Search results

We survey top managers of Fortune 1000 companies to learn if industry practitioners agree with the findings of academic research on specific corporate governance issues. We focus on board composition and size, executive/director compensation and ownership, firm performance, and other issues. The results suggest that the views of responding managers appear at odds with other empirical evidence provided in the literature on the majority of the issues examined. In addition, respondents are often unable to offer an opinion about whether they agree or disagree with specific corporate governance issues.

This study looks at board governance in Ontario hospitals.

We conducted a research of the hospitals’ websites and a survey of board directors to study the board structure and examine governance practice in Ontario hospitals.

The findings suggest that the board structure and process in Ontario hospitals are in compliance with Accreditation Canada’s Governance Standards, and such administrative controls are appropriate. Ontario hospital boards, in general, have fulfilled their key functions of governance in terms of working as an effective board; developing a clear direction; supporting the organization to achieve its mandate; maintaining positive relationships with external stakeholders; and being accountable and achieving sustainable results. Building knowledge through information is an area where improvement is needed.

Ontario hospitals have implemented appropriate administrative controls in terms of board composition and committee structure. The results of a survey of 99 board directors from over 25 hospitals suggest that directors, in general, have a good understanding of their governance role and relationship with senior management as well as the government. The findings are also supportive of good governance practice where executives manage and nonexecutive directors monitor the performance of the executives. According to the respondents, Ontario’s hospital boards are actively involved in setting the mission, strategic goals and objectives of their organizations, and they take appropriate steps to ensure that risk management, client safety, and quality improvements are incorporated in their governance and strategic planning process. In order to discharge their fiduciary duty effectively, respondents would like to have more information from different sources. This is an area where management accounting professionals can become involved such that relevant information from a variety of sources, especially external sources, are provided to board directors for decision making.

Ontario’s hospital sector has undertaken initiatives through research and publications to promote good governance practice. Such leadership is critical to ensure that directors have the competence and skills to discharge their duties and responsibilities diligently. Hospital boards should focus on renewal while ensuring that board directors are equipped for the challenging task of governing through professional development and continuing education.

Limitations related to the use of questionnaire applies to this research study. Self-selection bias and low response rate limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research can examine the behavior of directors in the boardroom and the impact of governance variables on hospital performance, such as quality of care and patient safety.

The authors examined the association between accountancy board composition in the continental United States and indicators of the supply of new accounting graduates. In particular, the authors studied the association between the number of CPAs as well as the number of college educators that serve on State Accountancy Boards (SAB) and two key indicators of the future supply of future accounting professionals – number of CPA exam takers and number of accounting graduates from AACSB-accredited accounting programs. The descriptive statistics by the authors show 30% of jurisdictions have at least one accounting PhD who serves on the board, and on average 75.6% of board members are CPAs. The authors found that both the number of CPAs and the number of accounting educators on SABs are positively associated with the number of CPA exam takers as well as the number of accounting graduates from AACSB accounting programs. This suggests that accountancy board composition might be an important factor in influencing the supply of future accounting professionals. This research suggests that more strategic focus on the composition of accountancy boards is one approach that might be used to increase the supply of future accounting professionals. This observation is important as the supply of accounting graduates has declined recently and the states, NASBA, the AICPA, accounting programs and firms are keenly interested in increasing the supply of new accounting professionals in the United States.

The aim of our study is to explore the nexus between the gender composition of board and firm financial performance. We use the data of 114 listed banks from 10 Asian emerging economies. Data were extracted from the DataStream for the year 2012–2021. We apply fixed effect model to analyze the data. In addition, we use generalized method of moments (GMM) to verify our main findings. We find that both proxies of board gender composition which are the proportion of female board members and the percentage of female executives on the board have a significant impact on banks' financial performance. Findings suggest that female representation on board provides more insights of monitoring and optimal advisory capabilities and, therefore, gender-diversified board enhances firm performance. Females are more active in business matters and take more interests to fulfill their responsibilities. The results of our study provide useful signals for corporate and regulatory policymakers. Board gender disparities between enterprises should be better understood by all stakeholders to have the optimal combination of board members that ultimately lead to better performance of the firm.

The change in CEO pay after their firms make large corporate investments is examined. Whether the change in CEO pay is a beneficial practice or harmful practice to firms is investigated.

A sample of firms that make large corporate investments is identified. For this sample, we identify the change in CEO pay before and after the investment, and we also measure the pay-for-size sensitivity of these investing firms.

For firms that make large corporate investments, CEOs get significantly more option grants when their firms’ stock returns are negative after the investments and these investing CEOs get more option grants than noninvesting CEOs.

The present study suggests that firms may have to increase CEO pay after large corporate investments to encourage investment. However, the results may also be consistent with an agency cost explanation. Future research should try to distinguish between the two explanations.

The study reveals a potential way to prevent CEOs from underinvesting.

The study provides important insights to shareholders on how to encourage CEOs to get their firms to invest, and on how to view CEO pay increases after their firms invest.

As there is inclusive evidence on relationship between board characteristics and firm performance in the Thai context, and mixed findings of this relationship are usually reported from previous studies, this study tries to clarify a reason for the mixed finding by determining the impact of board structures on different quantile levels of firm performance. Building on extant literature and using a developed econometric technique, the Quantile Analysis, on a sample of 446 listed firms in Thailand for a 15-year period ranging from 2000 to 2014, empirical evidence is provided which is consistent with prior studies that some characteristics of the board as the core mechanisms of corporate governance, i.e., board independence, board size, board meeting frequency, and dual role leadership on board, have significant influence on performance of Thai firms. In particular, when considering different quantile levels of firm performance, board structures are found to have different effects across quantile of performance distribution. Board independence and dual role leadership on board are found to have a significant influence on only moderate-performing firms, while board size and board meeting frequency are revealed as having significant impact on only firms with high-performance which need more effectiveness of the board in overseeing and supervising decision-making of the executives. Thus, these findings indicate that considering different quantile levels of firm performance for the board structures and performance relationship should be a reason of previous mixed findings. Moreover, the findings should be important information in encouraging better understanding an optimal governance system in Thailand for related stakeholders such as policymakers, corporate firms, and investors.

Following the optimal contracting hypothesis, this study investigates the issue of whether the board of director's ex ante choice to incorporate individual performance evaluation (IPE) measures into the CEO bonus plan rewards managerial decisions not reflected in measures of the firm's current financial performance. Empirical results provide evidence that the use of IPE in the CEO bonus plan is an increasing function of the proportion of outsider directors on the board and a decreasing function of the informativeness of financial performance measures. This study also demonstrates how the use of IPE in incentive contracting can explain CEO cash compensation that is not explained by the firm's current performance and governance variables. Finally, the CEO incentive cash compensation not explained by observable performance measures or governance structure is positively associated with firm future performance one year after its award. Overall, results support the optimal contracting hypothesis. IPE appears to be used to increase the informativeness of CEO actions and determine the level of current CEO cash incentive compensation.

The purpose of this general review is to enhance understanding of the importance of a corporation’s whole ethics of governance regime and the connection to governance practices. This connection is often missing from corporate governance discussion. There is need for better business community awareness of a well-developed ethics of governance regime guiding appropriate board structure and composition choices subject to firm age and size, understanding of how these choices evolve as the firm matures and grows, plus the benefits from more emphasis in this area for company director training and development. This paper synthesises the theoretical and empirical insight from the ethics and corporate governance literatures to give guidance on best practice for large, medium size and small stock exchange listed companies. This synthesis of the literature evidences that the preferred Australian Institute of Company Directors agency theory prescription for a corporate board is not always optimal. In terms of practical implications advice is given on sound choices on board composition, director selection, plus director training and development that will give the best probability of effective board decisions and strong firm performance – this is not ‘one size fits all’ corporations advice. Future research should focus on whole ethics of governance regimes and governance practices in place for companies that have succeeded compared with companies that have failed. This will improve understanding in this area. This is a substantial future research agenda item as deeper knowledge of this contrast may add significantly to understanding of corporate success and failure.