IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eej/eeconj/v29y2003i1p41-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Board Characteristics and Corporate Performance in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Hans van Ees

    () (Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen)

  • Theo J.B.M. Postma

    (University of Groningen)

  • Elmer Sterken

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

We analyze the performance-board characteristic nexus of Dutch listed firms. The Netherlands has a continental-European two-tier board structure. This makes it interesting to analyze the impact of management and supervisory board characteristics (size, composition and remuneration) on corporate performance. In Dutch corporate governance, the supervisory board plays a role in (anti-) investor protection. Subsequently, both board size and composition are variables that reflect corporate decision-making. In order to deal with this endogeneity problem, we use governance indicators such as (anti-) investor protection to endogenize board variables. Our results reveal that the size of the management board is not affecting corporate performance. We find support for a negative relationship between the supervisory board size and firm performance. Moreover, we observe a negative relationship between the proportion of supervisory board members with network ties to other organizations and performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans van Ees & Theo J.B.M. Postma & Elmer Sterken, 2003. "Board Characteristics and Corporate Performance in the Netherlands," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 41-58, Winter.
  • Handle: RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:29:y:2003:i:1:p:41-58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume29/V29N1P41_58.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:hrv:faseco:30728046 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Kaplan, Steven N, 1994. "Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Japan and the United States," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 510-546, June.
    3. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1998. "Law and Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(6), pages 1113-1155, December.
    5. Baysinger, Barry D & Butler, Henry N, 1985. "Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 101-124, Spring.
    6. Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
    7. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. " A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    8. Abe de Jongand & Rezaul Kabir & Teye Marra & Ailsa Roell, 1999. "Ownership and Control in the Netherlands," Working Papers 1999.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. McConnell, John J. & Servaes, Henri, 1990. "Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 595-612, October.
    10. Franks, J. & Mayer, C. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 1998. "Who Disciplines Bad Management?," Discussion Paper 1998-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    12. Scott W. Barnhart & M. Wayne Marr & Stuart Rosenstein, 1994. "Firm performance and board composition: Some new evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 329-340, July/Augu.
    13. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    14. Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 1991. "The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 20(4), Winter.
    15. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 293-315, January.
    16. Byrd, John W. & Hickman, Kent A., 1992. "Do outside directors monitor managers? *1: Evidence from tender offer bids," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 195-221, October.
    17. Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2003. "Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Apr, pages 7-26.
    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. Cools, Kees & Mirjam van Praag, C., 2007. "The value relevance of top executive departures: Evidence from the Netherlands," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 721-742, December.
    2. Wang, Yue & Buijink, Willem & Eken, Rob, 2006. "The value relevance of dirty surplus accounting flows in The Netherlands," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 387-405, 012.
    3. Ichiro Iwasaki, 2013. "Firm-Level Determinants of Board System Choice: Evidence from Russia," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 55(4), pages 636-671, December.
    4. Iwasaki, Ichiro, 2008. "The determinants of board composition in a transforming economy: Evidence from Russia," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 532-549, December.
    5. Mariëlle C. Non & Philip Hans Franses, 2007. "Interlocking Boards and Firm Performance: Evidence from a New Panel Database," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-034/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. repec:ora:jrojbe:v:3:y:2018:i:1:p:56-65 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Helen Hu & On Tam & Monica Tan, 2010. "Internal governance mechanisms and firm performance in China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 727-749, December.
    8. Iwasaki, Ichiro, 2007. "Board Formation and Its Endogeneity: An Empirical Study of Russian Firms," CEI Working Paper Series 2007-1, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    9. Berezinets, Irina & Ilina, Yulia & Muravyev, Alexander, 2011. "CEO and Board Characteristics as Determinants of Private Benefits of Control: Evidence from the Russian Stock Exchange," IZA Discussion Papers 6256, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate Governance; Firm; Firms; Governance; Management;

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eej:eeconj:v:29:y:2003:i:1:p:41-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eeaa1ea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.