf (2025) and Wu et al. (2022) find a positive association between ESG and firm value, whereas Passos and Campos-Rasera (2023) and Aydogmus et al. (2022) report a negative relationship. These inconsistencies suggest that the ESG–FV relationship depends on contextual and methodological factors. Differences in ESG measurement frameworks (e.g., GRI, SASB, CDP), variations in regulatory requirements, evolving disclosure standards, and methodological approaches may explain the divergent findings. Therefore, ESG performance does not automatically increase firm value; its market relevance depends on institutional context, disclosure quality, and investor sensitivity to sustainability information.

The results show that CA is positively and significantly associated with FV. Because the study uses correlational analysis, this finding reflects a statistical relationship rather than a confirmed causal effect. Firms with a stronger competitive advantage tend to have higher market valuation, indicating that investors value superior performance and long-term sustainability prospects. This result aligns with Saxena et al. (2025), Rohendi et al. (2024), and Kohls et al. (2023). However, prior studies report mixed evidence. Setiany et al. (2023) and Widayanto et al. (2023) find no significant relationship between CA and FV. These differences suggest that the impact of competitive advantage depends on contextual factors. Industry structure may influence the relationship, especially in regulated sectors such as cement and fertilizer, where government intervention limits competitive dynamics. Cross-country differences and firm size may also matter, as large multinational firms tend to translate competitive strength into market valuation more effectively than locally oriented firms.

The findings indicate that BGD is positively associated with firm value and moderates the relationships between IC, ESG performance, CA, and FV. As this study relies on correlational panel analysis, these results should be interpreted as evidence that the strength of the associations between strategic resources and FV varies across firms with different levels of BGD, rather than as causal proof. The moderating effect suggests that governance structure conditions how intangible and strategic resources are translated into market valuation.

From a governance perspective, gender-diverse boards may enhance monitoring effectiveness, broaden cognitive diversity, and improve the quality of strategic deliberation. Prior research documents that heterogeneous boards are associated with stronger oversight, greater transparency, and more balanced risk assessment (Ramiah, 2026; Velte, 2022). Within this framework, BGD may function as a credibility-enhancing mechanism that strengthens investor confidence in how intellectual capital and sustainability initiatives are managed. When boards exhibit greater gender diversity, markets may interpret disclosures related to intangible resources and ESG strategies as more credible and less opportunistic. Conversely, in governance structures characterized by limited diversity, strategic resources may not be perceived as effectively monitored or optimally deployed, thereby weakening their valuation relevance.

Importantly, these findings do not imply that BGD alone guarantees superior firm value. Rather, BGD functions as a governance enabler that conditions the effectiveness of resource orchestration and sustainability integration. In heterogeneous Asian institutional environments where regulatory enforcement and investor protection vary board composition may signal governance strength and reduce uncertainty surrounding intangible asset utilization. The observed moderating role also reflects broader structural shifts in gender participation in corporate leadership. As noted by Yuliasari et al. (2024), traditional norms historically limited women’s roles to domestic spheres; however, contemporary corporate environments demonstrate increasing female representation in strategic decision-making positions. This shift may introduce diverse perspectives and governance quality improvements that influence how markets evaluate strategic resources.

5. Conclusions and Remarks

This study examines the association between intellectual capital (IC), ESG performance, competitive advantage (CA), and board gender diversity (BGD) with firm value (FV) in Asian companies. Using panel data from 2015 to 2023, the findings indicate that IC and CA are significantly associated with FV, suggesting that capital markets continue to recognize the relevance of strategic resources, operational strength, and skilled human capital. However, ESG performance is not significantly associated with FV in the baseline model. This result may reflect the increasing institutionalization of sustainability practices following the introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, which may have reduced the distinct signaling effect of ESG disclosure as a differentiating factor in capital markets.

The results further demonstrate that board gender diversity is directly associated with FV and moderates the relationships between IC, ESG, CA, and FV. Specifically, governance structures with greater BGD appear to condition how strategic resources are translated into market valuation. Rather than claiming theoretical novelty, this study refines existing governance literature by examining BGD simultaneously as an independent and moderating mechanism within heterogeneous Asian institutional environments. The findings suggest that BGD may enhance oversight quality, transparency, and strategic alignment, thereby strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of internal resource deployment.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to signaling theory and the resource based view (RBV) by demonstrating that the market valuation of internal resources is not automatic but contingent upon governance quality and institutional context. The negative association observed between VAIC-based intellectual capital and firm value highlights the importance of interpreting accounting based efficiency measures cautiously and recognizing the conditional nature of intangible asset valuation. These findings support a dynamic governance perspective in which intellectual capital, sustainability integration, and board oversight function as interdependent mechanisms.

From a managerial standpoint, the results underscore the importance of aligning IC development and competitive positioning with effective governance practices. Firms should ensure that knowledge based investments are strategically integrated rather than treated solely as efficiency metrics. Although ESG performance may not exhibit immediate valuation effects, sustainability integration remains critical for long term strategic resilience and regulatory compliance. For investors, the findings suggest that strategic resources and governance characteristics should be evaluated jointly rather than independently. For policymakers, the results support the development of transparent ESG disclosure standards and the promotion of substantive not merely symbolic gender diversity in corporate boards.

This study has several limitations. First, IC is measured using the VAIC model, which captures efficiency but may not fully reflect the multidimensional and dynamic nature of knowledge-based resources. Second, although panel regression techniques are employed, the results reflect associations rather than definitive causal relationships. Third, institutional heterogeneity across Asian markets may limit generalizability to other regions. Future research may employ alternative intellectual capital measurement frameworks, dynamic modeling approaches, or instrumental variable techniques to further address endogeneity concerns. Additionally, comparative cross-regional studies could provide deeper insights into how institutional environments shape the valuation of strategic resources and governance structures.