Are boards' risk management committees associated with firms’ environmental performance?

We examine the relationship between board of director committees tasked with risk management and environmental performance, based on a sample of 1466 firm-year observations from 2007 to 2015. We find that the presence of board committees dedicated only to risk management is associated with better environmental performance. The human capital of risk committees (measured by board tenure, committee tenure, experience, and qualifications) is also positively related to environmental performance. Our findings suggest that the benefits of risk management committees extend to non-financial matters, such as environmental performance. Our findings further suggest that environmental performance is now managed through the regular governance mechanisms within firms. This supports the notion that environmental performance is managed for economic reasons and for the benefit of investors, rather than for the aggrandisement of individual managers. Our findings should be of interest to boards, CEOs, and CFOs who are interested in risk management, as well as to investors, lenders, and auditors who are interested in assessing risk.     

Who selects the ‘right’ directors? An examination of the association between board selection,gender diversity and outcomes

Using a sample of companies from the top 500 listed firms in Australia, we investigate whether the presence of a designated nomination committee and female representation on the nomination committee affect board gender diversity. We also examine whether gender diversity on the board affects firm risk and financial performance. We find that board gender diversity is significantly and positively associated with the presence of a designated nomination committee and that female representation on the nomination committee is a significant explanatory factor of increasing board gender diversity following the release of the 2010 Australian Securities Exchange Corporate Governance Council (ASXCGC) recommendations. Further, our results support the business case for board gender diversity as we find greater gender diversity moderates excessive firm risk which in turn improves firms' financial performance. Our results are robust after correcting for selection bias and controlling for other board, firm and industry characteristics.     

May board committees reduce the probability of financial distress? A survival analysis on Italian listed companies

The aim of this research was to study the effect of the composition and functioning of board committees on firms' financial distress. Exponential, Weibull and Cox regression models were used to conduct a survival analysis on a sample of 273 Italian listed companies for the period 2004–2017, which indicated that the presence of non-executive members on remuneration and audit committees, and remuneration committees meeting more frequently may enhance firms' stability. In contrast, a high frequency of nomination committee meetings seems to be positively related to the probability of financial distress.Although we only partially controlled for endogeneity issues, our findings contribute to the literature on financial distress-prediction models by deepening the importance of the composition and functioning of board committees (beyond other corporate governance variables and financial ratios). We can also provide firms with practical suggestions to promote financial stability.     

Corporate board and board committee independence,firm performance,and family ownership concentration: An analysis based on Hong Kong firms

This study examines whether the relationship between corporate board and board committee independence and firm performance is moderated by the concentration of family ownership. Based on a sample of Hong Kong firms, we find no significant association between the independence of corporate boards or board committees and firm performance in family firms, whereas board independence is positively associated with firm performance in non-family firms. Additionally, our findings show that the proportion of independent directors on the corporate boards of family firms is lower than that of non-family firms, but we find no significant difference in the representation of independent directors on the key committees of corporate boards between family and non-family firms. Overall, these results suggest that the “one size fits all” approach required by the regulatory authorities for appointing independent directors on corporate boards may not necessarily enhance firm performance, especially for family firms. Thus, the requirement to appoint independent directors to the corporate boards of family firms needs to be reconsidered.     

Audit committees’ oversight of bank risk-taking

This study examines whether audit committee effectiveness affects bank risk-taking and risk management effectiveness. We find that banks with long board tenure audit committees have lower total risk and idiosyncratic risk, and banks with busy directors on their audit committees have higher total risk and idiosyncratic risk. These suggest that high audit committee effectiveness may constrain bank risk-taking activities. We also find that firm performance is more positively associated with bank risk for banks with long board tenure, more female audit committee members, or large size audit committees than for other banks, consistent with the notion that audit committee effectiveness may increase risk management effectiveness. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously as it is contrary to the results on audit committee busyness.     

Overlapping Membership on Audit and Compensation Committees and Financial Reporting Quality

This paper examines whether the audit committee members of a board improve financial reporting quality if they are also on their organisation's compensation committee. Audit committees are responsible for overseeing the financial reporting process of organisations and have been urged to broaden their understanding of business risk and of the incentives provided by their firms’ executive compensation structures. Acknowledging the interrelationships among executive compensation, risk‐taking and financial reporting quality, members of audit and compensation committees have been advocating more information sharing between the two committees. Using archival data from a sample of Australian Stock Exchange listed companies, and discretionary accruals as a proxy for financial reporting quality, this study finds that firms with overlapping committees have better quality financial reporting than those without such an overlap. Our evidence for this is stronger in cases where managers tend to manage earnings upwards in order to meet or beat earnings benchmarks. We also find that the beneficial effect of the existence of overlapping committees is adversely affected by the equity holdings of directors with overlapping memberships.     

An exploratory study of the effects of the European Union 8th Directive on Company Law on audit committees: Evidence from EU companies listed on the US stock exchanges

Member States in the European Union will be required to establish audit committees for all public-interest entities, according to the EU 8th Directive on Company Law. This EU 8th Directive creates a convergence of corporate oversight for both audit processes and financial reporting process and thus provides an opportunity to examine and contrast associations that exist among audit committee, board of directors characteristics with audit committee alignment, and the impact of such alignment on earnings management. Results of a logistic regression analysis suggest that firms with audit committees possessing greater financial expertise, with larger boards and more independent boards are less likely to engage in audit committee alignment while firms with audit committees possessing greater governance expertise are more likely to engage in alignment. In addition, we find that firms associated with audit committee alignment engage in less earnings management.     

The effect of disclosure committees on non-GAAP reporting quality

I examine whether company-implemented disclosure committees help to improve non-GAAP reporting quality. I find that firms with disclosure committees provide higher quality non-GAAP performance metrics and that the exclusions used to calculate their non-GAAP numbers are less persistent for future operating income and operating cash flows. Moreover, I find that firms with disclosure committees are less likely to receive SEC comment letters about non-GAAP disclosure. For firms that receive comment letters about non-GAAP reporting, disclosure committees can help to improve non-GAAP reporting quality. Comparing the influence of audit committees and disclosure committees, I find that audit committee financial experts have stronger monitoring effects than those on disclosure committees. Meanwhile, legal experts on disclosure committees provide similar monitoring compared to audit committees’ financial experts. Finally, the interaction between audit committee financial experts and disclosure committee legal experts produces the strongest effect on non-GAAP reporting quality. In sum, my analyses suggest that disclosure committees can provide important monitoring of non-GAAP reporting.     

Audit committee financial expertise,corporate governance,and the voluntary switch from auditor-provided to non-auditor-provided tax services

A prime objective of the SOX is to safeguard auditor independence. We investigate the relation between audit committee quality, corporate governance, and audit committees' decision to switch from permissible auditor-provided tax services. We find that firms with more independent boards, audit committees with greater accounting financial expertise, higher stock ownership by directors and institutions, that separate the CEO and Chairman of the board positions, and with higher tax to audit fee ratios are more likely to switch to a non-auditor provider. Further, we document that firms are more likely to switch prior to issuing equity. We find no evidence that broad financial expertise on audit committees is related to the switch decision, suggesting that the SEC's initial narrow definition of expertise is more consistent with the objective of the SOX. Overall, our results suggest that accounting financial expertise and strong corporate governance contribute to enhanced audit committee monitoring of auditor independence.     

Board Monitoring and Earnings Management: Do Outside Directors Influence Abnormal Accruals?

Abstract:   This paper examines whether the incidence of earnings management by UK firms depends on board monitoring. We focus on two aspects of board monitoring: the role of outside board members and the audit committee. Results indicate that the likelihood of managers making income‐increasing abnormal accruals to avoid reporting losses and earnings reductions is negatively related to the proportion of outsiders on the board. We also find that the chance of abnormal accruals being large enough to turn a loss into a profit or to ensure that profit does not decline is significantly lower for firms with a high proportion of outside board members. In contrast, we find little evidence that outside directors influence income‐decreasing abnormal accruals when pre‐managed earnings are high. We find no evidence that the presence of an audit committee directly affects the extent of income‐increasing manipulations to meet or exceed these thresholds. Neither do audit committees appear to have a direct effect on the degree of downward manipulation, when pre‐managed earnings exceed thresholds by a large margin. Our findings suggest that boards contribute towards the integrity of financial statements, as predicted by agency theory.     

The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees

Governance regulators currently place great emphasis on ensuring the presence of financial expertise on audit committees (Sarbanes-Oxley, 2002; UK Corporate Governance Code 2010–2016). Underlying this is a belief that greater expertise enhances the effectiveness of audit committees and, by extension, the quality of the external audit. This study investigates the impact of audit committee expertise on one measure of audit quality - audit fees paid by FTSE350 companies. Our analysis finds that audit committees possessing greater levels of financial expertise are associated with higher audit fees. When we segregate financial expertise between accounting and non-accounting, we find that the positive impact identified is driven by non-accounting expertise. Furthermore, when we separate FTSE100 and FTSE250 firms we find the impact of financial expertise is confined to FTSE250 firms. Our findings are important as they highlight the usefulness of segregating financial expertise between specialists and non-specialists, something which regulators in the UK and in the USA currently do not do. Our findings also highlight the potential value of audit committee expertise in smaller as opposed to larger listed firms, suggesting that the value of expertise to audit quality depends on the specific financial reporting challenges firms face.     

Valuation impact of Sarbanes–Oxley: Evidence from disclosure and governance within the financial services industry

The Sarbanes–Oxley (Sarbox) legislation aimed to reduce the opacity of financial statements and improve the integrity of financial reporting by enhancing corporate disclosure and governance practices. We estimate the valuation effects of Sarbox for firms in the financial services industry and find that, except for securities firms, these firms significantly benefited from its adoption. As hypothesized, these positive effects may be attributed to expected improvement in the transparency of the relatively opaque financial services firms.We find that the cross-sectional variation in the valuation effects can be explained by disclosure and governance characteristics. Several of the significant factors are supportive of a compliance cost hypothesis. In particular, we find that the effects were less favorable for firms with less independent audit committees, without a financial expert on the audit committee, with less financial statement footnote disclosures, with less involved CEOs, and if they were smaller. In addition, reflecting the value of stronger governance, more favorable effects occurred for firms with a greater degree of independence of the board and the board committees, when there is greater motivation and ability of board members to monitor the firm, and with a greater degree of institutional ownership. Lastly, we find the wealth effects of firms viewed as non-compliant are significantly lower than firms viewed as compliant, and the variation across the group of non-compliant firms is explained by disclosure and governance measures.     

Corporate social responsibility committees and the use of corporate social responsibility assurance services

This study examines whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) committees associate with the external assurance of CSR reports. Specifically, we consider the presence and effectiveness of CSR committees. Using a sample of Australian firms over the period 2004–2016, we show the mere presence of a CSR committee is not related to the external assurance of CSR. However, CSR committee effectiveness is positively related. In addition, firms with higher CSR committee effectiveness are more likely to seek external assurance provided by the Big4 accountancy firms and acquire financial audit and CSR assurance services from the same provider. Taken together, CSR committee effectiveness plays an active role in CSR assurance services. Our results are particularly relevant to those with interests in understanding the demand and choice of external CSR assurance services, as well as the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on these services.     

Audit committee characteristics and firm performance during the global financial crisis

We address the question ‘do governance enhancing audit committee (AC) characteristics mitigate the firm performance impact of significant‐adverse‐economic events such as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)?’ Our analysis reveals that smaller audit committees with more experience and financial expertise are more likely to be associated with positive firm performance in the market. We also find that longer serving chairs of audit committees negatively impacts accounting performance. However, accounting performance is positively impacted where ACs include blockholder representation, the chair of the board, whose members have more external directorships and whose chair has more years of managerial experience. We contribute to the growing body of research on the impact of audit committee governance attributes on performance during times of financial distress.     

Ineffective corporate governance: Director busyness and board committee memberships

Our paper examines whether holding multiple outside board seats compromises a director’s ability to effectively perform monitoring duties. Analyzing over 1400 firms, we report that individuals who hold more outside directorships serve on fewer board committees. The relation, however, appears non-linear, U-shaped, and in support for both the busyness and the reputation hypotheses. In addition, we find that holding more outside board seats decreases the likelihood of membership on compensation and audit committees. The findings substantiate evidence [Akhigbe, A., Martin, A.D., 2006. Valuation impact of Sarbanes–Oxley: Evidence from disclosure and governance within the financial services industry. Journal of Banking and Finance 30 (3), 989–1006] of value relevance of board committee structures. Additional analysis of committee memberships suggests that women and ethnic minorities are placed on more board committees. Also, directors on smaller and independent boards serve on more committees. Finally, it appears that the Sarbanes–Oxley act had a material impact on the association between the number of multiple board seats and committee memberships.     

Internal governance structures and earnings management

This paper investigates the role of a firm's internal governance structure in constraining earnings management. It is hypothesized that the practice of earnings management is systematically related to the strength of internal corporate governance mechanisms, including the board of directors, the audit committee, the internal audit function and the choice of external auditor. Based on a broad cross‐sectional sample of 434 listed Australian firms, for the financial year ending in 2000, a majority of non‐executive directors on the board and on the audit committee are found to be significantly associated with a lower likelihood of earnings management, as measured by the absolute level of discretionary accruals. The voluntary establishment of an internal audit function and the choice of auditor are not significantly related to a reduction in the level of discretionary accruals. Our additional analysis, using small increases in earnings as a measure of earnings management, also found a negative association between this measure and the existence of an audit committee.     

Subordinate board structures

The board of directors is a flat governance structure where each director has an equal vote in determining the collective actions taken by the group. Yet, some boards choose to delegate authority for specific tasks to numerous committees, while others choose to create relatively few subcommittees of the board. We investigate the determinants of subordinate board structures, exploring both their benefits and costs. Using a sample of the S&P 1500 we find that subordinate board structures are positively related to board size and the proportion of outside directors, even after controlling firm characteristics such as complexity and ownership structure. Further tests indicate that these board structures can offset the negative associations that board size and the proportion of outsiders can have with firm performance. Yet, in firms with relatively small or insider oriented boards, where co-ordination problems among directors or social loafing may be less pronounced, we find that subordinate board structures are negatively related to firm performance. Categorizing committees as either monitoring or advisory, we find that both types of committees appear related to firm performance. Taken as whole, these results are consistent with the idea that subordinate board structures can be a costly remedy to alleviate problems that arise with larger, more outsider dominated boards.     

Corporate governance and risk management: The role of risk management and compensation committees

This paper examines the role of compensation and risk committees in managing and monitoring the risk behaviour of Australian financial firms in the period leading up to the global financial crisis (2006–2008). This empirical study of 711 observations of financial sector firms demonstrates how the coordination of risk management and compensation committees reduces information asymmetry. The study shows that the composition of the risk and compensation committees is positively associated with risk, which, in turn, is associated with firm performance. More importantly, information asymmetry is reduced when a director is a member of both the risk and compensation committees which moderate the negative association between risk and firm performance for firms with high risk.     

On the demand for independent and active audit committees

We extend the literature on director independence and the role of the board by focusing on the importance of audit committees in the contracting process. We find that the demand for independent and active audit committees is positively related to the demand for accounting certification. In particular, we find that the likelihood of a firm having a completely independent and active audit committee is negatively related to firm growth opportunities and managerial ownership and positively related to firm size and leverage. Our results suggest that audit committees are an important organizational construct related to the demand for accounting certification.     

Voluntary adoption of board risk committees and financial constraints risk

To improve risk management processes, policymakers around the world have encouraged firms to invest in improving risk oversight and governance practices, such as adoption of a board risk committee (BRC). This paper examines whether adoption of a BRC improves a firm's access to capital by reducing financial constraints risk. Using a sample of 28,265 observations from listed firms in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017, we find voluntary adoption of a BRC significantly reduces financial constraints risk. This finding is robust to alternative proxies of financial constraints risk, accounting for sample selection bias and controlling for unobserved firm-level heterogeneity. We also find that BRC characteristics including size, financial experts and female directors are negatively related to financial constraints risk. In addition, we document significant indirect effects of BRCs on financial constraints risk through reducing information asymmetry and agency costs. In summary, the findings of this paper indicate that voluntary adoption of a BRC is important for listed firms without an effective risk governance structure at the board level.