The transition from the industrial economy to the knowledge-based economy has changed the status quo, and consequently, intangibles have gained traction in the scientific discourse of recent decades. The paper aims to scrutinise, econometrically, the nexus between intangibles and firm performance and the moderating role of CEO duality and CEO gender. Capital-intensive industries are largely overlooked by previous studies, which prompted us to explore the electricity and gas industry. The analysis is based on a longitudinal dataset of EU-listed companies and employs a quantitative approach to study the causal relationships between intangibles, firm performance, and CEO characteristics. Results demonstrate that intangible assets are a stepping stone to better financial and market performance, which endorses the resource-based view. Today’s social and cultural milieu sees gender diversity in a positive light. Consonant with the upper echelons theory, the study finds that CEO gender positively impacts the intangibles–firm performance relationship. The hypothesised prejudicial effect of CEO duality, postulated by the agency theory, is only partially supported. Managers and policymakers are advised to pay particular attention to intangibles and science-driven projects to augment corporate performance. Creating a diversity-friendly culture is also of paramount importance.

Corporate management is often accused of short-term oriented behaviour related to R&D expenditures. This study analyses the influence of R&D volatility and R&D intensity on the market capitalization of pharmaceutical and medical research companies from Europe, considering the institutional context and several firm characteristics. Panel regression estimations on a sample of 217 companies for 2014–2019 indicate that R&D volatility adversely affects market value. The analysis is conducted on the entire sample and on sub-samples determined based on the positive and negative values of the R&D volatility. This differentiates between the continuous and the disrupting effect of R&D activities and the firm’s shift between exploratory and exploitative innovations. The positive volatility sub-sample provides consistent evidence of a significant negative influence of the R&D volatility on the market value. For the negative volatility sub-sample, R&D intensity and its interaction with R&D volatility have a significant positive effect, consistent over the alternative estimations. We conclude that the market influence of the R&D expenditure is related to the sign of volatility and depends on the proportion of R&D expenditure, especially when the volatility is negative. Our findings provide valuable insights for managers, investors, analysts, and other stakeholders about the market reaction to R&D volatility.