SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Girişimcilik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 21

BOARD STRUCTURE, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE, AND BANK PROFITABILITY: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS OF TURKISH DEPOSIT BANKS

YÖNETİM KURULU YAPISI, EĞİTİM DÜZEYİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK YÖNETİŞİMİNİN BANKA KÂRLILIĞIYLA İLİŞKİSİ: TÜRK MEVDUAT BANKALARI ÜZERİNE PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Oğuz Şimşek(İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi)0000-0001-7380-4454
Mehmet Özgür Yaran(İSTANBUL TİCARET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0002-5435-929X
Merdan Uçum(İSTANBUL SABAHATTİN ZAİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0006-4241-9506
Pages
275–310
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Committee presence and membership size are not significant; meeting frequency is positively associated only with ROA.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the relationship between board structure, directors’ educational background, sustainability governance indicators, and bank profitability in Turkish deposit banks.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The potential data frame comprises 114 bank-year observations for 19 banks over 2020–2025; the return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) models use 110 and 109 observations, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Committee presence and membership size are not significant; meeting frequency is positively associated only with ROA.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal yönetim · yönetim kurulu · sürdürülebilirlik

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between board structure, directors’ educational background, sustainability governance indicators, and bank profitability in Turkish deposit banks. The potential data frame comprises 114 bank-year observations for 19 banks over 2020–2025; the return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) models use 110 and 109 observations, respectively. Committee indicators represent sustainability governance because ESG scores are unavailable. Models include bank and year fixed effects, with bank-level clustered standard errors and wild cluster bootstrap tests. The proportion of politically connected directors is positively associated with both profitability measures, whereas board size is positively associated with ROA. The ROE coefficient on board size is not significant under bootstrap inference. Bank size and the equity ratio show positive associations; independent, female, and foreign director proportions and education measures are not significant. Committee presence and membership size are not significant; meeting frequency is positively associated only with ROA.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türk mevduat bankalarında yönetim kurulu yapısı, üyelerin eğitim düzeyi ve sürdürülebilirlik yönetişimi göstergelerinin banka kârlılığıyla ilişkisini incelemektedir. 2020–2025 dönemindeki 19 bankaya ait potansiyel veri çerçevesi 114 banka-yıl gözleminden oluşmakta; aktif kârlılığı (ROA) ve özkaynak kârlılığı (ROE) modelleri sırasıyla 110 ve 109 gözlemle tahmin edilmektedir. ESG skorlarına erişilemediğinden sürdürülebilirlik boyutu komite göstergeleriyle temsil edilmiştir. Banka ve yıl sabit etkili modellerde banka düzeyinde kümelenmiş standart hatalar ve wild cluster bootstrap testleri kullanılmıştır. Politik bağlantılı üye oranı her iki kârlılık göstergesiyle, kurul büyüklüğü ise ROA ile pozitif ilişkilidir. Kurul büyüklüğünün ROE katsayısı bootstrap altında anlamlı değildir. Banka büyüklüğü ve özkaynak oranı pozitif sonuçlar verirken bağımsız, kadın ve yabancı üye oranları ile eğitim göstergeleri için anlamlı ilişki saptanmamıştır. Komite varlığı ve üye sayısı anlamlı bulunmamış; toplantı sıklığı yalnızca ROA modelinde pozitif ilişki göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şimşek, O., Yaran, M. Ö., Uçum, M. (2026). BOARD STRUCTURE, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE, AND BANK PROFITABILITY: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS OF TURKISH DEPOSIT BANKS. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Girişimcilik Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 21, 275–310. https://doi.org/10.55830/tje.2010563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
  2. Adams, R. B., & Mehran, H. (2012). Bank board structure and performance: Evidence for large bank holding companies. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 21(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2011.09.002
  3. Alodat, A. Y., & Hao, Y. (2025). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and firm performance: Moderating role of board gender diversity and sustainability committee. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3126
  4. Arellano, M. (1987). Computing robust standard errors for within-groups estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(4), 431–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1987.mp49004006.x
  5. Atalay, M. O., Altin, M., & Al Ani, M. K. (2025). From diversity to sustainability: How board meeting frequency, financial performance and foreign members enhance the board gender diversity–ESG performance link. Borsa Istanbul Review, 25(3), 552–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2025.02.007
  6. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data (6th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
  7. Baltagi, B. H., & Li, Q. (1990). A Lagrange multiplier test for the error components model with incomplete panels. Econometric Reviews, 9(1), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939008800180
  8. Basile, V., Serino, L., D’Ambra, A., & Campanella, F. (2026). Board characteristics and effects on ESG performance: Empirical evidence from the European banking system. Quality & Quantity, 60, 2121–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02338-w
  9. Baum, C. F. (2001). Residual diagnostics for cross-section time series regression models. The Stata Journal, 1(1), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0100100108
  10. Bektaş, E., & Kaymak, T. (2009). Governance mechanisms and ownership in an emerging market: The case of Turkish banks. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 45(6), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.2753/ree1540-496x450602
  11. Birindelli, G., Dell’Atti, S., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2018). Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustainability, 10(12), 4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124699
  12. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  13. Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.3.414
  14. Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. The Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
  15. Ciğer, A., Yetiz, F., & Kınay, B. (2026). The impact of ESG performance on non-performing loans, capital adequacy, liquidity risk, and net balance sheet position in banks. International Journal of Financial Studies, 14(4), Article 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs14040087
  16. Coşkun, B., & Özkan, A. (2026). Yönetim kurulu özelliklerinin ESG performansı üzerindeki etkileri: BİST sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde yer alan şirketler üzerine bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (74), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1830296
  17. Çetenak, E. H., Ersoy, E., & Işık, Ö. (2022). ESG (çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim) skorunun firma performansına etkisi: Türk bankacılık sektörü örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 63, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1212587
  18. de Andres, P., & Vallelado, E. (2008). Corporate governance in banking: The role of the board of directors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(12), 2570–2580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.05.008
  19. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0600600403
  20. Doğan, M., & Kevser, M. (2021). Relationship between sustainability report, financial performance, and ownership structure: Research on the Turkish banking sector. Istanbul Business Research, 50(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2021.51.0115
  21. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
  22. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
  23. Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0300300206
  24. Eriqat, I. O. A., Tahir, M., & Zulkafli, A. H. (2025). Corporate governance mechanisms and financial performance of banks: Empirical evidence on the multi-theory perspective in corporate governance. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 8(2), 956–967. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i2.5396
  25. Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96(1), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806776157704
  26. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
  27. Fariha, R., Hossain, M. M., & Ghosh, R. (2022). Board characteristics, audit committee attributes and firm performance: Empirical evidence from emerging economy. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 7(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-11-2020-0115
  28. Grau-Grau, A., Branco, M., & Bel-Oms, I. (2025). Board characteristics and stakeholder engagement and ESG performance: The relevance of European gender parity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(3), 3193–3209. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3082
  29. Gutiérrez-Ponce, H., & Wibowo, S. A. (2023). Do sustainability activities affect the financial performance of banks? The case of Indonesian banks. Sustainability, 15(8), 6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086892
  30. Gürbüz, C., Türkoğlu, K., & Bekci, İ. (2023). Yönetim kurulu niteliklerinin finansal performans üzerine etkisi: BIST-100 endeksinde bir uygulama. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(49), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.1175915
  31. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
  32. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
  33. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729
  34. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469
  35. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0700700301
  36. Hokka, C., & Biber, A. E. (2023). Bankacılık sektöründe kurumsal yönetim özelliklerinin finansal performans üzerindeki etkisi: Gelişmiş ülkeler üzerine bir inceleme. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 7(2), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1361675
  37. Işık, Ö., & İnce, A. R. (2016). Board size, board composition and performance: An investigation on Turkish banks. International Business Research, 9(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n2p74
  38. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
  39. Khan, A., & Baker, H. K. (2022). How board diversity and ownership structure shape sustainable corporate performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(8), 3751–3770. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3626
  40. Le, T. H., & Yang, A. S. (2026). Does the presence of CSR committees enhance bank profitability through improved governance and reduced ESG controversies? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 43(2), e70074. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.70074
  41. Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2022). Board diversity and ESG performance: Evidence from the Italian banking sector. Sustainability, 14(20), 13447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013447
  42. Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913646
  43. Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727
  44. O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
  45. Pathan, S., & Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1573–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.12.016
  46. Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
  47. Romano, M., Cirillo, A., Favino, C., & Netti, A. (2020). ESG (environmental, social and governance) performance and board gender diversity: The moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability, 12(21), 9298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298
  48. Roodman, D., MacKinnon, J. G., Nielsen, M. Ø., & Webb, M. D. (2019). Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest. The Stata Journal, 19(1), 4–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x19830877
  49. Say, S., & Doğan, M. (2023). Bankaların sürdürebilirlik raporu ile kurumsal yönetim ilişkisi. İşletme Akademisi Dergisi, 4(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2023.1206
  50. Trung, N. K. Q. (2022). Board of directors characteristics affect commercial banks’ performance—Evidence in Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2060164. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2060164
  51. Tuan, K. (2019). Yönetim kurulu özelliklerinin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarına etkisi: Borsa İstanbul örneği. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 36, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.451233
  52. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3095
  53. Verma, S., Goyal, S., & Sharma, J. (2025). Corporate governance mechanisms and bank profitability: An empirical analysis of Indian banks. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 102204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102204
  54. Yağlı, İ. (2019). Yönetim kurulu çeşitliliği–finansal performans ilişkisi: Türk bankacılık sektörü örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 37(3), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.450543
  55. Yılmaz, İ. (2019). Board members’ and board characteristics’ effect on bank performance in Turkey. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 74(3), 931–960. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.536415