Which bundles of corporate governance provisions lead to high firm performance among restaurant firms?

This study defends the view that the adoption of corporate governance provisions should not be seen as a detriment to firms' financial performance. On the contrary, we contend that some combinations of corporate governance provisions may indeed lead to higher firm performance among U.S. restaurant firms. Using a set-theoretic method, such as the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), our findings revealed that there are three configurations of governance provisions that lead to superior financial performance. The presence of poison pills appeared as a core condition in all solutions. Negated analysis indicates that the inappropriate bundling of governance provisions leads to poor firm performance.