Search results

This article investigated whether the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demands for higher corporate voluntary disclosures. Moreover, the study also examined the moderating role of the auditor's reputation in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The study used a sample of S&P BSE index constituents' 90 Indian firms for 2017–2019. The voluntary disclosure scores were fetched from the India Disclosure Index Report published by FTI Consulting. This analysis was carried out in two parts by applying four panel-data regression models in the agency and signalling theories framework. First, the study examined the association between executive compensation, board strength, composition, gender diversity, and voluntary disclosures. Second, the article investigated the moderating role of the “Big 4” in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The willingness of executives to share private information with stakeholders depends on the compensation they receive from their employer. The higher compensation paid to executives leads to a higher “tone from the top,” which is better aligned with stakeholder interests. Further, the research also found that bigger board sizes, a higher proportion of independent and woman directors (indicators of good governance), and an auditor's reputation are associated with increased voluntary disclosure.

The findings showed that the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demand for higher voluntary information from firms. Moreover, the study also found that the “Big 4” play a moderating role in this direction. The choice of a reputed auditor indicates the firms' long-term positive future perspectives, which strengthens investor confidence in the financial market.

The study suggests that fair executive compensation can address the agency problem.

This research furnishes managers and different stakeholders with significant implications of executives' compensation, corporate governance, and auditor's reputation in the best interests of a firm through reducing potential risks of information asymmetry.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of the increase in firms’ reporting of alternative pay measures in Pay for Performance disclosures and their role in subsequent Say on Pay approval.

This study explores the most common types of supplemental compensation disclosures used in Pay for Performance discussions using a hand-collected sample of S&P 500 proxy statements from 2012-2014. The sample compares key characteristics of firms reporting “pocketed” pay, “market-value” pay, and “peer comparison” percentile ranking pay compared to firms that do not use these alternatives.

Results suggest that firms use alternative pay measures in their Pay for Performance disclosures for different reasons. While “pocketed” pay reporters show characteristics of opportunistic disclosures and “peer comparison” reporters tend toward informative disclosure, there is often a significant positive impact of disclosing additional compensation information on Say on Pay approval when combating prior poor Say on Pay support. However, the effect seems most significant for peer comparisons, indicating the value of reporting comparative pay.

This study provides insights into the increasing use of alternative pay measures, and through these measures, identifies an additional mechanism of firms’ responses to Say on Pay votes. In addition, this study highlights the importance of standardized Pay for Performance disclosures to improve informativeness and comparability in financial reporting across firms. Finally, the study provides additional evidence of opportunistic disclosure by firms in order to preserve executive pay.

This work provides an empirical analysis to determine whether directors’ compensation is lower (“transparency control effect” and “transparency deterrent effect”) or higher (“effects of transparency on increasing competition in pay”) among firms with greater transparency in terms of directors’ compensation.

A disclosure index about board compensation and different models based on linear panel-data regression have been developed, on a sample of 73 Spanish firms for the period 2007–2012.

Our results suggest that disclosure on pay strategy to directors leads to an increase in directors’ compensation, therefore, in this case, the effect of transparency on increasing competition in pay seems to prevail. Conversely, the disclosure on individual directors’ compensation and payment leads to a decrement in directors’ compensation, prevailing the transparency control effect and transparency deterrent effect.

The results of this study might be of interest to investors (to take into account these effects before they implement additional corporate governance reforms) and regulators (to be aware of the importance of this issue).

First, we study the effect that transparency and voluntary disclosure regarding board compensation has on the level of directors’ compensation. Second, in this study we go one step further in the transparency of board compensation disclosures by constructing a disclosure index. Finally, the results contribute to the necessary debate that is currently taking place in the Spanish, European and international context regarding this issue.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between board of directors' independence and executive compensation disclosures transparency.

The paper examines compensation disclosure practices of a sample of 181 firms listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Board independence from management is assessed through an aggregate score which takes into account the proportion of independent directors, board leadership structure (i.e. CEO is the board chairperson), and the existence and independence of board committees. A cross‐sectional regression analysis is used to examine the relationship between board independence and the extent of compensation disclosure.

The paper finds that board independence from management is positively related to the transparency of executive compensation‐related information. In addition, this study documents a positive (negative) relation between firm size, US cross‐listing, growth opportunities (leverage) and the extent of executive compensation disclosure.

The study's results provide support to the managerial opportunism hypothesis in executive compensation. These findings highlight the importance of the board of directors as an effective governance mechanism which limits managerial rent‐seeking in the design as well as the disclosure of executive compensation practices.

This paper extends prior disclosure studies by examining the impact of board characteristics on the transparency of executive compensation disclosures in a principles‐based governance regime. Furthermore, executive compensation disclosure provides an interesting setting in which to examine the ability of the directors to act independently from managers in a conflict of interests situation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether proxy statement performance graph disclosures are influenced by the firm's governance structure and management concerns about relative performance.

Logistic regression is used to test whether the level of performance graph disclosure decreases with lower relative performance and higher insider director membership on the compensation committee of the board. Also, Z and t‐statistics test whether bias in the selected peer group benchmark is related to insider membership on the committee.

The empirical results suggest that reporting discretion was exercised for management's benefit. The amount of explicit disclosure on cumulative returns in the performance graph decreases as relative performance declines and decreases when insider directors serve on the compensation committee. Moreover, the presence of insider directors on the compensation committee is associated with a biased choice of peer group benchmark return.

The sample for the study consists of 141 large firms. Future research could examine a larger group of firms that vary in size or other disclosures.

These findings support recent actions taken to improve corporate governance. Further public policy steps could be taken. For example, the SEC could require firms to include an explanation for appointing insiders to the compensation committee.

The results are consistent with managers using discretion over information disclosures and suggest that compensation committees with insider members play a less active role in providing information that is helpful to shareholders.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) stock-based compensation has any relationship with disclosure of high proprietary information.

Drawing on agency and proprietary cost theory, this study examines whether compensating CEOs based on equity value through the grants of stock option and restricted stock will affect different firms with high proprietary costs versus general costs of disclosures. The authors further explore the cross-sectional variation on the relationship between stock-based compensation and disclosures of high proprietary cost information. In particular, the authors examine certain circumstances under which stock-based compensation has a stronger effect in discouraging managers to make disclosures of product-related information. This study conducts an empirical investigation on the relationship by using hand-collected data on the product-related disclosures of biotechnology firms and by developing new disclosure indices to capture the product developments in the preclinical and clinical stages.

The authors find that on average, managers’ stock-based compensation does not have any significant relationship with the proxy of high proprietary disclosure index. More importantly, the authors find that managers with more equity-based compensation (in the total pay) make fewer disclosures of high proprietary cost information when they have a stronger need to protect such information. Specifically, the authors find a negative relationship between equity-based compensation and managers’ disclosure of high proprietary cost information when their firms’ product development is in early stage, when the corporate board mainly consists of directors with lack of sufficient knowledge on technology, and when firms are a leader in an industry in terms of market share.

The authors acknowledge two limitations of the current study. First, the authors cannot completely rule out the possibility that the results are still subject to endogeneity issues such as reverse causality or omitted correlated variables even though the authors control for other important variables that affect disclosures and granting of stock-based compensation (including firm size, leverage, analyst following, institutional ownership and corporate governance) and use the lagged variable of stock-based compensation in the regression model. Second, given that the authors examine a small sample (only 10 per cent of firms in the biotechnology industry) due to the required hand-collection of product-related information, the generalizability of the results may be limited.

The study contributes to the literature in two important ways. First, the findings can add to the literature on the effect of stock-based compensation on managers’ disclosures. While previous studies suggest that compensating via stock options and restricted stocks can incentivize managers in enhancing firm disclosures in general (e.g. Nagar et al., 2003), the authors provide evidence suggesting that it may not always be the case. When disclosing information involves high proprietary cost, stock-based compensation can sometimes motivate managers not to reveal information. The study also complements Erkens (2011), who finds that firms offer stock-based compensation to their managers as an attempt to prevent the leakage of research and development (R&D)-related information to competitors. Second, the study can contribute to the extant literature that examines the importance of proprietary costs on firms’ disclosure decisions. The authors attempt to respond to the call for more research in this area (Beyer et al., 2010) by focusing on one specific industry, the biotech industry and by using a novel proxy for the proprietary costs based on the stage of product development for a drug-related product in that industry. As it has been challenging for researchers to properly measure proprietary costs of disclosures, the setting of the biotech industry provides a particularly strong empirical identification to potentially pinpoint the proprietary costs.

Many companies use competition for either monetary or non-monetary rewards to induce employee effort. Pitting employees against each other in a competition could come at a thus far insufficiently considered cost of leading to lower employee cooperation. The authors examine how competition for monetary rewards in the form of tournament incentives or non-monetary rewards in the form of standing in uncompensated public rankings affects employee cooperation with former competitors in a subsequent task where the extent of the cooperation does not affect the welfare or social standing of the person deciding to cooperate. The authors hypothesize that competition in the first task negatively affects cooperation in the second task. The authors further predict that competition leads to psychological pressure, which mediates differences in cooperation. The results support the authors’ hypotheses. In addition, the authors find that the decrease in cooperation results from the behavior of low performers, whereas cooperation by high performers is not affected. The findings are important because they show that inducing effort in one dimension leads to an unintended cost in the form of lower cooperation in another dimension. This cost occurs for both types of competition – competition for monetary payoffs and for non-monetary rewards. Ultimately, the size of this cost depends on the marginal benefit from any cooperation of low performers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of disclosure of sales compensations on insurance brokers’ intention to make inappropriate product recommendations.

This research examines the insurance brokers’ intention to make inappropriate product recommendations through an application of the theory of planned behavior. Surveys are used as the research instrument, and the hypotheses are tested with a between-subjects experimental design. One case of mandatory disclosure and one case of non-mandatory disclosure are compared in the research.

The results indicate that the disclosure of sales compensations is significantly associated with the subjective norms from the official authority and perceived behavioral control (PBC). The results of this study also indicate that, when the disclosure is mandatory, the PBC has a stronger effect on the insurance brokers’ intention to make biased product recommendations than dose the attitude and subjective norms. When the disclosure is non-mandatory, however, the subjective norms have a stronger effect on the insurance brokers’ intention.

The impacts of compensation disclosures on the financial professionals’ product recommendations have been less examined. This study could make a contribution to the literature by providing some empirical observations from the views of Taiwan’s life insurance brokers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of a particular form of sponsorship disclaimer in sponsored content by social media influencers (SMIs), namely a sponsorship compensation justification disclosure. A sponsorship compensation justification disclosure explains why influencers and brands engage in sponsorship collaborations by providing a normative reason that justifies the existence and dissemination of sponsored content.

An experimental design was used to compare the effects of a sponsorship compensation justification disclosure made by either an influencer or the sponsoring brand, to a simple sponsorship disclosure and a no disclosure control post, on consumers’ responses to a product-review video by a YouTube influencer.

The paper offers empirical evidence that sponsorship compensation justification generates more positive consumer attitudes toward influencers receiving sponsorship compensation, and increases source and message credibility, compared to a simple sponsorship disclosure.

The hypotheses were tested on one YouTube video, comprising of a single product category, one SMI and one social media platform. Further studies might replicate the experiment on different product categories and on different social media platforms.

This empirical study can offer brand communication managers and influencers important information on how to communicate and design sponsorship disclosures to reach-desired responses from consumers.

The study is the first study to empirically demonstrate the effects of this particular type of sponsorship disclosure.

Extensively public concern on “Huge Executive Compensation” makes it urgent to investigate the reasonability of high executive compensation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of compensation contracting based on the specific responsibility of executives. More specifically, this paper is to examine whether high compensation is helpful to mitigate agency problems.

Considering that board secretaries of listed companies are responsible for information disclosure in China, this paper examines the effect of board secretaries’ excess compensation on firms’ disclosure quality using listed company data from 2007 to 2015. The first measure of disclosure quality is based on the disclosure violation behavior of firms, and the second is KV value that represents the extent to which the investors relay on the stock trading volume. To provide additional confidence that the findings are robust, this paper further conducts two indirect tests based on rumors and cost of equity capital.

The results show that board secretaries’ excess compensation is negatively associated with the probability of information disclosure violation and also negatively associated with firms’ KV value, suggesting firms that pay high compensation to their information providers are more likely to provide high-quality disclosures. Besides, this paper further finds that board secretaries’ excess compensation is negatively related to the incidence of rumors, the number of rumors incurred or the cost of equity capital.

Overall, the findings provide support to the efficient contracting of executive compensation, which implies that highly paid board secretaries would be better information providers than those poorly paid.

This paper provides empirical evidence that firms’ disclosure quality can be improved by modifying the compensation contract of information providers. This may indicate a new way to improve the quality of disclosures, so as to mitigate the agency problem.

In spite of the public criticism on executive excess compensation, the high compensation is not always a signal of manipulation, collusion and self-interest. It also can be a signal of individual talents and great efforts. Board secretaries are worth to be highly paid if they can improve firms’ disclosures, thereby reducing the incidence of rumors and reducing the cost of equity capital.

This paper is the first research to examine the effectiveness of compensation contracting based on information providers’ disclosure responsibility in the Chinese context. It documents a positive relation between board secretaries’ excess compensation and corporate disclosure quality.