IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1412-d144348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does a Staggered Board Provision Affect Corporate Strategic Change?—Evidence from China’s Listed Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Kai Wang

    (College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Kun-Kun Xue

    (China Academy of Corporate Governance, Nankai University, Tianjing 300071, China)

  • Jin-Hua Xu

    (School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510520, China)

  • Chien-Chi Chu

    (Department of Finance, Business School, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, China
    Research Institute for Guangdong-Taiwan Business Cooperation, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, China)

  • Sang-Bing Tsai

    (China Academy of Corporate Governance, Nankai University, Tianjing 300071, China
    Zhongshan Institute, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Zhongshan 528402, China
    Research Center for Environment and Sustainable Development of China Civil Aviation, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China)

  • He-Jun Fan

    (College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Zhen-Yu Wang

    (China Academy of Corporate Governance, Nankai University, Tianjing 300071, China)

  • Jiangtao Wang

    (Zhongshan Institute, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Zhongshan 528402, China)

Abstract

As China’s capital market has become more and more developed, listed companies have begun to establish some anti-takeover provisions to protect their controlling right. Existing studies have examined the consequences of the establishment of such provisions. However, few studies have explored how these provisions affect corporate strategic change. Based on agency theory and prospect theory, this paper proposes two channels through which one of the anti-takeover provisions, staggered board provision, impacts strategic change. Using the data of China’s listed companies which issue A-shares in Shenzhen and Shanghai stock exchanges from 2007 to 2014, these two channels are tested. We find that the existence of a staggered board provision negatively affects the extent of strategic change. In addition, if governance mechanisms restrict directors’ power, the relationship between staggered board provision and strategic change will be weakened, which supports the agency theory. If the listed company is faced with a more dynamic external environment, the relationship between staggered board provision and strategic change will be stronger, which supports the prospect theory. These results are robust after we use a different method to measure strategic change. Our conclusions not only enrich literature about strategic change and anti-takeover provisions, but also are helpful for improving corporate governance in China and other developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Kai Wang & Kun-Kun Xue & Jin-Hua Xu & Chien-Chi Chu & Sang-Bing Tsai & He-Jun Fan & Zhen-Yu Wang & Jiangtao Wang, 2018. "How Does a Staggered Board Provision Affect Corporate Strategic Change?—Evidence from China’s Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1412-:d:144348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1412/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1412/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duru, Augustine & Wang, Dechun & Zhao, Yijiang, 2013. "Staggered boards, corporate opacity and firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 341-360.
    2. Qunzhen Qu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Mengxue Tang & Congjiang Xu & Weiwei Dong, 2016. "Marine Ecological Environment Management Based on Ecological Compensation Mechanisms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Aziz Issaka & Indranil SenGupta, 2017. "Analysis of variance based instruments for Ornstein–Uhlenbeck type models: swap and price index," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 401-434, November.
    4. DeAngelo, Harry & Rice, Edward M., 1983. "Antitakeover charter amendments and stockholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 329-359, April.
    5. Joseph P. H. Fan & T. J. Wong & Tianyu Zhang, 2013. "Institutions and Organizational Structure: The Case of State-Owned Corporate Pyramids," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(6), pages 1217-1252, December.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & John C. Coates IV & Guhan Subramanian, 2002. "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence and Policy," NBER Working Papers 8974, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sang-Bing Tsai & Jie Zhou & Yang Gao & Jiangtao Wang & Guodong Li & Yuxiang Zheng & Peng Ren & Wei Xu, 2017. "Combining FMEA with DEMATEL models to solve production process problems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Yan Zhang & Nandini Rajagopalan, 2010. "Once an outsider, always an outsider? CEO origin, strategic change, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 334-346, March.
    10. Bates, Thomas W. & Becher, David A. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2008. "Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 656-677, March.
    11. Ahn, Seoungpil & Shrestha, Keshab, 2013. "The differential effects of classified boards on firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 3993-4013.
    12. Faleye, Olubunmi, 2007. "Classified boards, firm value, and managerial entrenchment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 501-529, February.
    13. Fan, Joseph P. H. & Wong, T. J., 2002. "Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 401-425, August.
    14. Timothy J. Quigley & Donald C. Hambrick, 2012. "When the former ceo stays on as board chair: effects on successor discretion, strategic change, and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(7), pages 834-859, July.
    15. Laura Casares Field & Jonathan M. Karpoff, 2002. "Takeover Defenses of IPO Firms," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(5), pages 1857-1889, October.
    16. Randall A. Heron & Erik Lie, 2006. "On the Use of Poison Pills and Defensive Payouts by Takeover Targets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1783-1808, July.
    17. Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Managerial Turnover and Strategic Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1675-1687, November.
    18. Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Allen Ferrell, 2009. "What Matters in Corporate Governance?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 783-827, February.
    19. Katalin Takacs Haynes & Amy Hillman, 2010. "The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(11), pages 1145-1163, November.
    20. Tsai, Sang-Bing, 2018. "Using the DEMATEL model to explore the job satisfaction of research and development professionals in china's photovoltaic cell industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 62-68.
    21. Tsai, Sang-Bing & Yu, Jian & Ma, Li & Luo, Feng & Zhou, Jie & Chen, Quan & Xu, Lei, 2018. "A study on solving the production process problems of the photovoltaic cell industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3546-3553.
    22. Zongsheng Huang & Jiajia Nie & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2017. "Dynamic Collection Strategy and Coordination of a Remanufacturing Closed-Loop Supply Chain under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, April.
    23. Bin Liu & Tao Li & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2017. "Low Carbon Strategy Analysis of Competing Supply Chains with Different Power Structures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-21, May.
    24. Sokolyk, Tatyana, 2011. "The effects of antitakeover provisions on acquisition targets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 612-627, June.
    25. Danielson, Morris G. & Karpoff, Jonathan M., 2006. "Do pills poison operating performance?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 536-559, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Indah Fajarini Sri Wahyuningrum & Amin Chegenizadeh & Natasya Ghinna Humaira & Mochamad Arief Budihardjo & Hamid Nikraz, 2023. "Corporate Governance Research in Asian Countries: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis (2001–2021)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ertugrul, Mine, 2015. "Bargaining power of targets: Takeover defenses and top-tier target advisors," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 48-78.
    2. Sokolyk, Tatyana, 2011. "The effects of antitakeover provisions on acquisition targets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 612-627, June.
    3. Wenqing Wu & Kexin Yu & Saixiang Ma & Chien-Chi Chu & Shijie Li & Chengcheng Ma & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Optimal Strategies of Industry-University-Institute Green Innovation with Subsidy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Ching-Chih Chou & Chien-Wen Shen & Dapeng Gao & Yang Gao & Kai Wang & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "Modelling the Dynamic Impacts of High Speed Rail Operation on Regional Public Transport—From the Perspective of Energy Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, May.
    5. Quan Chen & Sang-Bing Tsai & Yuming Zhai & Chien-Chi Chu & Jie Zhou & Guodong Li & Yuxiang Zheng & Jiangtao Wang & Li-Chung Chang & Chao-Feng Hsu, 2018. "An Empirical Research on Bank Client Credit Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Field, Laura Casares & Lowry, Michelle, 2022. "Bucking the trend: Why do IPOs choose controversial governance structures and why do investors let them?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 27-54.
    7. Wei Song & Zhiya Chen & Aijun Liu & Qiuyun Zhu & Wei Zhao & Sang-Bing Tsai & Hui Lu, 2018. "A Study on Green Supplier Selection in Dynamic Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Schonlau, Robert & Wehrly, Eric, 2022. "Which antitakeover provisions deter takeovers?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    9. Jiafu Su & Chi Li & Sang-Bing Tsai & Hui Lu & Aijun Liu & Quan Chen, 2018. "A Sustainable Closed-Loop Supply Chain Decision Mechanism in the Electronic Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Yang Gao & Yu Wang & Chien-Chi Chu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Xiaomin Du & Quan Chen, 2018. "Nonlinear Effect of Financial Efficiency and Financial Competition on Heterogeneous Firm R&D: A Study on the Combined Perspective of Financial Quantity Expansion and Quality Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Ahn, Seoungpil & Shrestha, Keshab, 2013. "The differential effects of classified boards on firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 3993-4013.
    12. Cremers, K.J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2017. "Staggered boards and long-term firm value, revisited," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 422-444.
    13. Al Dah, Bilal & Michael, Amir & Dixon, Rob, 2017. "Antitakeover provisions and CEO monetary benefits: Revisiting the E-index," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 992-1004.
    14. Lei Yang & Meng Chen & Yiji Cai & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "Manufacturer’s Decision as Consumers’ Low-Carbon Preference Grows," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, April.
    15. Mbanyele, William, 2021. "Staggered boards, unequal voting rights, poison pills and innovation intensity: New evidence from the Asian markets," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. Anne Anderson & Jill Brown & Parveen P. Gupta, 2017. "Jurisdictional competition for corporate charters and firm value: a reexamination of the Delaware effect," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(4), pages 341-356, November.
    17. Daniel Ferreira & David Kershaw & Tom Kirchmaier & Edmund Schuster, "undated". "Shareholder Empowerment and Bank Bailouts," FMG Discussion Papers dp714, Financial Markets Group.
    18. Rowoldt, Maximilian & Starke, Dennis, 2016. "The role of governments in hostile takeovers – Evidence from regulation, anti-takeover provisions and government interventions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Bruno-Laurent Moschetto & Frédéric Teulon, 2015. "Optimisation d’une stratégie anti- opa par limitation linéaire des droits de vote face à un investisseur hostile," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(6), pages 1067-1088.
    20. Yuxiu Chen & Jian Yu & Li Li & Linlin Li & Long Li & Jie Zhou & Sang-Bing Tsai & Quan Chen, 2018. "An Empirical Study of the Impact of the Air Transportation Industry Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Projects on the Local Economy in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1412-:d:144348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.