IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijmfpp/v6y2010i3p190-219.html

The efficacy of principle‐based corporate governance practices and firm financial performance

Author

Listed:
  • Krishna Reddy
  • Stuart Locke
  • Frank Scrimgeour

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to address the effect that principle‐based corporate governance practices have on the financial performance of large publicly‐listed companies. In 2004, the New Zealand Securities Commission (NZSC) promulgated nine high level principles and guidelines for all business entities with an aim of improving corporate governance practices and boosting investor confidence in the New Zealand capital market. This event provides a point for empirically testing companies' responses. Design/methodology/approach - Panel data for the NZX top 50 companies over the period 1999‐2007 are analysed using ordinary least squares (OLS) and two stage least squares (2SLS) regression techniques to evaluate whether: those firms that were continuously compliant with the NZSC requirements perform better; and the firm performance post‐NZSC recommendations is better than pre‐NZSC recommendations. Tobin'sQ, market‐to‐book (MB) and return on assets (ROA) metrics are used as dependent variables.. Findings - The findings indicate that large listed companies have universally adopted the Securities Commission recommendations, establishing subcommittees for audit and remuneration, and having a majority of non‐executive/independent directors on the board which, on average, have seven members. There is support for the view that the NZSC recommendations have had positive influence on firm performance measured by Tobin'sQ, MB and ROA. The results show that the presence of a remuneration committee has had a positive influence on firm performance. Research limitations/implications - This study provides empirical support for the corporate governance recommendations made by the NZSC in 2004, giving support to the principle‐based corporate governance practices to be adopted in New Zealand. The sequential testing of each NZSC recommendation provides a comprehensive picture of performance outcomes which has not been achieved in prior research. The interdependency issues are of interest and the correlation between recommendations provides useful insights. Originality/value - This study offers insights for policy makers interested in adopting principle‐based corporate governance practices within their country. Within New Zealand, public policy developments and stock exchange listing requirements/regulatory issues with associated compliance burdens are better informed as a consequence of the research.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishna Reddy & Stuart Locke & Frank Scrimgeour, 2010. "The efficacy of principle‐based corporate governance practices and firm financial performance," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 190-219, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijmfpp:v:6:y:2010:i:3:p:190-219
    DOI: 10.1108/17439131011056224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17439131011056224/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17439131011056224/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/17439131011056224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Anup & Mandelker, Gershon N., 1990. "Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 143-161, June.
    2. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    3. Panayotis Kapopoulos & Sophia Lazaretou, 2007. "Corporate Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: evidence from Greek firms," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 144-158, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Claudio Loderer & Urs Peyer, 2002. "Board Overlap, Seat Accumulation and Share Prices," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 8(2), pages 165-192, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Denis, Diane K. & McConnell, John J., 2003. "International Corporate Governance," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 1-36, March.
    8. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2002. "Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1147-1170, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Paul W. MacAvoy & Ira M. Millstein, 2003. "The Recurrent Crisis in Corporate Governance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-4039-4688-1, April.
    11. Klein, April, 1998. "Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 275-303, April.
    12. Jorge Farinha, 2003. "Dividend Policy, Corporate Governance and the Managerial Entrenchment Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(9‐10), pages 1173-1209, December.
    13. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1996. "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 377-397, September.
    14. Begley, Joy & Feltham, Gerald A., 1999. "An empirical examination of the relation between debt contracts and management incentives," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 229-259, April.
    15. Demsetz, Harold & Villalonga, Belen, 2001. "Ownership structure and corporate performance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 209-233, September.
    16. Alfred Yawson, 2006. "Evaluating the Characteristics of Corporate Boards Associated with Layoff Decisions," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 75-84, March.
    17. Charlie Weir & David Laing, 2000. "The Performance-Governance Relationship: The Effects of Cadbury Compliance on UK Quoted Companies," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 4(4), pages 265-281, December.
    18. Easterbrook, Frank H, 1984. "Two Agency-Cost Explanations of Dividends," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(4), pages 650-659, September.
    19. Clifford G. Holderness & Randall S. Kroszner & Dennis P. Sheehan, 1999. "Were the Good Old Days That Good? Changes in Managerial Stock Ownership Since the Great Depression," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 435-469, April.
    20. Krishna Reddy & Stuart Locke & Frank Scrimgeour & Abeyratna Gunasekarage, 2008. "Corporate governance practices of small cap companies and their financial performance: an empirical study in New Zealand," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(1), pages 51-78.
    21. Anup Agrawal & Charles R. Knoeber, "undated". "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders (Revision of 29-94)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 8-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    22. David Seidl, 2006. "Regulating organizations through codes of corporate governance," Working Papers wp338, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    23. Himmelberg, Charles P. & Hubbard, R. Glenn & Palia, Darius, 1999. "Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 353-384, September.
    24. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    25. Eliezer M. Fich & Anil Shivdasani, 2006. "Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 689-724, April.
    26. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    27. Mehran, Hamid, 1995. "Executive compensation structure, ownership, and firm performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 163-184, June.
    28. Demsetz, Harold, 1979. "Accounting for Advertising as a Barrier to Entry," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 345-360, July.
    29. Mak, Y.T. & Kusnadi, Yuanto, 2005. "Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    30. Jorge Farinha, 2003. "Dividend Policy, Corporate Governance and the Managerial Entrenchment Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(9-10), pages 1173-1209.
    31. Kang, Jun-Koo & Stulz, Rene M, 1996. "How Different Is Japanese Corporate Finance? An Investigation of the Information Content of New Security Issues," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 9(1), pages 109-139.
    32. Shleifer, Andrei & Wolfenzon, Daniel, 2002. "Investor protection and equity markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 3-27, October.
    33. 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.
    34. Morck, Randall & Schleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 2008. "Management ownership and market valuation: an empirical analysis," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 48(2), April.
    35. Anup Agrawal & Charles R. Knoeber, "undated". "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders (Revision of 29-94)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 08-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hussein Abedi Shamsabadi & Byung-Seong Min & Richard Chung, 2016. "Corporate governance and dividend strategy: lessons from Australia," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(5), pages 583-610, October.
    2. Jean-Christophe Duhamel & Réda Sefsaf, 2017. "Valeur de la gouvernance d'entreprise et gouvernance des valeurs de l'entreprise. Recherche sur les effets des codes de gouvernance et les stratégies de communication en matière de gouvernance," Working Papers halshs-01633982, HAL.
    3. James, Hui & Benson, Bradley W. & Wu, Chen (Ken), 2017. "Does CEO ownership affect payout policy? Evidence from using CEO scaled wealth-performance sensitivity," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 328-345.
    4. Sheeba Kapil & Rakesh K Mishra, 2019. "Corporate Governance structure and firm performance in Indian context: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach," Working Papers 1937, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
    5. Yuan George Shan, 2019. "Managerial ownership, board independence and firm performance," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(2), pages 203-220, July.
    6. Aziz Jaafar & Lynn Hodgkinson & Mao-Feng Kao, 2019. "Ownership Structure, Board of Directors and Firm Performance: Evidence from Taiwan," Working Papers 19011, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    7. Benson, Bradley W. & Chen, Yu & James, Hui L. & Park, Jung Chul, 2020. "So far away from me: Firm location and the managerial ownership effect on firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    8. Seifert, Bruce & Gonenc, Halit & Wright, Jim, 2005. "The international evidence on performance and equity ownership by insiders, blockholders, and institutions," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 171-191, April.
    9. Collins G. Ntim, 2012. "Director shareownership and corporate performance in South Africa," African Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(4), pages 359-373.
    10. Lukas Setia‐Atmaja & George A. Tanewski & Michael Skully, 2009. "The Role of Dividends, Debt and Board Structure in the Governance of Family Controlled Firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7‐8), pages 863-898, September.
    11. Yen, Tze-Yu & Andre, Paul, 2007. "Ownership structure and operating performance of acquiring firms: The case of English-origin countries," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 380-405.
    12. J. Mulherin, 2005. "Corporations, collective action and corporate governance: One size does not fit all," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 179-204, July.
    13. Mertzanis, Charilaos & Basuony, Mohamed A.K. & Mohamed, Ehab K.A., 2019. "Social institutions, corporate governance and firm-performance in the MENA region," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-96.
    14. Georgeta Vintila & tefan Cristian Gherghina, 2015. "Does Ownership Structure Influence Firm Value? An Empirical Research towards the Bucharest Stock Exchange Listed Companies," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 5(2), pages 501-514.
    15. Christian Weiss & Stefan Hilger, 2012. "Ownership concentration beyond good and evil: is there an effect on corporate performance?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(4), pages 727-752, November.
    16. Choe, Chongwoo & Tian, Gloria & Yin, Xiangkang, 2009. "Managerial Power, Stock-Based Compensation, and Firm Performance: Theory and Evidence," MPRA Paper 13449, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Kun Wang & Greg Shailer, 2015. "Ownership Concentration And Firm Performance In Emerging Markets: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 199-229, April.
    18. Francesco Perrini & Ginevra Rossi & Barbara Rovetta, 2008. "Does Ownership Structure Affect Performance? Evidence from the Italian Market," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 312-325, July.
    19. Lukas Setia‐Atmaja & George A. Tanewski & Michael Skully, 2009. "The Role of Dividends, Debt and Board Structure in the Governance of Family Controlled Firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7‐8), pages 863-898, September.
    20. Omar Al Farooque & Tony van Zijl & Keitha Dunstan & Akm Waresul Karim, 2010. "Co‐deterministic relationship between ownership concentration and corporate performance," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 172-189, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eme:ijmfpp:v:6:y:2010:i:3:p:190-219. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.