Do women directors improve firm performance in China?

This paper examines the effect of board gender diversity on firm performance in China's listed firms from 1999 to 2011. We document a positive and significant relation between board gender diversity and firm performance. Female executive directors have a stronger positive effect on firm performance than female independent directors, indicating that the executive effect outweighs the monitoring effect. Moreover, boards with three or more female directors have a stronger impact on firm performance than boards with two or fewer female directors, consistent with the critical mass theory. Finally, we find that the impact of female directors on firm performance is significant in legal person-controlled firms but insignificant in state-controlled firms. This paper sheds new light on China's boardroom dynamics. As governments increasingly contemplate board gender diversity policies, our study offers useful empirical guidance to Chinese regulators on the issue.     

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.     

Board composition,grey directors and corporate failure in the UK

This study examines the effect of board composition on the likelihood of corporate failure in the UK. We consider both independent and non-independent (grey) non-executive directors (NEDs) to enhance our understanding of the impact of NEDs' personal or economic ties with the firm and its management on firm performance. We find that firms with a larger proportion of grey directors on their boards are less likely to fail. Furthermore, the probability of corporate failure is lower both when firms have a higher proportion of grey directors relative to executive directors and when they have a higher proportion of grey directors relative to independent directors. Conversely, there is a positive relationship between the likelihood of corporate failure and the proportion of independent directors on corporate boards. The findings discussed in this study support the collaborative board model and the view that corporate governance reform efforts may have over emphasised the monitoring function of independent directors and underestimated the benefits of NEDs' affiliations with the firm and its management.     

Do Co‐Opted Directors Influence Dividend Policy?

We explore how co‐opted directors affect dividend policy. Co‐opted directors are those appointed after the incumbent chief executive officer (CEO) assumes office. Our results show that co‐opted directors lead to a weaker propensity to pay dividends and, for dividend‐paying firms, significantly lower dividend payouts. We also show that board co‐option has more explanatory power for dividend policy than does the traditional measure of board effectiveness, that is, board independence. Exploiting the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act as a natural experiment, we show that the effect of board co‐option on dividend policy is more likely causal, rather than merely an association.     

Social Concentration on Boards,Corporate Information Environment and Cost of Capital

Prior evidence on the relationship between demographic diversity in corporate boards and firm performance is mixed. Some studies have found that the relationship between board attributes and firm performance is driven by a firm's information environment. This study examines whether corporate transparency also impacts the relationship between gender and ethnic diversity of directors and firm performance. To test this hypothesis, I use a Herfindahl Index based on directors’ gender and ethnicity to measure board diversity, and an opacity index based on analyst following, analyst forecast error, bid‐ask spread, and share turnover to measure corporate transparency. I find that the cost of capital is positively associated with social concentration on corporate boards and that this premium is larger for highly opaque firms. In further analysis, I find that the interaction of corporate information environment and social concentration on boards is more important for operationally complex firms. Compared with simple firms, operationally complex firms pay a greater premium on their capital if they have a socially concentrated board and an opaque information environment.     

Independent technical directors and their effect on corporate innovation in China

As outside advisors, independent directors serve as both consultants and monitors. Based on empirical studies of corporate innovation and independent directors, we used data from listed firms in China from 2007 to 2017 to examine the effect of hiring independent technical directors on the board of directors. This study focused on a firm’s innovation performance and the extent to which this performance is influenced by the relevance of a director’s expertise to the activities of the firm. The results show that when the technical expertise of an independent director is relevant to the operational field of the firm, the firm should perform better in terms of innovation. This result is still significant when applying the two-stage instrumental variable method, showing a higher significance when using the exogenous event of the 2014 Wenfeng.plc case. Moreover, independent technical directors influence innovation primarily by encouraging firms to deepen their current field of research rather than expanding to other fields. Our findings can guide corporations to hire more relevant independent technical directors and can help the government design more accurate policies that promote innovation and entrepreneurship.     

The Effect of Board Diversity on Earnings Quality: An Empirical Study of Listed Firms in Vietnam

Previous studies have established that firms’ effectiveness can differ based on the differences among directors within a board, and between boards. However, studies have yet to establish the effectiveness of the diverse attributes of the board on firms’ quality of earnings in an emerging market setting such as Vietnam. This study investigates the effect of board diversity on earnings quality in a sample of Vietnamese listed firms. The two dimensions of board diversity measures in this study cover a wide range of structural and demographic attributes of board of directors, using a diversity‐of‐boards index (dissimilarities among firm boards, i.e., board structure) and a diversity‐in‐boards index (dissimilarities among directors within a board, i.e., demographic attributes of board members). Earnings quality is an aggregate measure compiled from four accounting‐based measures of earnings quality: accruals quality, earnings persistence, earnings predictability and earnings smoothness. We find a significant, positive linear relationship between diversity of boards and earnings quality, while the relationship between diversity in boards and earnings quality is non‐linear, with a U‐shaped curve.     

Independent boards and innovation

Much research has suggested that independent boards of directors are more effective in reducing agency costs and improving firm governance. How they influence innovation is less clear. Relying on regulatory changes, we show that firms that transition to independent boards focus on more crowded and familiar areas of technology. They patent and claim more and receive more total future citations to their patents. However, the citation increase comes mainly from incremental patents in the middle of the citation distribution; the numbers of uncited and highly cited patents—arguably associated with riskier innovation strategies—do not change significantly.     

Board and Monitoring Committee Independence

This study focuses on the composition of boards of directors and their monitoring committees (audit and compensation) for large Australian companies. For firms whose boards use a committee structure, much of the monitoring responsibility of the board is expected to rest with the independent committee members. We document a positive association between the proportion of independent directors on the full board and its monitoring committees, and a greater proportion of independent directors on both audit and compensation committees than the full board. Our hypotheses tests involve an examination of the impact of other mechanisms used to control agency conflicts on full board and committee independence, and the association between this independence and firm value. We find that full board independence is associated with low management ownership and an absence of substantial shareholders. Audit committee independence is associated with reduced monitoring by debtholders when leverage is low. While we predict a positive relationship between board and monitoring committee independence and firm value, our results do not support this conjecture.     

Do Women and Ethnic Minority Directors Influence Firm Value? Evidence from Post‐Apartheid South Africa

Previous studies on the value relevance of board gender and ethnic diversity have produced mixed results. This paper re‐examines this relationship using hand‐collected data of 245 South African listed firms over the period 2008–2013. We document a positive and significant effect of both board gender and ethnic diversity on firm value. We also find that the increase in firm value is greater when boards have three or more women directors. In contrast, ethnic minority directors contribute less to firm value when there are three or more on the board. Furthermore, we document that ethnicity has a concave relationship with firm value, but gender does not. We demonstrate that in better‐governed firms, ethnic diversity is more value relevant than gender diversity. Our results also suggest that financial crisis is associated with the propensity to restructure boards along gender and ethnicity. This paper sheds new light on the effect of board diversity in South African firms as the government increasingly pursues policies aimed at eradicating the effects of apartheid. Our results are robust after controlling for self‐selection and various forms of endogeneity.     

Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance

We show that female directors have a significant impact on board inputs and firm outcomes. In a sample of US firms, we find that female directors have better attendance records than male directors, male directors have fewer attendance problems the more gender-diverse the board is, and women are more likely to join monitoring committees. These results suggest that gender-diverse boards allocate more effort to monitoring. Accordingly, we find that chief executive officer turnover is more sensitive to stock performance and directors receive more equity-based compensation in firms with more gender-diverse boards. However, the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative. This negative effect is driven by companies with fewer takeover defenses. Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms.     

Monitoring,Corporate Performance and Institutional Directors

Our main objective is to study the effect of institutional directors on firm performance, distinguishing directors according to whether they maintain business relationships (pressure‐sensitive) or not (pressure‐resistant). Our results show that in weak regulatory and low investor protection environments, institutional directors have a negative impact on corporate performance. Our evidence shows that this negative effect is mainly driven by the role of pressure‐resistant directors and not for those directors representing mainly banks and other financial institutions with a long‐term investment horizon. These findings have implications for numerous parties, such as institutional investors, regulators, potential new board members and other corporate governance reform proponents, who frequently examine board characteristics to assess the effectiveness of boards in value‐creation policies.     

Better directors or distracted directors? An international analysis of busy boards

This study examines the effect of busy directors and boards on the value of a set of non-U.S. firms from 1999 to 2012. We find that busy directors and boards are a global phenomenon, but that national culture helps to explain the cross-sectional variation in director and board busyness. Firms with busy boards exhibit lower market-to-book ratios and reduced profitability, but this effect is reversed for younger firms. We conclude that the advising ability of these networked directors is most useful for younger firms. A demographic analysis shows that multiple directorships are positively associated with firm performance and education, but negatively associated with female directors.     

It Takes Two: The Incidence and Effectiveness of Co‐CEOs

This study examines the phenomenon of co‐CEOs within publicly traded firms. Although shared executive leadership is not widespread, it occurs within some very prominent firms. We find that co‐CEOs generally complement each other in terms of educational background or executive responsibilities. Our results show that firms most likely to appoint co‐CEOs have lower leverage, a more limited firm focus, less independent board structure, fewer advising directors, lower institutional ownership, and greater levels of merger activity. The governance structure of co‐CEO firms suggests that co‐CEOships can serve as an alternative governance mechanism, with co‐CEO mutual monitoring substituting for board or external monitoring and co‐CEO complementary skills substituting for board advising. An event study indicates that the market reacts positively to appointments of co‐CEOs while a propensity score analysis shows that the presence of co‐CEOs increases firm valuation.     

The Effects of Outside Directors and Board Shareholdings on the Relation Between Chief Executive Compensation and Firm Performance

Critics of corporate governance have suggested that improvements in board monitoring will arise from more independent boards consisting of outside directors and from increased stock ownership by directors. Presumably these changes should result in more rational, more defensible compensation decisions in which pay is clearly tied to results. In this paper, we test the premise that boards with a relatively higher proportion of outsiders and boards with significant shareholdings maintain a closer link between corporate performance and executive pay than do boards with fewer outsiders and boards holding little stock. The results of the study, based on a sample of 268 large corporations, are mixed. As expected, boards with significant shareholdings maintain a stronger linkage between compensation and firm-level performance. This finding persists even after controls are included for CEO and outsider shareholdings. Contrary to expectations, however, evidence was not found that firms with a higher proportion of outsiders on the board of directors relate compensation more strongly to firm results.     

Do corporate boards matter during the current financial crisis?

This study examines the impact of corporate boards on firm performance during the current financial crisis. Using buy-and-hold abnormal returns over the crisis to measure firm performance, we find that board independence, as traditionally defined, does not significantly affect firm performance. However, when we redefine independent directors as outside directors who are less connected with current CEOs, a measure we call strong independence, there is a positive and significant relationship between this measure and firm performance. Second, outside financial experts are important for firm performance. We find that the positive impact of outside financial experts on firm performance is more significant than that of strong independence. Overall, our results suggest that firm performance during a crisis is a function of firm-level differences in corporate boards.     

The impact of cultural diversity in corporate boards on firm performance

We examine the impact of cultural diversity in boards of directors on firm performance. We construct a measure of national cultural diversity by calculating the average of cultural distances between board members using Hofstede's culture framework. Our findings indicate that national cultural diversity in boards negatively affects firm performance measured by Tobin's Q and ROA. These results hold after controlling for potential endogeneity using firm fixed effects and instrumental variables regressions. Further, the results are robust to controlling for a wide range of board and firm characteristics, including various measures of “foreignness” of the firm, alternative culture frameworks, and other measures of culture. The negative impact of cultural diversity on performance is mitigated by the complexity of the firm and the size of foreign sales and operations. In addition, we find that the negative effects of cultural diversity are concentrated among the independent directors. Finally, we find that not all aspects of cultural differences are equally important and that it is mainly the diversity in individualism and masculinity that affects the effectiveness of boards of directors.     

Audit committee composition and the use of an industry specialist audit firm

Independent, competent boards of directors and audit committees are said to be important mechanisms of corporate governance. The purpose of the present study is to empirically examine the association between audit committee composition and audit quality. Specifically, the link between the proportion of non‐executive directors on an audit committee, financial qualifications of directors and the number of audit committee meetings held in a year are investigated and expected to have a positive association with the quality of the audit firm used. Audit quality is proxied by industry specialization. The results support the link between a higher proportion of non‐executive directors on an audit committee and use of an industry specialist audit firm. Other measures of audit committee quality (those with a higher proportion of directors with financial qualifications and those that meet more frequently) are not significantly associated with the use of an industry specialist audit firm. Sensitivity analysis shows that the presence of an audit committee is linked to use of an industry specialist audit firm.     

Board gender diversity and firm risk in UK private firms

This research aims to investigate the effect of board gender diversity on private firm risk. Using a sample of 27,352 UK private firms from 2005 to 2017, we report a negative association between board gender diversity and firm risk. In particular, we find that risk reduction is associated with women owner directors who may have a stronger incentive for better risk management. Firm risk is lower (higher) for boards with local (foreign) women directors suggesting that local market knowledge is more valuable for private firms. Lower director busyness in gender diverse boards is the channel that enables women directors to reduce firm risk by directing more attention to fiduciary responsibilities. Additional analysis reveals that more risky, small to medium-sized firms benefit the most from gender-diverse boards. Our findings are robust to alternate risk measurements and endogeneity corrections.     

An Analysis of Changes in Board Structure during Corporate Governance Reforms

This study examines the evolution of company board structure during a period of corporate governance reform. Using data over a time period following the publication of the Cadbury Report (1992) we present evidence of an increase in the independence of UK boards, as measured by an increased willingness to employ independent non‐executive directors, and to separate the positions of the CEO and the Chairman of the Board. In examining the determinants of these changes, we find that boards change more readily in response to changes in managerial control, equity issuance and corporate performance than changes in the firm‐specific operating environment of companies.