A new study from the University of East London has found that companies led by long-serving chief executives may become less innovative over time unless challenged by strong independent boards.

The research examined 215 FTSE 350 companies over an 11-year period between 2010 and 2021. It explored how CEO tenure and independent directors influence a company’s “R&D knowledge stock”, which is the research, expertise and technological capability built through investment in innovation.

The study published in the journal Corporate Governance found that CEOs who remain in office for many years often become more cautious and less willing to back risky research and development projects. These companies were more likely to reduce investment in innovation and long-term technological growth.

Firms with higher numbers of independent directors were more likely to continue building innovation capacity with experienced CEOs and independent directors forming an effective partnership, to combine deep company knowledge with outside challenge.

However, both experienced CEOs and independent directors become more cautious and less willing to back risky research and development projects when the company fails to meet performance aspirations, suggesting that independent directors do not have stable risk preferences.

The findings suggest that innovation is shaped not only by technology and finance, but also by leadership culture and corporate governance structures.

Author Dr Igbekele Sunday Osinubi, of the Royal Docks School of Business and Law, said: “Long-serving CEOs can bring valuable experience and stability, but there is also a risk that leaders become too cautious or too attached to existing ways of thinking. Our findings show that independent directors play an important role in encouraging companies to continue investing in innovation, especially during difficult periods when firms may otherwise retreat from long-term research and development.”

He added: “This matters beyond individual companies. Innovation drives productivity, competitiveness and economic growth. The study highlights how governance structures can influence whether firms continue building the knowledge and technologies that shape future industries.”

The paper argues that regulators and policymakers should consider governance reforms and incentives that encourage long-term innovation strategies, particularly in firms led by long-serving executives. The findings may also influence how boards think about CEO succession planning, oversight and the balance between short-term financial pressures and long-term investment.

Osinubi’s research, “Long CEO tenure, independent directors and R&D knowledge stock: the moderating effect of performance shortfalls”, was published in the Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 

Companies celebrated for strong financial performance may actually be inefficient once their environmental impact is taken into account, according to new research from the University of Surrey. 

The study, published in the European Journal of Operational Research, shows that firms that appear highly efficient at generating revenue can perform far worse when their environmental footprint are included in the calculation.  

To tackle this problem, researchers developed a new way to measure “sustainable corporate efficiency”, combining traditional financial metrics with environmental data such as energy consumption, carbon emissions and revenues generated from environmentally friendly products and services.  

Dr Menelaos Tasiou, co-author of the study and Senior Lecturer in Finance at the University of Surrey, said: “Businesses have long been judged on how efficiently they turn resources into profit. But if those profits come with large environmental costs, the picture changes completely. What we show is that true efficiency means generating revenue while also reducing the environmental damage caused by production. In other words, profitability alone can mask how wasteful a business really is when environmental costs are considered. “ 

The research analysed more than 2,800 publicly listed companies across 61 countries between 2010 and 2022, creating one of the largest global datasets measuring how sustainable companies are, when both financial performance and environmental impact are assessed together.  

The team combined company financial records, in alignment with the green economy (defined as a low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive economy), with environmental disclosures such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. They then applied a machine learning technique known as Convexified Efficiency Analysis Trees (CEAT) to estimate how efficiently companies convert resources into revenue while minimising pollution.  

Unlike older approaches, the method models the reality that production creates both desirable outputs, such as revenue, and undesirable ones, such as emissions. This allows companies to be compared on how well they balance profit with environmental performance.  

The results found a moderate link between financial efficiency and environmental efficiency, meaning many firms that are strong financially are not necessarily good at managing their environmental impact.  

The study also found large differences across industries and countries. Firms operating in sectors with high emissions, such as manufacturing and energy, often lagged behind leaders that were better at reducing carbon intensity while maintaining revenue.  

Dr Tasiou continued: “Measuring efficiency in this broader way can help investors, regulators and policymakers identify companies that are genuinely prepared for a low carbon economy. Stronger management capability plays a key role. Firms with more capable management teams were more likely to balance profitability with environmental responsibility, suggesting that leadership decisions can strongly influence sustainable performance.  

“As governments push towards net zero and investors scrutinise environmental performance more closely, companies that fail to integrate sustainability into their operations risk falling behind.” 

If you’re among the 93% of people who struggle with perfectionism at work, new research suggests that your experience may depend less on your own high standards and more on whether those standards meet your supervisor’s expectations. 

Researchers from the University of Florida Warrington College of Business found that whether perfectionism helps or harms employees depends largely on whether employees’ personal standards align with their supervisors’ expectations. 

Specifically, they looked at the connection between employees’ self-oriented perfectionism, or the expectations of flawlessness they set for themselves, and supervisors’ other-oriented perfectionism, which reflects the extent to which they set excessively high standards for and critically evaluate their employees’ performance. 

Using data from more than 350 employees and about 100 supervisors, the researchers found that perfectionism’s impact depends on whether employees’ standards align with what their supervisors expect and how clearly those expectations are understood. 

When employees’ personal standards are aligned with their supervisors’ expectations, they tend to experience less role ambiguity, meaning they have less uncertainty about the expectations and standards for their role, why those standards matter and the consequences of not meeting them. This clarity in their work is linked to better performance, lower burnout and higher job satisfaction. 

“Problems between employees and their supervisors are more likely to arise when these expectations don’t match,” explained Brian Swider, Beth Ayers McCague Family Professor.

The most difficult situation occurs, Swider and his colleagues found, is when supervisors expect higher levels of perfectionism than employees expect from themselves. In these cases, employees reported greater uncertainty about their roles, along with worse work outcomes including higher burnout and lower job satisfaction.

“If you’re an employee who struggles with perfectionism at work, our findings suggest that understanding your supervisor’s expectations may be just as important as managing your own tendencies towards perfectionism,” Swider said. “Talking to your supervisor about priorities, standards and how your performance will be evaluated can help reduce uncertainty and ensure you both share a clear understanding of what success looks like.”

The researchers have similar recommendations for employers: help your employees by clarifying expectations through regular feedback and performance conversations to reduce role ambiguity, as doing so can provide employees with a better understanding of role expectations and enhance mutual understanding of those standards.

The researchers also recommend that organizations should consider how employees and supervisors are paired, as mismatched expectations can increase stress, reduce job satisfaction and ultimately impact performance. 

The research, “The influence of employee-supervisor perfectionism (in)congruence on employees: a configurational approach,” is published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.