1727-70511810-5467
Business Perspectives
  • Login

Editorial office contact form

Please complete all required fields!

Please specify your request here

Should not be empty
Should not be empty
Should not be empty
Should not be empty

Your request has been successfully sent.

Your Cart

Price Total
€0.00

(₴0)

Proceed to Checkout
Your cart is empty
Cart 0 Items
Submit Manuscript
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publishing policies
  • Editorial Policies
  • Books
  • JIC index
FOLLOW US
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Problems and Perspectives in Management
  • Issue #3
  • Institutional ownership, environmental, social, and governance performance and disclosure – a review on empirical quantitative research

Institutional ownership, environmental, social, and governance performance and disclosure – a review on empirical quantitative research

  • Received July 22, 2020;
    Accepted September 11, 2020;
    Published September 22, 2020
  • Author(s)
    Link to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-8449
    Patrick Velte
    ORCID Researcher ID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.24
  • Article Info
    Volume 18 2020, Issue #3, pp. 282-305
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    3 articles
    Journal title: Corporate Ownership and Control
    Article title: Corporate social responsibility performance, reporting and generalized methods of moments (GMM): A structured review of corporate governance determinants and firms financial consequences
    DOI: 10.22495/cocv19i2art1
    Volume: 19 / Issue: 2 / First page: 8 / Year: 2022
    Contributors: Patrick Velte
    Journal title: Review of Managerial Science
    Article title: Do sustainable institutional investors contribute to firms’ environmental performance? Empirical evidence from Europe
    DOI: 10.1007/s11846-021-00484-7
    Volume: / Issue: / First page: / Year: 2021
    Contributors: Othar Kordsachia, Maximilian Focke, Patrick Velte
    Journal title: International Journal of Financial Studies
    Article title: Short-Selling and Financial Performance of SMEs in China: The Mediating Role of CSR Performance
    DOI: 10.3390/ijfs9020022
    Volume: 9 / Issue: 2 / First page: 22 / Year: 2021
    Contributors: Wenzhen Mai, Nik Intan Norhan binti Abdul Hamid
  • 765 Views
  • 252 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Since the financial crisis of 2008–2009, nonfinancial-related shareholder activism increased, as public interest entities (PIEs) should strengthen their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activities. This study aims to determine whether institutional ownership (IO) impacts ESG performance and disclosure and vice versa. Moreover, IO’s moderating and mediating influence on the relationship between ESG and firms’ financial consequences is included. This is the first literature review focusing on IO and ESG, describing IO as independent, dependent, moderator, and mediator variable. A structured literature review with 81 empirical-quantitative (archival) studies on that topic is presented based on an agency theoretical framework. Regarding the main results, long-term IO leads to increased ESG performance. Moreover, ESG performance promotes the ratio of institutional investors. Other relationships are rather heterogeneous and too low in an amount yet, stressing major research gaps.

view full abstract hide full abstract
  • PAPER PROFILE
  • AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
  • FIGURES
  • TABLES
  • REFERENCES
  • Keywords
    corporate governance, CSR performance, CSR reporting, institutional investors, literature review, principal agent theory, stakeholder management
  • JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)
    M40, M41
  • References
    116
  • Tables
    5
  • Figures
    1
    • Figure 1. Research framework for the literature review (the majority of included studies are marked)
    • Table 1. Count of cited published papers
    • Table 2. List of ESG and IO proxies
    • Table 3. Research on the impact of IO on ESG (panel A) and carbon (panel B)
    • Table 4. Research on the impact of ESG on IO
    • Table 5. Research on moderator/mediator analysis of IO on firms’ financial consequences of ESG
    • Abu Qa’dan, M. B., & Suwaidan, M. S. (2018). Board composition, ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 15, 28-46.
    • Aggarwal, R., & Dow, S. (2012). Corporate governance and business strategies for climate change and environmental mitigation. The European Journal of Finance, 18, 311-331.
    • Aguilar, L. A. (2013). Institutional Investors, Power and Responsibility. Speech.
    • Ahmed, S. U., Islam, M. Z., Mahtab, H., & Hasan, I. (2014). Institutional Investment and Corporate Social Performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 1-13.
    • Akbas, H. E., & Canikli, S. (2019). Determinants of Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosure. Sustainability, 11, 107.
    • Alda, M. (2019). Corporate sustainability and institutional shareholders. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 1060-1071.
    • Arora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (2011). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Corporate Governance, 19, 136-152.
    • Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71-86.
    • Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., & Venter, E. R. (2017). The Economic Consequences Associated with Integrated Report Quality, Capital Market and Real Effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 62, 43-64.
    • Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Hirst, S. (2017). The Agency Problems of Institutional Investors. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 89-112.
    • Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments, CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 164-181.
    • Boubaker, S., Chourou, L., Himick, D., & Saadi, S. (2017). It’s About Time! The Influence of Institutional Investment Horizon on Corporate Social Responsibility. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59, 571-594.
    • Brickley, J. A., Lease, R. C., & Smith, C. W. (1988). Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 267-291.
    • Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 855-877.
    • Buchanan, B., Cao, C. X., & Chen, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, firm value, and influential institutional ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 73-95.
    • Bushee, B. J. (1998). The Influence of Institutional Investors on Myopic R&D Investment Behavior. The Accounting Review, 73, 305-333.
    • Cahan, S. F., Chen, C., & Chen, L. (2017). Social Norms and CSR Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 493-508.
    • Castelo Branco, M., Delgado, C., Gomes, S. F., & Pereira Eugenio, T. C. (2014). Factors influencing the assurance of sustainability reports in the context of the economic crisis in Portugal. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29, 237-252.
    • Chen, E., & Gavious, I. (2015). Does CSR have different value implications for different shareholders? Finance Research Letters, 14, 29-35.
    • Chen, T., Dong, H., & Lin, C. (2020). Institutional shareholders and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 135, 483-504.
    • Cho, S., Lee, C., & Pfeiffer, R. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility performance and information asymmetry. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32, 71-83.
    • Choi, B. B., Lee, D., & Park, Y. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality. Corporate Governance, An International Review, 21, 447-467.
    • Chung, C. Y., Cho, S. J., Ryu, D., & Ryu, D. (2019). Institutional blockholders and corporate social responsibility. Asian Business Management, 18, 143-186.
    • Clark, G. L., & Hebb, T. (2005). Why should they care? Environment and Planning, 37, 2015-2031.
    • Conway, E. (2019). Quantitative impacts of mandatory integrated reporting. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 17, 604-634.
    • Cox, P., Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). An empirical examination of institutional investor preferences for corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 27-43.
    • Dai, Y., & Kong, D. (2016). Getting Attention through Corporate Philanthropy. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52, 2364-2378.
    • Dam, L., & Scholtens, B. (2012). Does Ownership Type Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? Corporate Governance, 20, 233-252.
    • Daugaard, D. (2019). Emerging new themes in environmental, social and governance investing. Accounting & Finance (online first).
    • De Beelde, I., & Tuybens, S. (2015). Enhancing the Credibility of Reporting on Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 190-216.
    • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O.Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary Nonfinancial Disclosure and the Cost of Equity Capital. The Accounting Review, 86, 59-100.
    • Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? Journal of Financial Economics, 131, 693-714.
    • El-Bassiouny, D., & El-Bassiouny, N. (2019). Diversity, corporate governance and CSR reporting. Management of Environmental Quality, An International Journal, 30, 116-136.
    • Erhemjamts, O., & Huang, K. (2019). Institutional ownership horizon, corporate social responsibility and shareholder value. Journal of Business Research, 105, 61-79.
    • Faller, C. M., & Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2018). Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 15-40.
    • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325.
    • Fauzi, H., Mahoney, L., & Rahman, A. A. (2007). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 1, 334-347.
    • Friede, G. (2019). Why don’t we see more action? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 1260-1282.
    • Fu, X., Tang, T., & Yan, X. (2019). Why do institutions like corporate social responsibility investments? Journal of Empirical Finance, 51, 44-63.
    • Gao, F., Dong, Y., Ni, C., & Fu, R. (2016). Determinants and Economic Consequences of Non-financial Disclosure Quality. European Accounting Review, 25, 287-317.
    • Garcia-Meca, E., & Pucheta-Martinez, M.C. (2018). How Institutional Investors on Board Impact on Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 237-249.
    • Garcia-Sanchez, I.-M., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzman, B., & Aibar-Guzman, C. (2020). Do institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution to the sustainable development goals? Business Strategy and the Environment (online first).
    • Gloßner, S. (2019). Investor Horizons, Long-Term Blockholders, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 103, 78-97.
    • Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. (2014). Shareholder Activism. Journal of Management, 40, 1230-1268.
    • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046.
    • GRI. (2018). Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2018. Amsterdam.
    • Gulzar, M. A., Cherian, J., Hwang, J., Jiang, Y., & Sial, M. S. (2019). The Impact of Board Gender Diversity and Foreign Institutional Investors on the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Engagement of Chinese Listed Companies. Sustainability, 11, 307.
    • Habbash, M. (2016). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Journal of Economic and Social Development, 3, 87-103.
    • Harjoto, M., Jo, H., & Kim, Y. (2017). Is Institutional Ownership related to Corporate Social Responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 77-109.
    • Harjoto, M. A., Kim, D., Laksmana, I., & Walton, R. C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and stock split. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 53, 575-600.
    • Harris, J., & Bromiley, P. (2007). Incentives to Cheat. Organization Science, 18, 350-367.
    • Hermawan, A., Aisyah, I. S., Gunardi, A., & Putri, W. Y. (2018). Going Green, Determinants of Carbon Emission Disclosure in Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8, 55-61.
    • Hong, H., & Kacperzyk, M. (2009). The price of sin. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 15-36.
    • Hoq, M. Z., Saleh, M., Zubayer, M., & Mahmud, K. T. (2010). The effect of CSR disclosure on institutional ownership. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 4, 22-39.
    • Htay, S. N. N., Rashid, H. M. A., Adnan, M. A., & Meera, A. K. M. (2012). Impact of Corporate Governance on Social and Environmental Information Disclosure of Malaysian Listed Banks. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4, 1-24.
    • Hu, Y. Y., Zhu, Y., Tucker, J., & Hu, Y. (2018). Ownership influence and CSR disclosure in China. Accounting Research Journal, 31, 8-21.
    • Huang, C.-J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641-655.
    • Jaggi, B., Allini, A., Macchioni, R., & Zagaria, C. (2018). The Factors Motivating Voluntary Disclosure of Carbon Information. Organization & Environment, 31, 178-202.
    • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
    • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Value. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 351-383.
    • Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-576.
    • Jouber, H. (2019). How does CEO pay slice influence corporate social responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26, 502-517.
    • Jouini, F., & Ajna, A. (2018). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. International Management and Enterprise Development, 17, 155-167.
    • Kim, H.-D., Kim, T., Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2019). Do Long-Term Institutional Investors Promote Corporate Social Responsibility Activities? Journal of Banking and Finance, 101, 256-269.
    • Kim, I., Wan, H., Wang, B., & Yang, T. (2019). Institutional Investors and Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Policies. Management Science, 65, 4901-4926.
    • Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Price Crash Risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 1-13.
    • Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value, Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 27-39.
    • Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. (2018). The Influence of Family Firms and Institutional Owners on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance. Business & Society, 57, 1374-1406.
    • Li, W., & Lu, X. (2016). Institutional Interest, Ownership Type, and Environmental Capital Expenditures. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 459-476.
    • Li, W., & Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility, Ownership Structure, and Political Interference. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 631-645.
    • Liu, Y., Lu, H., & Veenstra, K. (2014). Is sin always a sin? Accounting. Organizations and Society, 39, 289-307.
    • Lopatta, K., Jaeschke, R., & Chen, C. (2017). Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility (ESG) Performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24, 199-209.
    • Mahoney, L., & Roberts, R. W. (2007). Corporate social performance, financial performance and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum, 31, 233-253.
    • Mahoney, L. S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., & LaGore, W. (2013). A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 350-359.
    • Majeed, S., Aziz, T., & Saleem, S. (2015). The Effect of Corporate Governance Elements on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure. International Journal of Financial Studies, 3, 530-556.
    • Mallin, C., Michelon, G., & Raggi, D. (2013). Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 29-43.
    • McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO Incentives and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 341-359.
    • Meng, Y., & Wang, X. (2020). Do institutional investors have homogeneous influence on corporate social responsibility? Managerial Finance, 46, 301-322.
    • Mili, M., Gharbi, S., & Teulon, F. (2019). Business ethics, company value and ownership structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 23, 973-987.
    • Miras-Rodriguez, M., & Di Pietra, R. (2018). Corporate Governance mechanisms as drivers that enhance the credibility and usefulness of CSR disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance, 22, 565-588.
    • Motta, E. M., & Uchida, K. (2018). Institutional investors, corporate social responsibility and stock price performance. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 47, 91-102.
    • Naser, K., Al-Hussaini, A., Al-Kwari, D., & Nuseibeh, R. (2006). Determinants of Corporate Social Disclosure in Developing Countries. Advances in International Accounting, 19, 1-23.
    • Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management, 32, 108-131.
    • Nguyen, P. A., Kecskes, A., & Mansi, S. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility create shareholder value? Journal of Banking and Finance, 112, 105217.
    • Nofsinger, J. R., Sulaeman, J., & Varma, A. (2019). Institutional investors and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 700-725.
    • Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013a). Corporate Governance and Performance in Socially Responsible Corporations. Corporate Governance, 21, 468-494.
    • Ntim, C. G., & Soobaraoyen, T. (2013b). Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed Corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 121-138.
    • Nurjayati, R., Taylor, G., Rusmin, R., Tower, G., & Chatterjee, B. (2016). Factors determining social and environmental reporting by Indian textile and apparel firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 12, 167-189.
    • Obermann, J., & Velte, P. (2018). Determinants and consequences of executive compensation-related shareholder activism and say-on-pay votes. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40, 116-151.
    • Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The Effect of Ownership Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283-297.
    • Oikonomou, I., Yin, C., & Zhao, L. (2020). Investment horizon and corporate social performance. The European Journal of Finance, 26, 14-40.
    • Panicker, V. S. (2017). Ownership and corporate social responsibility in Indian firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 13, 714-727.
    • Pucheta-Martinez, M. C., & Lopez-Zamora, B. (2018). Engagement of directors representing institutional investors on environmental disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 1108-1120.
    • Raimo, N., Vitolla, F., Marrone, A., & Rubino, M. (2020). The role of ownership structure in integrated reporting policies. Business Strategy and the Environment (online first).
    • Rashid, A., & Lodh, S. (2008). The influence of ownership structures and board practices on corporate social disclosures in Bangladesh. Corporate Governance in Less Developed and Emerging Economies, 8, 211-237.
    • Rehman, R., Riaz, Z., Cullinan, C., Thang, J., & Wang, F. (2020). Institutional ownership and value relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure. Sustainability, 12, 2311.
    • Ruhnke, K., & Gabriel, A. (2013). Determinants of voluntary assurance on sustainability reports. Journal of Business Economics, 83, 1063-1091.
    • Saleh, M., Zulkifli, N., & Muhamad, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and its relation on institutional ownership. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25, 591-613.
    • Sanchez, J. L. F., Sottorio, L. L., & Diez, E. B. (2011). The Relationship between Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 91-101.
    • Sanchez-Ballesta, J. P., & Garcia-Meca, E. (2007). A Meta-Analytic Vision of the Effect of Ownership Structure on Firm Performance. Corporate Governance, 15, 879-893.
    • Sethi, S. P. (2005). Investing in socially responsible companies is a must for public pension funds. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 99-129.
    • Stanny, E., & Ely, K. (2008). Corporate Environmental Disclosures about the Effects of Climate Change. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 338-348.
    • Sundaramurthy, C., Rhoades, D. L., & Rechner, P. L. (2005). A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Executive and Institutional Ownership on Firm Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 494-510.
    • Suto, M., & Takehara, H. (2017). ESG and cost of capital. Social Responsibility Journal, 13, 798-816.
    • Suttipun, M., & Bomlai, A. (2019). The Relationship between Corporate Governance and Integrated Reporting. International Journal of Business and Society, 20, 348-364.
    • Suyono, E., & Farooque, O. A. (2018). Do governance mechanisms deter earnings management and promote corporate social responsibility? Accounting Research Journal, 31, 479-495.
    • Velte, P. & Stawinoga, M. (2017a). Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research, limitations and future research implications. Journal of Management Control, 28, 275-320.
    • Velte, P., & Stawinoga, M. (2017b). Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA). Journal of Business Economics, 8, 1017-1066.
    • Villalonga, B. (2018). The impact of ownership on building sustainable and responsible businesses. Journal of British Academy, 66, 375-403.
    • Wahba, H. (2008). Exploring the Moderating Effect of Financial Performance on the Relationship between Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Institutional Investors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 361-371.
    • Walls, J., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate Governance and Environmental Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885-913.
    • Wegener, M., Elayan, F. A., Felton, S., & Li, J. (2013). Factors Influencing Corporate Environmental Disclosures. Accounting Perspectives, 12, 53-73.
    • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581-606.
    • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
    • Zaid, M. A. A., Abuhijleh, S. T. F., & Pucheta-Martinez, M. C. (2020). Ownership structure, stakeholder engagement, and corporate social responsibility policies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (online first).
    • Zhou, C. (2019). Effects of corporate governance on the decision to voluntarily disclosure corporate social responsibility reports. Applied Economics, 51, 5900-5910.
Related Articles
  • Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?

    Patrick VelteORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #2         pp. 19-35 Views: 3406 Downloads: 1405 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.

  • Corporate governance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of selected multinational firms in Nigeria

    Gideon Tayo Akinleye , Odunayo OlarewajuORCID Researcher ID, Bamikole Samson Fajuyagbe doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(1).2019.02
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 17, 2019         Issue #1         pp. 11-18 Views: 2376 Downloads: 318 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study focused on corporate governance and performance of selected Nigerian multinational firms from 2012 to 2016. Specifically, the study focused on the effect of board size, activism and committee activism on return on asset and firm growth rate. Secondary data collected from four multinational firms were analyzed via static panel estimation techniques. While board size and board activism exerted significant negative impact on return on asset, committee activism exerted insignificant impact. The results of the study further showed that board size and board activism exert insignificant negative impact on firm’s growth rate, while committee activism insignificantly spurs firm’s growth rate. Decisively, discoveries from this study reflect that corporate governance has significant negative impact on return on asset, but has insignificant influence on the growth rate of Nigerian multinational firms. Based on these findings, the authors recommended that corporate governance dynamics in firms world over should be reconsidered, such that it gives credence to more than just numbers of persons or meetings held, but the main reasons and deliberations in such meetings. It was also recommended that excessive increase in magnitude or frequency of meetings held by board of directors cum committee should be avoided.

  • The influence of corporate governance on the intellectual capital disclosure: a study on Indonesian private banks

    Joy Elly TulungORCID Researcher ID, Ivonne Stanley Saerang , Stevanus Pandia doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.13(4).2018.06
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 13, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 61-72 Views: 2076 Downloads: 235 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The release of bank’s intellectual capital is one of the important elements of bank’s annual reports. Although it is not presented adequately in the annual reports, voluntary disclosure of bank’s intellectual capital relatively represents the response to the needs of greater information for the users. This research aims to see the influence of corporate governance on the intellectual capital disclosure based on a case study on private banks in Indonesia. The variables to be examined in the research include the Composition of Independent Commissioners as well as The Competence of Audit Committee and Risk Oversight Committee. The samples were taken using purposive sampling, considering particular criteria. As many as 62 banks are selected to be taken as research samples. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis method. The result of a partial test shows that the Composition of Independent Commissioners has a positive and significant influence on the intellectual capital disclosure; the Competence of Audit Committee has a positive and significant influence on the intellectual capital disclosure; and the Competence of Risk Oversight committee does not influence the intellectual capital disclosure. Meanwhile, the result of a simultaneous test shows that the Composition of Independent Commissioners, the Competence of Audit Committee, and the Competence of Risk Oversight Committee significantly influence the intellectual capital disclosure.

< Prev Next >
Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management
  • Issue #3
  • Journal Homepage
  • Indexed/Abstracted
  • Aims and Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics
  • Submission Guidelines for Authors
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Acceptance rate
  • Self-Archiving Policy
  • Article processing charge
 

COOKIES
The cookie settings on this website are set to 'allow all cookies' to give you the best experience.

If you continue without changing these settings, you consent to this Read more

Accept
newsletter
We accept payment with:
  • visa
  • mastercard
  • ISNI: 0000 0004 6439 8257
  • Copyright © 2022 LLC “CPC “Business Perspectives”,
    except Open Access articles

Developed by MindK. Designed by Crisp.

  • About Us
    • Company
    • News
    • Cooperation and partners
    • Advertising
    • Manuscript Administration System
  • Users support
    • Your profile
    • External services instructions
    • Site navigation
Contact us
  • Hryhorii Skovoroda lane, 10 Sumy, 40022 , Ukraine
  • +380-542-221707
  • +38-063-2891070
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Tweets by LLC “Business Perspectives”