IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v11y2022i2p48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Corporate Governance Score: Are Some Components of Corporate Governance Overrated? Evidence from a Developing Country

Author

Listed:
  • Phillip C. James

Abstract

The corporate governance structure of companies has been subjected to intense examination in recent time due mainly to recent corporate collapses and other financial mis-conduct by management. The benefits of an effective corporate governance structure are well documented, ranging from reduce cost of capital to improved transparency in ethics, morality and financial disclosure. Evaluating the effectiveness of a company’s corporate governance structure normally involves the use of a corporate governance score. This study investigates the appropriateness of some of the more commonly used components in compiling the corporate governance score. The study found that the presence of both an audit committee and a compensation committee along with effect of CEO duality had significant statistical effect on the corporate governance score. However, the results also showed that the size of the board and the number of independent directors were not statistically significant components of the corporate governance score.Â

Suggested Citation

  • Phillip C. James, 2022. "Understanding the Corporate Governance Score: Are Some Components of Corporate Governance Overrated? Evidence from a Developing Country," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(2), pages 1-48, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/21954/13622
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/21954
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    2. Amy J. Hillman & Albert A. Cannella & Ramona L. Paetzold, 2000. "The Resource Dependence Role of Corporate Directors: Strategic Adaptation of Board Composition in Response to Environmental Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 235-256, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Brian K. Boyd, 1994. "Board control and ceo compensation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 335-344, June.
    5. Khaled Elsayed, 2007. "Does CEO Duality Really Affect Corporate Performance?," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(6), pages 1203-1214, November.
    6. Aiyesha Dey, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Agency Conflicts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1143-1181, December.
    7. Raheja, Charu G., 2005. "Determinants of Board Size and Composition: A Theory of Corporate Boards," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 283-306, June.
    8. Yi Meng Chen & Robyn Moroney & Keith Houghton, 2005. "Audit committee composition and the use of an industry specialist audit firm," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 45(2), pages 217-239, July.
    9. Ken Y. Chen & Jian Zhou, 2007. "Audit Committee, Board Characteristics, and Auditor Switch Decisions by Andersen's Clients," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1085-1117, December.
    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. Phillip James & Il-woon Kim, 2018. "CEO Compensation in the U.S.: Are CEOs Underpaid or Overpaid ?," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 7(3), pages 1-78, August.
    2. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, June.
    3. Otten, Jordan J.A. & Heugens, Pursey P.M.A.R, 2007. "Extending the managerial power theory of executive pay: A cross national test," MPRA Paper 6778, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Aguilera, Ruth V. & Desender, Kurt A. & Kabbach de Castro, Luiz Ricardo, 2011. "A Configurational Approach to Comparative Corporate Governance," Working Papers 11-0103, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    5. Hüttenbrink, Alexander & Oehmichen, Jana & Rapp, Marc Steffen & Wolff, Michael, 2014. "Pay-for-performance – Does one size fit all? A multi-country study of Europe and the United States," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1179-1192.
    6. Mike Peng & Yi Jiang, 2006. "Family Ownership And Control In Large Firms: The Good, The Bad, The Irrelevant ??? And Why," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp840, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    7. Ferris, Stephen P. & Jayaraman, Narayanan & Liao, Min-Yu (Stella), 2020. "Better directors or distracted directors? An international analysis of busy boards," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Jeanjean, Thomas & Stolowy, Hervé, 2009. "Determinants of board members' financial expertise -- Empirical evidence from France," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 378-402, December.
    9. Chen, Ming-Yuan, 2014. "Determinants of corporate board structure in Taiwan," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 62-78.
    10. Santanu K. Ganguli & Soumya Guha Deb, 2021. "Board composition, ownership structure and firm performance: New Indian evidence," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(3), pages 256-268, September.
    11. Afzalur Rashid, 2015. "Revisiting Agency Theory: Evidence of Board Independence and Agency Cost from Bangladesh," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 181-198, August.
    12. Oxelheim, Lars & Gregori, Aleksandra & Randøy, Trond & Thomsen, Steen, 2013. "On the Internationalization of Corporate Boards," Working Paper Series 951, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    13. Henrique Castro Martins & Cristiano Machado Costa, 2020. "Does control concentration affect board busyness? International evidence," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 821-850, September.
    14. Armstrong, Christopher S. & Guay, Wayne R. & Weber, Joseph P., 2010. "The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 179-234, December.
    15. Jiao Ji & Oleksandr Talavera & Shuxing Yin, 2020. "Frequencies of board meetings on various topics and corporate governance: evidence from China," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 69-110, January.
    16. John K. Malagila & Alaa M. Zalata & Collins G. Ntim & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "Corporate governance and performance in sports organisations: The case of UK premier leagues," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 2517-2537, April.
    17. Li, Li & Song, Frank M., 2013. "Do bank regulations affect board independence? A cross-country analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2714-2732.
    18. Đặng, Rey & Houanti, L’Hocine & Reddy, Krishna & Simioni, Michel, 2020. "Does board gender diversity influence firm profitability? A control function approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 168-181.
    19. An, Jiafu & Duan, Tinghua & Hou, Wenxuan & Liu, Xianda, 2020. "The legacy of wars around the world: Evidence from military directors," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    20. Showkat Ahmad Busru & G. Shanmugasundaram & Shariq Ahmad Bhat, 2020. "Corporate Governance an Imperative for Stakeholders Protection: Evidence from Risk Management of Indian Listed Firms," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 8(2), pages 89-116, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:48. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.