The Impact Of Corporate Governance On Financial Performance: A Comparative Study Of SBI And HDFC Bank

1. Introduction:

1.1 Background of the Study:

Corporate governance has become one of the most discussed topics in business and finance, especially since the early 2000s when major corporate scandals—like Enron and WorldCom—shook investor confidence worldwide. Put simply, corporate governance refers to the set of rules, systems, and practices through which a company is run and held accountable to its stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and regulators (OECD, 2015).

For a long time, most attention in business management was focused on operational efficiency—how to produce more, sell more, and cut costs. But scandals and frauds showed that financial performance is only as reliable as the governance framework behind it. A company could look profitable on paper while its board was ignoring risks, hiding liabilities, or acting in its own interest at the expense of shareholders. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis made this even clearer. Poor board oversight, reckless risk management, and conflicts of interest led to massive economic damage that extended far beyond individual firms (Kumar & Singh, 2013).

In India, the governance story has unfolded a bit differently. Major regulatory steps like the Companies Act 2013 and SEBI’s Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations have pushed companies—especially listed banks—to adopt stricter governance norms. The period from FY 2021 to FY 2025 is particularly interesting for study, because it captures the aftermath of COVID-19 (which tested every governance mechanism imaginable), as well as the impact of these regulatory reforms on actual financial outcomes.

1.2 Theoretical Grounding:

Two main theories inform this study. The first is Agency Theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), which says that managers (agents) don’t always act in the best interest of shareholders (principals). Governance mechanisms—like an independent board, audit committees, and transparent reporting—exist to reduce this conflict. When these mechanisms work well, they should lead to better financial performance.

The second is Stewardship Theory (Davis et al., 1997), which takes a more positive view and argues that managers naturally align with organizational goals. This perspective is especially useful when thinking about public sector banks like SBI, where managers may be driven by broader obligations—social development, financial inclusion—beyond just profit.

Together, these two frameworks help explain why SBI and HDFC Bank might show very different governance-performance patterns despite operating in the same regulatory environment. One leans toward stewardship; the other toward market-driven agency relationships.

1.3 Why This Study Matters:

Banks are the backbone of any economy, and their governance quality has direct consequences for depositors, investors, and economic stability. India has seen how governance failures in banks can lead to systemic problems—the Yes Bank collapse (2020) and the Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank crisis are recent examples. These events underline why studying governance in banking is not just an academic exercise.

What makes SBI and HDFC Bank a particularly useful pair to compare is that they represent two fundamentally different banking models in India—one publicly owned and bound by social mandates, and the other privately held and focused on profitability. Earlier comparative studies (Samantaray & Panda, 2008; Maheshwari & Meena, 2015) looked at governance adherence but did not statistically test the governance-performance link using recent data. This study fills that gap.

1.4 Structure of the Paper:

This paper is divided into seven sections. Section 1 provides the background and motivation. Section 2 reviews relevant literature. Section 3 outlines the research methodology. Section 4 presents the data analysis. Section 5 discusses findings and their implications. Section 6 covers study limitations. Section 7 concludes with recommendations.

1.5 Scope of the Study:

Institutional Scope: SBI (India’s largest public sector bank) and HDFC Bank (India’s largest private sector bank by market capitalization).

Time Period: FY 2021 (April 2020 – March 2021) to FY 2025 (April 2024 – March 2025)—covering post-COVID recovery and recent governance reforms.

Geography: Indian banking sector, using data from RBI publications and official bank disclosures.

Methodology: Quantitative, secondary data analysis. No primary surveys or qualitative board assessments are conducted.

2. Review of Literature

A large number of studies have tried to understand whether better-governed companies actually perform better financially. The evidence is mixed—and quite context-dependent. This section summarises what existing research tells us, organized by geography.

2.1 Governance and Performance in India

Within India, Aggarwal (2013) studied 20 companies from the S&P CNX Nifty 50 Index and found a clear, positive, and statistically significant connection between governance quality and financial performance. This was one of the early quantitative confirmations that good governance does matter for Indian firms—not just as a compliance activity, but as something that measurably drives returns.

Samantaray and Panda (2008) directly compared SBI and HDFC Bank and found that, despite both banks meeting basic governance requirements, SBI showed relatively stronger stakeholder protection practices. This is an interesting result—it suggests that public sector banks, despite often being criticized for bureaucratic inertia, may actually embody certain governance values more robustly than their private counterparts.

Maheshwari and Meena (2015) built on this by evaluating how both banks adhered to Clause 49 of the listing agreement. Their conclusion was similar—SBI scored better on specific governance parameters—though neither bank was found to be fully deficient. The takeaway for the present study is that the governance gap between the two banks is not always as wide as it might seem, but their performance outcomes can still diverge significantly.

Goel (2018) used a Corporate Governance Performance (CGP) index to track how reforms under the Companies Act 2013 improved governance scores across Indian firms between FY 2012-13 and FY 2015-16. The reform period corresponds to a phase of significant regulatory tightening, and the results suggest that mandatory requirements—rather than voluntary best practices—were the primary driver of improvement. This is relevant because the present study covers the phase after these reforms took full effect.

2.2 Evidence from Other Emerging Markets

Studies from countries like Pakistan and Indonesia paint a broadly similar picture. Rizwan et al. (2016), working with companies listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange, found that board composition and audit committees significantly influence ROA and Tobin’s Q. The use of ROA as a governance proxy in those findings directly supports its use in the present study.

Sianipar and Wiksuana (2019) examined regional development banks in Indonesia and found that governance quality had a meaningful positive impact on financial health. Their study reinforces the idea—common across emerging markets—that good governance is especially important in banking, where information asymmetry between management and depositors is high.

Hakimah et al. (2019) shifted focus to Indonesian small and medium enterprises (SMEs), where they found that ownership structure—particularly family ownership—plays a significant role in shaping governance outcomes. This finding is indirectly relevant here because it highlights that ownership type (public vs. private, family vs. dispersed) shapes how governance mechanisms function in practice.

Fanta, Kemal, and Waka (2013) studied Ethiopian banks and found that board size and structure had a direct bearing on profitability metrics. Their work supports the broader emerging-market consensus that governance is not just good for firms in theory—it shows up in the numbers.

2.3 What Developed Economies Tell Us

Interestingly, research from developed economies tends to be more cautious about the governance-performance link. Kyere and Ausloos (2020) studied over 250 UK firms and found that governance mechanisms had non-uniform effects—some mechanisms improved performance, others did not, and some had no visible impact at all. This cautions against assuming that one specific governance feature will always drive returns.

Abdullah and Tursoy (2022) found a similar complexity in Germany—larger boards tended to slow decision-making, which hurt performance. Gill and Obradovich (2012) arrived at the same conclusion for American firms listed on the NYSE: board size had a negative relationship with firm value.

Affes and Jarboui (2023) confirmed, across multiple industries and countries, that governance effects are highly context-dependent. Ownership structure, industry, and regulatory environment all act as moderating variables. This cross-sector finding is central to this study’s comparative approach.

2.4 Governance During and After Financial Crises

The financial crisis of 2008 exposed how badly governance failures can compound economic shocks. Kumar and Singh (2013) and Conyon et al. (2011) argued that weak board oversight and poor risk management at major financial institutions were root causes—not mere side effects—of the crisis. This perspective validates the choice of banking as a sector where governance study has real systemic relevance.

Sanchez et al. (2020) traced how banks in Continental Europe responded by restructuring their boards after 2008, achieving measurable improvements in effectiveness. Their Anglo-American counterparts were slower to adapt. More recently, Zattoni and Pugliese (2021) argued that the COVID-19 crisis has pushed governance research further—towards resilience and crisis-response capacity, rather than just standard profitability metrics. The FY 2021-2025 window in this study directly responds to their call for post-pandemic governance research.

2.5 The Research Gap This Study Addresses

Taken together, the literature makes it clear that governance matters—but in different ways, for different institutions, in different contexts. What is missing is a statistically rigorous, post-pandemic comparison of governance-linked financial performance between India’s largest public and private sector banks, using recent data and testing results for statistical significance. This study is designed to fill that gap.

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Objectives

This research has five specific objectives:

• To understand the corporate governance frameworks of SBI and HDFC Bank.
• To analyse financial performance using governance-linked indicators across FY 2021-2025.
• To examine the relationship between governance and financial performance within each bank.
• To statistically test whether these relationships are significant.
• To compare governance outcomes across the two contrasting banking models.

3.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses

Three research questions and corresponding hypotheses were developed, grounded in the literature:

RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between ROA and ROE of SBI for FY 2021-2025?

H0₁: There is no significant relationship between ROA and ROE of SBI.

H1₁: There is a significant relationship between ROA and ROE of SBI

Rationale: Agency Theory suggests that governance reforms—like board independence and audit oversight—should tighten the link between asset efficiency and shareholder returns. Aggarwal (2013) and Goel (2018) support this reasoning in the Indian context.

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank for FY 2021-2025?

H0₂: There is no significant relationship between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank.

H1₂: There is a significant relationship between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank.

Rationale: Private banks with mature governance structures may show weaker co-movement in ratios because their ROE is shaped by diversified revenue streams and strategic decisions beyond pure asset management (Sianipar & Wiksuana, 2019; Affes & Jarboui, 2023).

RQ3: Is there a significant correlation between the governance-linked financial performance of SBI and HDFC Bank?

H0₃: There is no significant relationship between the governance performance of SBI and HDFC Bank.

H1₃: There is a significant relationship between the governance performance of SBI and HDFC Bank.

Rationale: Given their structural differences in ownership, objectives, and board composition, the two banks are unlikely to show synchronized governance-performance patterns (Kyere & Ausloos, 2020).

3.3 Data Sources

This study relies entirely on secondary data from the following sources:

• Annual Reports of SBI (FY 2021 to FY 2025)
• Annual Reports of HDFC Bank (FY 2021 to FY 2025)
• RBI’s Database on Indian Economy (DBIE) and annual banking sector publications
• Stock exchange filings (BSE/NSE) for market-based indicators

The five-year period (April 2020 to March 2025) was chosen because it covers the post-COVID recovery period and captures the effects of the SEBI LODR amendments (2021).

3.4 Variables and Their Measurement

Since governance quality cannot be directly observed, the study uses financial ratios as proxies. This approach is widely used in the emerging markets governance literature (Rizwan et al., 2016; Sianipar & Wiksuana, 2019). The core variables are:

Return on Assets (ROA): Net Profit After Tax ÷ Average Total Assets. Measures how efficiently the bank turns its asset base into profit. Higher ROA reflects better resource governance.

Return on Equity (ROE): Net Profit After Tax ÷ Average Shareholders’ Equity. Measures returns to equity holders and reflects board stewardship of shareholder capital.

Net Profit Margin (NPM): Net Profit After Tax ÷ Total Operating Income. Captures operational efficiency.

Tobin’s Q: (Market Value of Equity + Book Value of Debt) ÷ Book Value of Total Assets. A market-based gauge of investor confidence in governance quality.

Price-to-Book (P/B) Ratio: Market Price per Share ÷ Book Value per Share. Reflects investor perceptions of long-term governance strength

For hypothesis testing (Sections 4.1 to 4.3), ROA and ROE are used as the primary proxies, consistent with established practice in banking governance research.

3.5 Statistical Tools

Ratio Analysis: Computed the five key metrics for both banks across the five-year study period to track trends.

Pearson’s Correlation (r): Measured the strength and direction of the linear relationship between ROA and ROE within each bank, and between the two banks. r ranges from −1 (perfect negative) to +1 (perfect positive).

t-test for Correlation Significance: Used to determine whether the observed correlations could have occurred by chance. The test statistic is: t = r×√(n−2) ÷ √(1−r²). Null hypothesis is rejected when t-calculated exceeds t-critical (3.182 at 5% level, df = 3 for n = 5).

4. Data Analysis and Interpretation

This section works through the data for both banks separately, then compares them. The financial data for both institutions (Tables 1 and 2, placed after the references section) were sourced from their official annual reports

4.1 SBI: Analysis of Governance-Linked Financial Indicators

Research Question Addressed: RQ1 — Is there a significant link between ROA and ROE of SBI over FY 2021-2025?

H0: No significant relationship between ROA and ROE of SBI.

H1: Significant relationship between ROA and ROE of SBI.

Trend Analysis: SBI’s financial data (Table 1) shows a clear and consistent upward movement in both ROA and ROE across all five years. ROA grew from 0.0048 in FY21 to 0.0110 in FY25—a jump of about 129%. Over the same period, ROE rose from 0.0994 to 0.1987, nearly doubling. This steady simultaneous improvement in both ratios is a strong indicator that SBI’s governance reforms—particularly stronger audit oversight and board accountability—are translating into real improvements in asset management and shareholder value.

Statistical Findings:

Correlation Coefficient (r): +0.99 — This is a near-perfect positive correlation, meaning the two ratios move almost in lockstep. As asset efficiency (ROA) goes up, shareholder returns (ROE) follow almost proportionally. This kind of tightly coupled movement is consistent with Agency Theory’s prediction that robust governance oversight keeps resource allocation and return generation aligned.

t-Test Results:

• t-calculated = 12.2
• Degrees of freedom (DF) = 5 − 2 = 3
• Critical t-value at 5% significance level (two-tailed) = 3.182

Interpretation: Since t-calculated (12.2) is far above t-critical (3.182), we reject H0 and accept H1. The relationship is statistically significant at the 5% level. This confirms that governance reforms in SBI have had a measurable, positive, and statistically verifiable impact on its financial performance during FY 2021-2025.

4.2 HDFC Bank: Analysis of Governance-Linked Financial Indicators

Research Question Addressed: RQ2 — Is there a significant link between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank over FY 2021-2025?

H0: No significant relationship between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank.

H1: Significant relationship between ROA and ROE of HDFC Bank.

Trend Analysis: HDFC Bank’s absolute values for both ROA and ROE are higher than SBI’s across most years, which reflects its status as a well-established, high-performing private bank. However, the two ratios don’t always move in the same direction or proportion across the five-year period. This lower synchronization suggests that HDFC’s ROE is being driven by a wider combination of factors—product mix, digital revenue streams, retail credit growth—rather than primarily by changes in asset efficiency.

Statistical Findings:

Correlation Coefficient (r): +0.61 — This is a moderate positive correlation, indicating that ROA and ROE tend to move in the same direction, but not very closely. The link is far weaker than what we see with SBI.

t-Test Results:

•t-calculated = 1.44

•Critical t-value at 5% significance level (two-tailed) = 3.182

Interpretation: Since t-calculated (1.44) is below t-critical (3.182), we fail to reject H0. The relationship between ROA and ROE in HDFC Bank is not statistically significant. This does not mean HDFC’s governance is weak—rather, it suggests that in a mature private banking environment, governance quality is one of many factors influencing returns. Performance stability is driven by strategic diversification rather than a single governance lever.

4.3 Comparative Analysis: SBI vs. HDFC Bank

Research Question Addressed: RQ3 — Is there a significant correlation between the governance-linked performance of SBI and HDFC Bank?

H0: No significant relationship between governance performance of SBI and HDFC Bank.

H1: Significant relationship between governance performance of SBI and HDFC Bank.

Correlation Coefficient (r): −0.37 — This weak negative correlation tells us that when SBI’s governance-linked performance improves, HDFC Bank’s performance does not necessarily follow—and may even move in the opposite direction. In other words, the two banks do not react similarly to the same economic or regulatory environment.

t-Test Results:

•t-calculated = 0.70

•Critical t-value at 5% significance level (two-tailed) = 3.182

Interpretation: Since t-calculated (0.70) is well below t-critical (3.182), we fail to reject H0. The inter-bank correlation is not statistically significant. This finding is important: it confirms that the governance-performance dynamics of public and private sector banks operate on fundamentally different tracks, driven by differences in ownership structure, board composition, primary objectives, and the regulatory pressures each institution faces. Table 3 summarises all test results; Tables 4 and 5 provide contextual governance data.

5. Findings and Implications

The results of this study carry practical significance for several groups—bank management, regulators, and investors alike.

5.1 For Bank Management

For SBI, the strong and statistically verified link between ROA and ROE (r = 0.99, significant at 5%) clearly shows that governance reforms are making a direct and measurable difference. When asset management improves—through tighter credit monitoring, better NPA recovery, and more disciplined lending—shareholder returns follow. The management of SBI should continue investing in board independence, audit rigour, and risk management frameworks. These are not just compliance boxes to check; they are drivers of value.

For HDFC Bank, the picture is different. The absence of a statistically significant ROA-ROE relationship does not indicate poor governance—it indicates that HDFC operates in a more complex performance environment where multiple levers drive returns simultaneously. Management here should focus on governance resilience: building systems that can withstand economic shocks (as highlighted by Zattoni & Pugliese, 2021) rather than optimizing individual short-term ratios.

5.2 For Policy and Regulation

One clear takeaway from this study is that public and private sector banks respond differently to governance interventions. The RBI and SEBI should keep this in mind when formulating banking sector governance norms. A single, rigid standard applied uniformly across ownership types may produce uneven and sometimes counterproductive results.

The data supports the case for giving public sector banks greater operational independence—allowing boards to function with less political interference in executive appointments and lending decisions. The strong governance-performance link in SBI during FY 2021-2025 suggests that PSBs are responding positively to the regulatory push for better governance. This momentum should be protected, not diluted.

5.3 For Investors

The weak negative correlation (r = −0.37) between the two banks’ governance-linked financial performance is actually good news from a portfolio perspective. Since SBI and HDFC Bank do not move together, holding both in a portfolio provides a natural diversification hedge against the risks specific to any one ownership model. As SBI continues to strengthen its governance and financial performance, it increasingly becomes a viable growth candidate for investors who might have historically favoured private sector bank stocks.

6. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations worth being transparent about, as they point to directions for future research.

6.1 Sample Scope

The study covers only two banks. While SBI and HDFC Bank are the largest in their respective categories, India has dozens of public sector banks, private banks, small finance banks, and foreign banks. Findings from just two institutions cannot be generalized to the sector as a whole. A future study with a broader sample—including mid-sized and regional banks—would yield more robust conclusions.

6.2 Time Frame

Five years is a relatively short window for studying governance effects. Corporate governance reforms often take a decade or more to fully influence financial performance, especially in large organizations. The FY 2021-2025 period is valuable for its contemporaneity, but results should be interpreted with this temporal limitation in mind.

6.3 Secondary Data Only

Annual reports and financial statements are reliable, but they only capture quantifiable aspects of governance. The ‘soft’ dimensions—board culture, management ethics, quality of deliberations—are equally important but impossible to measure from published data alone. Future research incorporating structured interviews or governance questionnaires would add qualitative depth to these quantitative findings.

6.4 Proxy Limitations

Using ROA and ROE as proxies for governance quality is a common and defensible practice, but these ratios are also influenced by macroeconomic factors like interest rate cycles, inflation, and sectoral credit demand. This study does not control for such macroeconomic variables, which means the correlations observed may partially reflect environmental conditions rather than purely governance effects.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions

This study set out to examine whether corporate governance—measured through financial proxies—has a demonstrable and statistically significant impact on financial performance in Indian banking, and whether this impact differs across ownership types. The results support three clear conclusions:

First, SBI shows a very strong and statistically significant positive correlation between ROA and ROE (r = 0.99, t = 12.2 > 3.182), validating that governance reforms in the public sector have translated into better financial outcomes during FY 2021-2025.

Second, HDFC Bank shows a moderate but statistically insignificant correlation (r = 0.61, t = 1.44 < 3.182), consistent with a mature governance environment where multiple strategic factors—not just asset efficiency—drive returns.

Third, the inter-bank correlation is weak and negative (r = −0.37, t = 0.70 < 3.182), confirming that public and private banking models operate on fundamentally different governance-performance tracks.

These findings align with Agency Theory’s predictions for SBI (tighter governance = tighter coupling of efficiency and returns) and with a Stewardship Theory interpretation for HDFC Bank (stable, multi-dimensional governance without a single dominant performance driver).

7.2 Recommendations

1. Strengthen Board Autonomy in PSBs: Public sector banks should be given greater board independence from political influence. SBI’s strong performance during FY 2021-2025 demonstrates that governance reform in PSBs pays off—this trajectory should be supported, not constrained.

2. Move Beyond Compliance: Both banks—and the sector at large—should treat governance as a strategic tool rather than a regulatory obligation. Governance structures that merely tick boxes are unlikely to produce the kind of results seen when reforms are substantively implemented.

3. Differentiated Regulatory Frameworks: Regulators should acknowledge that public and private banks need governance norms tailored to their structural realities. A common standard applied uniformly may inadvertently penalise institutions with different ownership objectives.

4. Invest in Governance Research: More frequent, longitudinal studies—incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data—would give regulators, management, and investors a much clearer picture of what governance mechanisms actually drive performance in Indian banking.

References

Abdullah, H., & Tursoy, T. (2022). The effect of corporate governance on financial performance: Evidence from a shareholder-oriented system. Frankfurt Stock Exchange Study. Retrieved from Frankfurt Stock Exchange filings.

Affes, W., & Jarboui, A. (2023). The impact of corporate governance on financial performance: A cross-sector study. Journal of Corporate Finance Research.

Aggarwal, P. (2013). Impact of corporate governance on corporate financial performance. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 13(3), 1-5.

Alabdullah, T. T. Y., Yahya, S., Ramayah, T., & Rusnah, M. (2016). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm performance: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(3), 152-162.

Amba, S. M. (n.d.). Corporate governance and firms’ financial performance. Bahrain Bourse Study. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics.

Conyon, M., Judge, W. Q., & Useem, M. (2011). Corporate governance and the 2008-09 financial crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), 399-404.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.

Fanta, A. B., Kemal, K. S., & Waka, Y. K. (2013). Corporate governance and impact on bank performance. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 1(1), 19-26.

Gill, A., & Obradovich, J. (2012). The impact of corporate governance and financial leverage on the value of American firms. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 91, 1-14.

Goel, P. (2018). Implications of corporate governance on financial performance: An analytical review of governance and social reporting reforms in India. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 3(1), 1-17.

Hakimah, Y., Pratama, I., Fitri, H., Ganatri, M., & Sulbahrie, R. A. (2019). Impact of intrinsic corporate governance on financial performance of Indonesian SMEs. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 6(8), 64-82.

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.

Kumar, N., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Global financial crisis: Corporate governance failures and lessons. Journal of Finance, Accounting and Management, 4(1), 21-34.

Kyere, M., & Ausloos, M. (2020). Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(2), 1871-1885.

Maheshwari, M., & Meena, S. (2015). Corporate governance practices: A comparative study of SBI & HDFC Bank. International Journal of Science and Research, 4(3), 1282-1285.

OECD. (2015). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en

Rizwan, M., Rashid, K., & Ahmad, H. (2016). The impact of corporate governance on financial performance: An empirical investigation from Pakistan. Journal of Economics and Business Research, 22(1), 63-78.

Samantaray, D. P., & Panda, S. (2008). Corporate governance in Indian banking industry: An experience with SBI and HDFC Bank. The ICFAI University Journal of Corporate Governance, 7(3), 51-68.

Sanchez, J. L. F., Zamanillo, M. D. O., & Luna, M. (2020). How corporate governance mechanisms of banks have changed after the 2007-08 financial crisis. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1-19.

Sianipar, R. H., & Wiksuana, I. G. B. (2019). The study of effect of good corporate governance on financial performance. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 48(1), 151-168.

Zattoni, A., & Pugliese, A. (2021). Corporate governance research in the wake of a systemic crisis: Lessons and opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1405-1410.

Table 1: SBI Financial Data (FY 2021–2025)

Source: SBI Annual Reports (FY 2021-2025); RBI Publications.

Table 2: HDFC Bank Financial Data (FY 2021–2025)

Source: HDFC Bank Annual Reports (FY 2021-2025).

Table 3: Summary of Statistical Test Results

Table 4: Comparison of Governance Metrics: SBI vs HDFC Bank (2020–2024 Trends)

Source: Annual Reports of SBI and HDFC Bank (FY 2020-2024); BSE/NSE filings.

Table 5: Comparative Basis of Ownership and Governance Structure