Search results

Within the context of public sector accountability, the purpose of this paper is to examine South African state-owned enterprises (SOEs) auditing practices and how they have contributed to mitigating prevalent corporate governance issues in South African SOEs.

This paper utilised a thematic content analysis of archival documents relating to South African SOEs. Firstly, to assess the extent to which the auditing dimension of the corporate governance codes, applicable to South African SOEs, conforms with best practices. Secondly, to determine the extent to which the audit practices of all the 21 South African SOEs listed in Schedule 2 of the Public Finance Management Act, have implemented the identified best audit practices.

The findings suggest that South African SOEs appear to have adopted and implemented best audit practices to enhance the quality of their accountability in relation to their corporate governance practices, as contained in their applicable corporate governance frameworks. However, despite the high levels of conformance, the observation that most South African SOEs continue to fail and require government bailouts, appears to suggest that auditing has no bearing on poor SOE performance, and that other corporate governance factors may be at play.

The discussion and findings in this paper suggest that the auditing practices of South African SOEs are adequate. However, that SOEs in South Africa continue to be loss-making may imply that this has contributed little to mitigating their corporate governance problems. Thus, policymakers and standard setters, including the Institute of Directors South Africa and relevant oversight bodies should pay attention to better developing means by which to curtail fruitless and wasteful expenditures by South African SOEs through improved corporate governance practices.

Most SOEs’ mission statements encourage SOEs to be socially responsible and utilise taxpayers’ monies efficiently and effectively without engaging in fruitless and wasteful expenditure. This study is conceived in this light.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, while acknowledging previous studies, this paper is the first to explore this topic in the context of SOEs and in the context of Africa.

Foreign subsidiaries incur substantial institutional conformity costs because they have to respond to host-country institutional pressures (Slangen & Hennart, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to study this type of cost from institutional and regulatory perspectives. The authors argue that these costs decrease when the host country adopts concepts of international regulations that multinationals may be familiar with due to their own home country regulation experience. This prior regulatory experience gives foreign subsidiaries an advantage of foreignness (AoF), which can offset their liability of foreignness (LoF).

This study compared the returns on assets of 35 domestic firms with those of foreign subsidiaries in the Brazilian energy industry between 2002 and 2021, using regression dynamic panel data.

The existence of a relationship between the international regulatory norm and the Brazilian regulator has transformed the LoF into an advantage of foreignness to compete with local energy firms. The results also suggest that the better the regulatory quality of the subsidiary’s country of origin, the better its performance in Brazil, as it can reduce compliance costs. Finally, the greater the psychic distance between Brazil and the foreign subsidiary’s home country, the worse its performance.

The research suggests that one of the keys to competitiveness in host countries is local regulatory ties. Prior international regulatory experience gives foreign subsidiaries an asset of foreignness (AoF). This result complements the current institutional and regulatory foreignness studies on emerging economies (Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; Mallon et al., 2022) and the institutional asymmetry between home and host country (Mallon & Fainshmidt, 2017).

This research suggests that one of the keys to competitiveness in host countries is local regulatory ties. Prior international regulatory experience gives foreign subsidiaries an asset of foreignness (AoF). This result complements the current institutional and regulatory foreignness studies on emerging economies (Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; Mallon et al., 2022) and the institutional asymmetry between home and host country (Mallon & Fainshmidt, 2017). The practical implication is that the relationship between conformity costs, capital budget calculation and strategic planning for internationalization will be related to the governance quality of the home country of multinationals. The social implication is that a country interested in attracting more direct foreign investment to areas that need foreign technology transfer and resources may consider adopting international regulatory standards.

The social implication is that a country interested in attracting more direct foreign investment to areas that need foreign technology transfer and resources may consider adopting international regulatory standards.

This research discuss firm and local regulator tie is one of core competitiveness in host countries (Yang and Meyer, 2020). This study also complements the current institutional and regulatory foreignness studies in emerging economy (Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; Mallon et al., 2022). Second, prior regulatory experience of multinational enterprise in similar environment can affect its foreign affiliate performance (Perkins, 2014). Third, this study confirms current literature that argues that knowledge and ability to operate in an institutionalized country can be transferred from parent to affiliate. In the end, this study investigates whether AoF persists when host governments improve the governance of their industries.

Despite agreement on the importance of adopting governance structures for developing competitive advantage, we still know little about why or how governance mechanisms are adopted in the first place. We also acknowledge that family businesses with formal governance mechanisms in place still resort to informal means to make decisions, and we lack knowledge about why certain governance mechanisms are sometimes, but not always, effective and functional. Given these research gaps, and drawing on institutional theory, we aim to explore: How are governance structures adopted and developed in family firms? Once adopted, how do family businesses perceive these governance structures?

Using Mokken Scale Analysis, a method suitable to uncover patterns/sequences of adoption/acquisition over time, we analyze a dataset of 1,488 Spanish family firms to explore if there is a specific pattern in the implementation of governance structures. We complement the analysis with descriptive data about perceived usefulness of such structures.

Our findings highlight two important issues. Family businesses follow a specific process implementing first business governance (board of directors, then executive committee), followed by family governance (family council then family constitution). We suggest they do so in response to institutional pressures, given the exposure they have to business practices, and their need to appear legitimate. Despite formal adoption of governance structures, family businesses do not necessarily consider them useful. We suggest that their perception about the usefulness of the implemented governance structures may lead to their ceremonial adoption, resulting in a gap between the implementation and functionality of such structures.

Our article contributes to the family business literature by bringing novel insights about implementation of governance structures. We take a step back to explain why these governance mechanisms were adopted in the first place. Using institutional theory we enrich governance and family business literatures, by offering a lens that explains why family businesses follow a specific process in adopting governance structures. We also offer a plausible explanation as to why governance structures are ineffective in achieving their theorized role in the context of family businesses, based on the family's perception of the unusefulness of such structures, and the concept of ceremonial adoption.

There is no single recipe that can serve the multiple needs of different family businesses. This indicates that family businesses may need diverse levels of development and order when setting up their governance structures. Accordingly, this study constitutes an important point of demarcation for practitioners interested in examining the effectiveness of governance structures in family firms. We show that an important pre-requisite for examining the effectiveness of governance structures is to start by investigating whether these structures are actually being used or are only adopted ceremonially.

Our paper expands current knowledge on governance in family firms by taking a step back hinting at why are governance structures adopted in the first place. Focusing on how governance is implemented in terms of sequence is novel and relevant for researcher and practitioners to understand how this process unfolds. Our study uses institutional theory, which is a strong theory to support the results. Our paper also uses a novel method to study governance structures in family firms.

The study endeavours to determine (1) whether the disposition effect exists among South African investor teams, (2) whether it is causally intensified by a set of psychosocial factors and (3) whether the disposition effect causally reduces investor welfare.

Following a natural field experimentation design involving a sample of investor teams participating in the 2019 run of the JSE University Investment Challenge, the authors use regression adjustments as well as bootstrap tests to investigate the casual implications of a set of psychosocial factors on the intensity of the disposition effect, as well on the attenuation of market-adjusted ex post returns (i.e. investor welfare).

South African investor teams are susceptible to the disposition effect, and their susceptibility to the bias is associated with attenuated investor welfare. Furthermore, low female representation in an investor team causally intensifies the disposition effect, subsequently leading to a causal reduction in investor welfare.

Using evidence from real-world observation, the authors contribute to the literature on team gender diversity and investment decision-making, and – using Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions – the authors offer a comprehensive account for how differences in culture may lead to differences in gender-related disposition effects across different nationalities. The authors also introduce to the literature experimental evidence from the field that clearly demonstrates that – among South African investor teams – a causal relationship exists (1) between female representation and the disposition effect, and (2) between the disposition effect and investor welfare.