Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Family poultry farming is widely promoted as a nutrition-sensitive agricultural intervention, yet rigorous causal evidence on its dietary and food security impacts remains limited. Using three rounds of panel data from the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture for Ethiopia (2011/12-2015/16), we follow a household fixed-effects strategy to examine the effect of poultry farming on egg consumption, dietary diversity, consumption expenditure, and food security. Despite 53% of households owning poultry in 2015/16, only 9% consumed eggs and 2% consumed chicken meat in the preceding seven days, revealing a stark production-consumption gap. Fixed-effects estimates show that poultry ownership increases the probability of egg consumption by 4 percentage points at the extensive margin, while each additional egg-laying chicken per capita raises it by 8 percentage points. Controlling for household income leaves these estimates unchanged, confirming that nutritional gains operate through direct access to own-produced eggs rather than income effects. Placebo tests find no significant association with milk or non-poultry meat consumption, further supporting this hypothesis. Poultry ownership is associated with higher household dietary diversity scores, but has no significant effect on food security, suggesting improvements in dietary quality without broader food quantity gains. Gender-disaggregated analysis shows that, despite lower ownership rates, female-headed households manage flocks more intensively and channel benefits more effectively into household food consumption. We also find a significant positive association between poultry ownership and diarrhea among children under five, underscoring the need to integrate hygiene and sanitation measures into poultry promotion programs.

Family poultry farming is widely promoted as a nutrition-sensitive agricultural intervention, yet rigorous causal evidence on its dietary and food security impacts remains limited. Using three rounds of panel data from the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture for Ethiopia (2011/12-2015/16), we follow a household fixed-effects strategy to examine the effect of poultry farming on egg consumption, dietary diversity, consumption expenditure, and food security. Despite 53% of households owning poultry in 2015/16, only 9% consumed eggs and 2% consumed chicken meat in the preceding seven days, revealing a stark production-consumption gap. Fixed-effects estimates show that poultry ownership increases the probability of egg consumption by 4 percentage points at the extensive margin, while each additional egg-laying chicken per capita raises it by 8 percentage points. Controlling for household income leaves these estimates unchanged, confirming that nutritional gains operate through direct access to own-produced eggs rather than income effects. Placebo tests find no significant association with milk or non-poultry meat consumption, further supporting this hypothesis. Poultry ownership is associated with higher household dietary diversity scores, but has no significant effect on food security, suggesting improvements in dietary quality without broader food quantity gains. Gender-disaggregated analysis shows that, despite lower ownership rates, female-headed households manage flocks more intensively and channel benefits more effectively into household food consumption. We also find a significant positive association between poultry ownership and diarrhea among children under five, underscoring the need to integrate hygiene and sanitation measures into poultry promotion programs.

Family poultry farming is widely promoted as a nutrition-sensitive agricultural intervention, yet rigorous causal evidence on its dietary and food security impacts remains limited. Using three rounds of panel data from the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture for Ethiopia (2011/12-2015/16), we follow a household fixed-effects strategy to examine the effect of poultry farming on egg consumption, dietary diversity, consumption expenditure, and food security. Despite 53% of households owning poultry in 2015/16, only 9% consumed eggs and 2% consumed chicken meat in the preceding seven days, revealing a stark production-consumption gap. Fixed-effects estimates show that poultry ownership increases the probability of egg consumption by 4 percentage points at the extensive margin, while each additional egg-laying chicken per capita raises it by 8 percentage points. Controlling for household income leaves these estimates unchanged, confirming that nutritional gains operate through direct access to own-produced eggs rather than income effects. Placebo tests find no significant association with milk or non-poultry meat consumption, further supporting this hypothesis. Poultry ownership is associated with higher household dietary diversity scores, but has no significant effect on food security, suggesting improvements in dietary quality without broader food quantity gains. Gender-disaggregated analysis shows that, despite lower ownership rates, female-headed households manage flocks more intensively and channel benefits more effectively into household food consumption. We also find a significant positive association between poultry ownership and diarrhea among children under five, underscoring the need to integrate hygiene and sanitation measures into poultry promotion programs.

Export bans are frequently used as trade policy instruments to stabilise domestic prices, but they often generate unintended consequences. This study examines the effects of Indonesia's palm oil export ban, introduced in April 2022 and lifted in May 2022, on the performance of the global agricultural sector and the stock markets of palm oil–producing countries. Drawing on a conceptual framework, we develop hypotheses regarding how stock indices with different industrial compositions respond to such trade policy interventions. Using an event study methodology, we analyse daily stock market data from palm oil–producing countries as well as a global agriculture-specific MSCI index. The analysis encompasses both nationally diversified stock indices and a global sector–specific index. The results reveal statistically significant negative cumulative abnormal returns for the global agricultural index following the introduction of the export ban, whereas national cross-industry indices show statistically insignificant reactions. Following the lifting of the ban, the global agricultural index experienced statistically significant positive cumulative abnormal returns, whereas national indices exhibited mixed and statistically insignificant responses. These findings are consistent with the conceptual framework, suggesting that the policy primarily affected the global agricultural sector while leaving diversified national stock markets largely unaffected. Importantly, the effects associated with the introduction and subsequent lifting of the ban did not fully offset each other, resulting in an overall negative net effect on the global agricultural index.

Export bans are frequently used as trade policy instruments to stabilise domestic prices, but they often generate unintended consequences. This study examines the effects of Indonesia's palm oil export ban, introduced in April 2022 and lifted in May 2022, on the performance of the global agricultural sector and the stock markets of palm oil–producing countries. Drawing on a conceptual framework, we develop hypotheses regarding how stock indices with different industrial compositions respond to such trade policy interventions. Using an event study methodology, we analyse daily stock market data from palm oil–producing countries as well as a global agriculture-specific MSCI index. The analysis encompasses both nationally diversified stock indices and a global sector–specific index. The results reveal statistically significant negative cumulative abnormal returns for the global agricultural index following the introduction of the export ban, whereas national cross-industry indices show statistically insignificant reactions. Following the lifting of the ban, the global agricultural index experienced statistically significant positive cumulative abnormal returns, whereas national indices exhibited mixed and statistically insignificant responses. These findings are consistent with the conceptual framework, suggesting that the policy primarily affected the global agricultural sector while leaving diversified national stock markets largely unaffected. Importantly, the effects associated with the introduction and subsequent lifting of the ban did not fully offset each other, resulting in an overall negative net effect on the global agricultural index.

Export bans are frequently used as trade policy instruments to stabilise domestic prices, but they often generate unintended consequences. This study examines the effects of Indonesia's palm oil export ban, introduced in April 2022 and lifted in May 2022, on the performance of the global agricultural sector and the stock markets of palm oil–producing countries. Drawing on a conceptual framework, we develop hypotheses regarding how stock indices with different industrial compositions respond to such trade policy interventions. Using an event study methodology, we analyse daily stock market data from palm oil–producing countries as well as a global agriculture-specific MSCI index. The analysis encompasses both nationally diversified stock indices and a global sector–specific index. The results reveal statistically significant negative cumulative abnormal returns for the global agricultural index following the introduction of the export ban, whereas national cross-industry indices show statistically insignificant reactions. Following the lifting of the ban, the global agricultural index experienced statistically significant positive cumulative abnormal returns, whereas national indices exhibited mixed and statistically insignificant responses. These findings are consistent with the conceptual framework, suggesting that the policy primarily affected the global agricultural sector while leaving diversified national stock markets largely unaffected. Importantly, the effects associated with the introduction and subsequent lifting of the ban did not fully offset each other, resulting in an overall negative net effect on the global agricultural index.

Ein Team der Abteilung Energie, Verkehr, Umwelt hat bei der europäischen Jahrestagung der International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) zwischen dem 6. und 9. September 2026 in München aktuelle Forschung vorgestellt. Dabei hat Lukas Barner, Doktorand im DIW Graduate Center seit 2024, den ...

The Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC) 2026 convened around 1,600 participants from 112 countries at a moment of profound disruption and redistribution of power. The HSC confirmed sustainability as the organizing framework linking peace and stability, economic
resilience and competitiveness, planetary boundaries and international cooperation. The rules-based international order is under pressure, fiscal space is shrinking and conflicts are multiplying, while climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion are compounding
these pressures on economies and societies already stretched thin. Yet the world has never possessed greater technological capabilities, financial wealth and scientific knowledge. What matters now is how we use these resources to deliver shared prosperity and resilience.
The discussions at HSC 2026 can be summarized along three narrative arcs. The first asks why cooperation remains essential in a more multipolar world. Legitimacy depends on changing the terms of North–South relations, broadening representation and building a cooperative multipolar order in which a wider group of actors can shape and defend common rules. The launch of the South–North Commission on Development offers a structured process for rethinking international cooperation toward fairer partnerships and a  sustainability Agenda beyond 2030. The second narrative arc examines what needs to change. Sustainability transformation pays
off economically, but only where investment can flow, risks are shared and governance is predictable. Nature and human capital are systematically undervalued. The bottleneck is the institutional and financing structures needed to unlock them at scale. The third narrative arc addresses how cooperation can deliver. It shows that partnerships accelerate sustainable development when they move from one-off initiatives to systems that mobilize finance, create markets and build local capabilities. Scaling Capital for Sustainable Development (SCALED), Innovative Capital Mobilization in Africa (ICAMA), critical-mineral and hydrogen partnerships, and urban examples from Mombasa and eThekwini show how tangible forms of cooperation can turn commitments into sustainable investment, deeper value chains and locally owned action. This shift is especially visible in Africa, where partnerships are increasingly framed around opportunity, value creation and agency. The road ahead runs through the Triple COP+ year, the G20 under UK chairmanship, and the SDG Summit in September 2027. HSC 2026 demonstrated that navigating the new - disruptive - normal is possible. The task now is to prove it at scale. […]

The Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC) 2026 convened around 1,600 participants from 112 countries at a moment of profound disruption and redistribution of power. The HSC confirmed sustainability as the organizing framework linking peace and stability, economic
resilience and competitiveness, planetary boundaries and international cooperation. The rules-based international order is under pressure, fiscal space is shrinking and conflicts are multiplying, while climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion are compounding
these pressures on economies and societies already stretched thin. Yet the world has never possessed greater technological capabilities, financial wealth and scientific knowledge. What matters now is how we use these resources to deliver shared prosperity and resilience.
The discussions at HSC 2026 can be summarized along three narrative arcs. The first asks why cooperation remains essential in a more multipolar world. Legitimacy depends on changing the terms of North–South relations, broadening representation and building a cooperative multipolar order in which a wider group of actors can shape and defend common rules. The launch of the South–North Commission on Development offers a structured process for rethinking international cooperation toward fairer partnerships and a  sustainability Agenda beyond 2030. The second narrative arc examines what needs to change. Sustainability transformation pays
off economically, but only where investment can flow, risks are shared and governance is predictable. Nature and human capital are systematically undervalued. The bottleneck is the institutional and financing structures needed to unlock them at scale. The third narrative arc addresses how cooperation can deliver. It shows that partnerships accelerate sustainable development when they move from one-off initiatives to systems that mobilize finance, create markets and build local capabilities. Scaling Capital for Sustainable Development (SCALED), Innovative Capital Mobilization in Africa (ICAMA), critical-mineral and hydrogen partnerships, and urban examples from Mombasa and eThekwini show how tangible forms of cooperation can turn commitments into sustainable investment, deeper value chains and locally owned action. This shift is especially visible in Africa, where partnerships are increasingly framed around opportunity, value creation and agency. The road ahead runs through the Triple COP+ year, the G20 under UK chairmanship, and the SDG Summit in September 2027. HSC 2026 demonstrated that navigating the new - disruptive - normal is possible. The task now is to prove it at scale. […]

The Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC) 2026 convened around 1,600 participants from 112 countries at a moment of profound disruption and redistribution of power. The HSC confirmed sustainability as the organizing framework linking peace and stability, economic
resilience and competitiveness, planetary boundaries and international cooperation. The rules-based international order is under pressure, fiscal space is shrinking and conflicts are multiplying, while climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion are compounding
these pressures on economies and societies already stretched thin. Yet the world has never possessed greater technological capabilities, financial wealth and scientific knowledge. What matters now is how we use these resources to deliver shared prosperity and resilience.
The discussions at HSC 2026 can be summarized along three narrative arcs. The first asks why cooperation remains essential in a more multipolar world. Legitimacy depends on changing the terms of North–South relations, broadening representation and building a cooperative multipolar order in which a wider group of actors can shape and defend common rules. The launch of the South–North Commission on Development offers a structured process for rethinking international cooperation toward fairer partnerships and a  sustainability Agenda beyond 2030. The second narrative arc examines what needs to change. Sustainability transformation pays
off economically, but only where investment can flow, risks are shared and governance is predictable. Nature and human capital are systematically undervalued. The bottleneck is the institutional and financing structures needed to unlock them at scale. The third narrative arc addresses how cooperation can deliver. It shows that partnerships accelerate sustainable development when they move from one-off initiatives to systems that mobilize finance, create markets and build local capabilities. Scaling Capital for Sustainable Development (SCALED), Innovative Capital Mobilization in Africa (ICAMA), critical-mineral and hydrogen partnerships, and urban examples from Mombasa and eThekwini show how tangible forms of cooperation can turn commitments into sustainable investment, deeper value chains and locally owned action. This shift is especially visible in Africa, where partnerships are increasingly framed around opportunity, value creation and agency. The road ahead runs through the Triple COP+ year, the G20 under UK chairmanship, and the SDG Summit in September 2027. HSC 2026 demonstrated that navigating the new - disruptive - normal is possible. The task now is to prove it at scale. […]

Der Rat der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) hat heute beschlossen, den Leitzins auf nun 2,5 Prozent zu erhöhen. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Die EZB hat mit der Zinserhöhung einen notwendigen Schritt getan, um die Inflationserwartungen zu stabilisieren und ihre Glaubwürdigkeit zu schützen. Allerdings dürfte die Zinserhöhung nichts Substanzielles an der derzeit hohen Inflation ändern – auch nicht über das kommende Jahr. Denn die Inflation ist fast ausschließlich durch den Energiepreisschock infolge des Krieges im Nahen Osten verursacht worden. Gegen solch einen externen Schock hat die EZB nicht wirklich etwas in der Hand.

Die Inflationserwartungen im Euroraum sind zwar noch gut verankert, aber die EZB verschafft sich mit dem heutigen Schritt eine bessere Absicherung gegen mögliche Zweitrundeneffekte durch Unternehmen und Gewerkschaften. Sie sendet ein Signal an alle wirtschaftlichen Akteure, dass sie ihr Ziel der Preisstabilität ernst nimmt und dafür auch gewillt ist, die Wirtschaft im Euroraum zu bremsen.

Die EZB hält sich völlig zu Recht alle Optionen für die Zukunft offen, denn die Unsicherheit ist enorm hoch. Eine erneute Eskalation des Konflikts im Nahen Osten könnte die Energiepreise und damit die Inflation noch deutlich weiter erhöhen.

Allerdings ist Vorsicht geboten, den Bogen nicht zu überspannen. Denn die langfristigen Zinsen sind vor allem wegen der Zweifel von Wirtschaft und Märkten an der Handlungsfähigkeit der Politik – nicht nur, aber vor allem in den USA – deutlich gestiegen. Das reduziert den Druck auf die EZB, die Zinsen noch deutlich weiter zu erhöhen.

Climate-induced planned relocation is becoming an unavoidable policy issue for some highly exposed communities. Although relocation should remain a last resort after other realistic options for adaptation in place have been assessed, ensuring that the money is available when needed to support relocation is critical. The challenge is that funding is insufficient, drawn from diverse sources and often arrives too late and in fragmented forms: for example, one project for housing, another for infrastructure, and little predictable support for consultation, land negotiations, safeguards, livelihoods, host communities or long-term maintenance. The financing problem is therefore not only the scale of the costs, but the difficulty of organising money over time and across institutions and safeguards. This can leave governments reacting after crises rather than planning before risks become unmanageable.
Sovereign trust funds offer one practical way to address this gap. They do not create finance by themselves, but they can provide a country-owned platform for receiving, sequencing and reporting domestic revenue, bilateral support, multilateral development bank (MDB) finance, climate funds, disaster risk finance, and loss and damage resources. They present an alternative to predominantly loan- and grant-based financing for planned relocation. Fiji’s Climate Relocation of
Communities Trust Fund shows both the promise and limits of this approach: It provides a legal and institutional basis for relocation finance within government and links international funding to procedures, but it still requires capitalisation, administrative capacity and long-term technical support. The model presents an opportunity to support sovereign, rights-based financing systems rather than relying solely on donor-funded, often piecemeal relocation projects. It can also make funding available at the appropriate time and without undue time pressure.
Key policy messages:
• Finance planned relocation before a crisis, especially assessment, consent, land, safeguards and project preparation.
• Treat relocation as a long-term investment in the collective good, rather than solely as a construction or emergency response measure.
• Support sovereign trust funds where they are legally mandated at the national level, budget-linked, transparent and capitalised.
• Use finance to uphold quality and rights, including community-led processes, support for host communities and support for long-term livelihoods.

Climate-induced planned relocation is becoming an unavoidable policy issue for some highly exposed communities. Although relocation should remain a last resort after other realistic options for adaptation in place have been assessed, ensuring that the money is available when needed to support relocation is critical. The challenge is that funding is insufficient, drawn from diverse sources and often arrives too late and in fragmented forms: for example, one project for housing, another for infrastructure, and little predictable support for consultation, land negotiations, safeguards, livelihoods, host communities or long-term maintenance. The financing problem is therefore not only the scale of the costs, but the difficulty of organising money over time and across institutions and safeguards. This can leave governments reacting after crises rather than planning before risks become unmanageable.
Sovereign trust funds offer one practical way to address this gap. They do not create finance by themselves, but they can provide a country-owned platform for receiving, sequencing and reporting domestic revenue, bilateral support, multilateral development bank (MDB) finance, climate funds, disaster risk finance, and loss and damage resources. They present an alternative to predominantly loan- and grant-based financing for planned relocation. Fiji’s Climate Relocation of
Communities Trust Fund shows both the promise and limits of this approach: It provides a legal and institutional basis for relocation finance within government and links international funding to procedures, but it still requires capitalisation, administrative capacity and long-term technical support. The model presents an opportunity to support sovereign, rights-based financing systems rather than relying solely on donor-funded, often piecemeal relocation projects. It can also make funding available at the appropriate time and without undue time pressure.
Key policy messages:
• Finance planned relocation before a crisis, especially assessment, consent, land, safeguards and project preparation.
• Treat relocation as a long-term investment in the collective good, rather than solely as a construction or emergency response measure.
• Support sovereign trust funds where they are legally mandated at the national level, budget-linked, transparent and capitalised.
• Use finance to uphold quality and rights, including community-led processes, support for host communities and support for long-term livelihoods.

Climate-induced planned relocation is becoming an unavoidable policy issue for some highly exposed communities. Although relocation should remain a last resort after other realistic options for adaptation in place have been assessed, ensuring that the money is available when needed to support relocation is critical. The challenge is that funding is insufficient, drawn from diverse sources and often arrives too late and in fragmented forms: for example, one project for housing, another for infrastructure, and little predictable support for consultation, land negotiations, safeguards, livelihoods, host communities or long-term maintenance. The financing problem is therefore not only the scale of the costs, but the difficulty of organising money over time and across institutions and safeguards. This can leave governments reacting after crises rather than planning before risks become unmanageable.
Sovereign trust funds offer one practical way to address this gap. They do not create finance by themselves, but they can provide a country-owned platform for receiving, sequencing and reporting domestic revenue, bilateral support, multilateral development bank (MDB) finance, climate funds, disaster risk finance, and loss and damage resources. They present an alternative to predominantly loan- and grant-based financing for planned relocation. Fiji’s Climate Relocation of
Communities Trust Fund shows both the promise and limits of this approach: It provides a legal and institutional basis for relocation finance within government and links international funding to procedures, but it still requires capitalisation, administrative capacity and long-term technical support. The model presents an opportunity to support sovereign, rights-based financing systems rather than relying solely on donor-funded, often piecemeal relocation projects. It can also make funding available at the appropriate time and without undue time pressure.
Key policy messages:
• Finance planned relocation before a crisis, especially assessment, consent, land, safeguards and project preparation.
• Treat relocation as a long-term investment in the collective good, rather than solely as a construction or emergency response measure.
• Support sovereign trust funds where they are legally mandated at the national level, budget-linked, transparent and capitalised.
• Use finance to uphold quality and rights, including community-led processes, support for host communities and support for long-term livelihoods.

The AU–EU partnership should embrace the plurality within both unions, make interests transparent, and enable pragmatic cooperation between coalitions of willing countries, helping to bring proclaimed ambitions closer to actual practice, explain Benedikt Erforth and Lena Gutheil.

The AU–EU partnership should embrace the plurality within both unions, make interests transparent, and enable pragmatic cooperation between coalitions of willing countries, helping to bring proclaimed ambitions closer to actual practice, explain Benedikt Erforth and Lena Gutheil.

The AU–EU partnership should embrace the plurality within both unions, make interests transparent, and enable pragmatic cooperation between coalitions of willing countries, helping to bring proclaimed ambitions closer to actual practice, explain Benedikt Erforth and Lena Gutheil.

This paper examines how leadership gender configurations shape digitalisation and innovation in Egyptian manufacturing. Using the 2020/21 Egyptian Industrial Firm Behavior Survey (EIFBS) covering 2,338 firms, we construct a four-category gender variable (female owners and male managers (FOMM), male owners and female managers (MOFM), female owners and female managers (FOFM) and all-male baseline) and analyse how these owner–manager gender mixes relate to the adoption of digital technologies (DT) and to innovation outputs, and how these relationships vary by firm size and DT use. Our analysis suggests that firms with male owners and female managers (MOFM) are most likely to adopt DT across specifications. The cross-sectional data suggests that mixed-gender firms are associated with a higher probability of spending on R&D, but not with higher innovation outputs in firms with female owners (i.e. FOMM and FOFM) – pointing toward an innovation conversion gap in those firms. Heterogeneity results show that the MOFM adoption premium of DT and a negative association between FOMM and innovation are strongest in small firms. DT use moderates gender gaps: female-owned firms not using DT are significantly less likely than all-male firms to generate innovation outputs, but this penalty disappears when female-owned firms use DT. A combined size–sector analysis suggests that the divergence between MOFM and FOMM/FOFM is driven mainly by small food manufacturers, with average marginal effects elsewhere broadly comparable. The results highlight leadership composition as a correlate of technology adoption and the role of DT in converting innovation inputs into outputs.

This paper examines how leadership gender configurations shape digitalisation and innovation in Egyptian manufacturing. Using the 2020/21 Egyptian Industrial Firm Behavior Survey (EIFBS) covering 2,338 firms, we construct a four-category gender variable (female owners and male managers (FOMM), male owners and female managers (MOFM), female owners and female managers (FOFM) and all-male baseline) and analyse how these owner–manager gender mixes relate to the adoption of digital technologies (DT) and to innovation outputs, and how these relationships vary by firm size and DT use. Our analysis suggests that firms with male owners and female managers (MOFM) are most likely to adopt DT across specifications. The cross-sectional data suggests that mixed-gender firms are associated with a higher probability of spending on R&D, but not with higher innovation outputs in firms with female owners (i.e. FOMM and FOFM) – pointing toward an innovation conversion gap in those firms. Heterogeneity results show that the MOFM adoption premium of DT and a negative association between FOMM and innovation are strongest in small firms. DT use moderates gender gaps: female-owned firms not using DT are significantly less likely than all-male firms to generate innovation outputs, but this penalty disappears when female-owned firms use DT. A combined size–sector analysis suggests that the divergence between MOFM and FOMM/FOFM is driven mainly by small food manufacturers, with average marginal effects elsewhere broadly comparable. The results highlight leadership composition as a correlate of technology adoption and the role of DT in converting innovation inputs into outputs.

This paper examines how leadership gender configurations shape digitalisation and innovation in Egyptian manufacturing. Using the 2020/21 Egyptian Industrial Firm Behavior Survey (EIFBS) covering 2,338 firms, we construct a four-category gender variable (female owners and male managers (FOMM), male owners and female managers (MOFM), female owners and female managers (FOFM) and all-male baseline) and analyse how these owner–manager gender mixes relate to the adoption of digital technologies (DT) and to innovation outputs, and how these relationships vary by firm size and DT use. Our analysis suggests that firms with male owners and female managers (MOFM) are most likely to adopt DT across specifications. The cross-sectional data suggests that mixed-gender firms are associated with a higher probability of spending on R&D, but not with higher innovation outputs in firms with female owners (i.e. FOMM and FOFM) – pointing toward an innovation conversion gap in those firms. Heterogeneity results show that the MOFM adoption premium of DT and a negative association between FOMM and innovation are strongest in small firms. DT use moderates gender gaps: female-owned firms not using DT are significantly less likely than all-male firms to generate innovation outputs, but this penalty disappears when female-owned firms use DT. A combined size–sector analysis suggests that the divergence between MOFM and FOMM/FOFM is driven mainly by small food manufacturers, with average marginal effects elsewhere broadly comparable. The results highlight leadership composition as a correlate of technology adoption and the role of DT in converting innovation inputs into outputs.