IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jmgtgv/v27y2023i3d10.1007_s10997-021-09584-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?

Author

Listed:
  • Ilya Ivaninskiy

    (HSE University)

  • Irina Ivashkovskaya

    (HSE University)

  • Joseph A. McCahery

    (Tilburg University)

Abstract

In this article, we analyse the impact of business digitalisation on the principal-agent conflict. While there are several studies of impact of digitalization on corporate governance, the empirical evidence has so far been relatively scarce. We examine the principal-agent conflict from several angles: the number of shareholder-sponsored proposals submitted for the shareholder meetingsб the level of support for management-sponsored proposals and the frequency of proxy contests. As a proxy for the active digitalisation of a firm, we use the blockchain technology that has the potential to fundamentally change the distribution of power within an organisation, potentially mitigating the principal-agent conflict. We analyze a sample of 2813 NYSE, Nasdaq and AMEX-traded firms for the year 2018, during which rapid blockchain adoption was exhibited. Our results suggest that firms active in business digitalisation overall have a lower level of principal-agent conflict. We find that such firms generally have shareholders that are more active, which indicates an environment less prone to the principal-agent conflict. While on average, proposals submitted by the management receive less support during voting, the share of approved proposals does not change for the digitising firms. Proxy contests appear relatively rare among the firms active in digitalisation, however, there is not yet enough data to confirm this.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jmgtgv:v:27:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10997-021-09584-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10997-021-09584-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10997-021-09584-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10997-021-09584-8?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Zhu, 2019. "Big Data as a Governance Mechanism," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 2021-2061.
    2. Nir Kshetri, 2017. "Potential roles of blockchain in fighting poverty and reducing financial exclusion in the global south," Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 201-204, October.
    3. Philippe Aghion & John Van Reenen & Luigi Zingales, 2013. "Innovation and Institutional Ownership," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 277-304, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Ertimur, Yonca & Ferri, Fabrizio & Stubben, Stephen R., 2010. "Board of directors' responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 53-72, February.
    6. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He, 2019. "Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1754-1797.
    7. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    8. Peter Iliev & Michelle Lowry, 2015. "Are Mutual Funds Active Voters?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 28(2), pages 446-485.
    9. Milton Harris & Artur Raviv, 2008. "A Theory of Board Control and Size," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(4), pages 1797-1832, July.
    10. Rainer Böhme & Nicolas Christin & Benjamin Edelman & Tyler Moore, 2015. "Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(2), pages 213-238, Spring.
    11. Prevost, Andrew K & Rao, Ramesh P, 2000. "Of What Value Are Shareholder Proposals Sponsored by Public Pension Funds?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 177-204, April.
    12. Vyacheslav Fos, 2017. "The Disciplinary Effects of Proxy Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 655-671, March.
    13. Ye Guo & Chen Liang, 2016. "Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Thomas, Randall S. & Cotter, James F., 2007. "Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 368-391, June.
    15. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    16. Andrew K. Prevost & Ramesh P. Rao & Melissa A. Williams, 2012. "Labor Unions as Shareholder Activists: Champions or Detractors?," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 327-349, May.
    17. Nadya Malenko & Yao Shen, 2016. "The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(12), pages 3394-3427.
    18. Fich, Eliezer M. & Harford, Jarrad & Tran, Anh L., 2015. "Motivated monitors: The importance of institutional investors׳ portfolio weights," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 21-48.
    19. David Yermack, 2017. "Corporate Governance and Blockchains," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 7-31.
    20. JOSEPH A. McCAHERY & ZACHARIAS SAUTNER & LAURA T. STARKS, 2016. "Behind the Scenes: The Corporate Governance Preferences of Institutional Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2905-2932, December.
    21. Mario Dobrovnik & David M. Herold & Elmar Fürst & Sebastian Kummer, 2018. "Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to Adopt and Where to Start," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-14, September.
    22. Hughes, Laurie & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Misra, Santosh K. & Rana, Nripendra P. & Raghavan, Vishnupriya & Akella, Viswanadh, 2019. "Blockchain research, practice and policy: Applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 114-129.
    23. Fry, John, 2018. "Booms, busts and heavy-tails: The story of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency markets?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 225-229.
    24. repec:oup:revfin:v:29:y:2016:i:12:p:3394-3427. is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Cagli, Efe Caglar, 2019. "Explosive behavior in the prices of Bitcoin and altcoins," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 398-403.
    26. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1996. "Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 365-395, November.
    27. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2007. "The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 19(1), pages 55-73, January.
    28. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    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. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya, 2022. "Are blockchain-based digital transformation and ecosystem-based business models mutually reinforcing? The principal-agent conflict perspective," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(4), pages 643-670, December.
    2. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    3. Maria Goranova & Rahi Abouk & Paul C. Nystrom & Ehsan S. Soofi, 2017. "Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 415-435, February.
    4. Simon Rafaqat & Sana Rafaqat & Sahil Rafaqat & Saoul Rafaqat & Dawood Rafaqat, 2023. "Shareholder Activism and Firm Performance: A Review," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 14(4), pages 31-41.
    5. Peter Cziraki & Luc Renneboog & Peter G. Szilagyi, 2010. "Shareholder Activism through Proxy Proposals: The European Perspective," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(5), pages 738-777, November.
    6. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Jiang, George J. & Liu, Chang, 2021. "Getting on board: The monitoring effect of institutional directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Wang, Yong & Mao, Connie X., 2015. "Shareholder activism of public pension funds: The political facet," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 138-152.
    9. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    10. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Ameen Qasem & Shaker Dahan AL-Duais & Wan Nordin Wan-Hussin & Hasan Mohamad Bamahros & Abdulsalam Alquhaif & Murad Thomran, 2022. "Institutional Ownership Types and ESG Reporting: The Case of Saudi Listed Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    13. García-Sánchez, Isabel-María & Aibar-Guzmán, Cristina & Aibar-Guzmán, Beatriz, 2020. "The effect of institutional ownership and ownership dispersion on eco-innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    14. Yeh, Tsung-ming, 2017. "Determinants and consequences of shareholder proposals: The cases of board election, charter amendment, and profit disposal," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 245-261.
    15. Hadani, Michael & Goranova, Maria & Khan, Raihan, 2011. "Institutional investors, shareholder activism, and earnings management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1352-1360.
    16. Siala Bouaziz Souha & Jarboui Anis & David McMillan, 2016. "Corporate governance and firm characteristics as explanatory factors of shareholder activism: Validation through the French context," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1150407-115, December.
    17. Schmidt, Cornelius & Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, 2017. "Do exogenous changes in passive institutional ownership affect corporate governance and firm value?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 285-306.
    18. Matsusaka, John G. & Ozbas, Oguzhan & Yi, Irene, 2017. "Why Do Managers Fight Shareholder Proposals? Evidence from SEC No-Action Letter Decisions," Working Papers 262, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    19. Morgan, Angela & Poulsen, Annette & Wolf, Jack & Yang, Tina, 2011. "Mutual funds as monitors: Evidence from mutual fund voting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 914-928, September.
    20. Souha Bouaziz Siala & Anis Jarboui, 2019. "The moderating effect of audit quality on the relation between shareholder activism and earnings management: Evidence from France," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 13(1), March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate governance; Blockchain; Digital transformation; Corporate voting; Proxy contest; Shareholder activism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    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:kap:jmgtgv:v:27:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10997-021-09584-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.