Search results

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.

This study aims to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on agency and resource dependency theories.

Using a panel data set of 788 firms listed in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Emerging Markets index from 2015 to 2020, the authors apply Panel-Corrected Standard Error estimation method to test the three proposed hypotheses and the two-stage least squares method is adopted for the endogenous test.

The results suggest that board-specific skills diversity (BSSD) and board independence (BIND) have a negative impact on systematic risk. On the other hand, board gender diversity does not affect systematic risk. The findings reinforce the relevance of board diversity for reducing systematic risk and offer valuable insights for policymakers and investors, suggesting that the presence of directors with specific skills and independent directors could reduce firms’ systematic risk.

The study extends the scope of agency and resource dependency theories by suggesting that the BSSD and BIND reduce agency costs and bring critical resources to the firm’s survival.

The findings support policymakers and managers in reducing systematic risk. In addition, the results demonstrate the importance of policies that encourage board diversity and BIND.

The study demonstrates how companies can reduce systematic risk through board diversity and BIND.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk only in emerging markets.

This study aims to examine the effects of top management team (TMT) heterogeneity and corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the firm risk of Bursa Malaysia listed firms. Also, this study examines the moderating effect of CSR between TMT heterogeneity and firm risk.

This study uses panel regression models to test the hypotheses. The sample of this study is Bursa Malaysia non-financial listed firms from 2013 to 2017 with 3,055 observations.

This study finds significant effects of TMT age and tenure heterogeneities on total risk. Effects on idiosyncratic risk are evident only within age heterogeneity. Further, this study finds negative effects of CSR on total and idiosyncratic risks. CSR significantly moderates the relationship between total TMT heterogeneity and firm systematic risk.

This study reduces the literature gap by providing useful insights on the effects of CSR activities and TMT heterogeneity on firm risk. The findings can also provide hints to investors to assist them in assessing firm risk based on TMT heterogeneity and firms’ CSR. This study can also benefit shareholders in their attempts to mitigate the risk of their portfolio by investing in firms that are socially responsible as firms with high CSR suffer lower total and idiosyncratic risks.

Previous studies have emphasised on the influence of TMT characteristics and CSR on firm performance. However, studies that investigate the effects of TMT heterogeneity and CSR on firm risk are limited in the context of Malaysia.

The world economy has experienced several economic downturns, and each phase emphasised that no industry is immune to inappropriate risk-management practices. Against the backdrop of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which had far more effects than a financial crisis, the existing paper reviewed the state of current research in the realm of corporate governance and risk-management practices.

This study rigorously followed a systematic approach in identifying, selecting and critically synthesising the existing literature on corporate governance and risk management. The review was carried out on the Web of Science and Scopus database until December 31, 2022. In total, 72 research works were examined and reviewed.

This systematic literature review showed that companies with strong governance mechanisms are less exposed to corporate risks. Several attributes, such as higher institutional ownership stakes, concentrated family ownership structures, lower CEO compensation and duality, higher presence of females in the management, better board dynamics in terms of independent boards and gender diversity are all strong mechanisms for mitigating risk. Additionally, socially responsible companies are better positioned to mitigate corporate risks. Furthermore, several themes emphasising the governance risk link have been identified to understand this domain further.

By analysing and synthesising existing corporate governance and risk-management themes, this study ascertained various research gaps that can be addressed in future studies. Furthermore, drawing on this paper's essential cues, researchers can significantly differentiate their work from existing ones in the field.

This paper sheds light on the impact of market risk measures on systemic risk. Market risk, which is captured by the volatility of stock market returns, is also decomposed into systematic and idiosyncratic risks.

The author uses the five-factor asset pricing model and systemic risk methodologies to derive market and systemic risk measures, respectively. Using a sample of 2,667 US banks for over 30 years and employing panel data estimation techniques, the author tests the said relationship.

It is shown that idiosyncratic risk can surge systemic risk, while systematic risk plays a less important role. Results survive a battery of tests, including different systemic risk measures, controlling causality and interacting with bank size, market fear and crisis periods.

These findings call for regulatory intervention, especially for large banks with high idiosyncratic risk.

This is the first paper that provides a more granular picture of the relationship between market and systemic risk from the US banking industry for more than 30 years.

This study aims to explore the impact of controversial firms’ corporate sustainability assessments on their risk exposure according to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) paradigm.

This study conducts a cross-sectional study using the ordinary least squares approach to test how corporate social responsibility practices affect firms’ risk exposure, testing the three single impacts of ESG components and the impact of an overall ESG assessment. This study considers the largest Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 stock market index companies and focus on a double-risk measurement – systematic and idiosyncratic – developing an empirical study on 132 controversial companies listed on the S&P index.

Empirical findings indicate that the overall ESG assessment and the environmental and social sub-dimensions decrease idiosyncratic firm risk. At the same time, no significant results are found according to the systematic risk component.

This study fits into the domain of risk management research, investigating whether additional and non-financial disclosures regarding sustainability issues decrease information asymmetries, improving investors’ decision-making and stakeholders’ relations. Prior literature has shown limited evidence on the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and firm risk based on controversial companies. The main contribution is to consider the controversy as an independent factor from the industry sector, given that the implications of CSP actions and practices are mainly firm-specific.

This study aims to examine the nexus of corporate governance with firms' financial risk-taking behavior under the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures in the context of non-financial listed firms of an emerging economy.

This study investigates the relationship between corporate governance as evaluated by an index and several financial risks, including idiosyncratic, default and systematic risks. The connection of corporate governance with financial risks is also studied while considering the moderation of CSR disclosures. The data are collected from 2014 to 2018 of 73 top 100-index listed non-financial firms of Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX). Panel regression fixed effect and 2-step generalized method of moments techniques are applied to confirm the hypothesis along with the diagnostic tests to confirm that all outcomes of models must be authentic and reliable.

The study’s findings confirm that enhancing the overall corporate governance measures resulted in an augment in the firm’s risk due to weak control and regulations prevailing in emerging economies. Moreover, CSR disclosures enhance stakeholder information, lessen information asymmetry about management policies and mitigate the risk associated with operational uncertainties.

This study has a practical implementation to policymakers that effective monitoring and controlling measures facilitate the corporate management for minimizing the financial risks. Further, the study’s findings shed light that implementing corporate governance measures is not enough to mitigate financial risks until supervisory measures in the form of CSR disclosures are not taken to analyse corporate governance effectiveness.

This paper enhances the key findings in the literature by examining the role of corporate governance measures with respect to firms’ financial risks considering the moderating role of CSR disclosures. Furthermore, this research adds to the body of knowledge regarding the implementation of monitoring measures that assist in the mitigation of firms’ financial risks hence firm value.

This study aims to verify the significance of Andersen (2008) corporate risk management (CRM) framework in Asian emerging markets (AEMs) to control firm risk and improve firm performance.

The cross-sectional analyses are performed on a sample of 4,609 firms across nine Asian emerging countries using 2SLS estimation technique.

The empirical findings show that the adoption of CRM not only enhances firm performance by increasing the firm ability to capitalize on the market opportunity but also plays a significant role in reducing firm risk. The findings of this study assert that by institutionalizing risk management practices into an integrated CRM framework, the firm can reap multiple benefits by maintaining better contractual agreements and strategic partnerships with key stakeholders.

The study shifts the focus of CRM away from Western countries toward AEMs, which has been afflicted by high risks and uncertainties. The effectiveness of CRM against firm risk is established by dividing firm risk into firm-specific risk and systematic risk. Furthermore, this study also establishes that CRM not only leads to high returns but also reduces firm operational and production costs. Overall, the study provides a compelling argument to implement CRM for improving organizational performance and managing risks in a strategic and integrated manner. The findings are also relevant to risk management practitioners, as well as to academicians interested in the broader fields of corporate finance and strategy.

Viewing the domestic downside risk as a “pushing” factor for outward foreign direct investment (OFDI), this study aims to examine the surge in Chinese cross-border acquisitions (CBAs) between 2008 and 2017, a unique window when private firms in China were allowed to conduct CBAs.

This study examines the effect of down-side risk on cross-border acquisition performance by using the sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2008 to 2017. Specifically, this study considers three kinds of systemic risk, systematic risk and idiosyncratic risk, and respectively examines their impact on CBAs activities; this study also investigates their subsequent results after CBAs activities. The contingency effect of state ownership on the above relationship is also discussed.

The findings reveal that pre-CBA systemic risk explains the volume of CBA activities; CBAs are followed by a reduction in systemic risk; the interactions between systemic risk and CBAs decrease with the level of state ownership; and the above results do not hold for traditional risk measures (i.e. systematic risk and idiosyncratic risk).

This study contributes to the literature by revealing the role of systemic risk as a “pushing” factor in the context of OFDI and suggesting an alternative explanation for CBAs from China: Chinese firms (especially private firms) took advantage of the rare opportunity between 2008 and 2017 given by the government to transfer assets overseas through CBA.

Despite the importance and prevalence of corporate political activities in modern organizations, there remains limited insight on the potential relationship between political contributions and companies’ risk-taking activities. This study aims to examine the relationship between monetary political contributions of firms and corporate risk-taking activities in the context of unstable political and economic environments.

The authors use a two-step system GMM estimation to investigate the subject using a cross-country sample of 307 firms from 22 countries covered over 2002–2017. In line with previous studies, the authors control for various corporate governance mechanisms, firm-level factors and country-level characteristics.

The findings demonstrate that firms that make monetary political contributions exhibit lower levels of risk as measured by different proxies for risks, namely, systematic, idiosyncratic and total risk.

The results suggest that political contributions can be a useful mechanism to mitigate risk exposure. Also, the use of different risk measures and other factors for robustness fosters a better understanding of political connectedness in a more contextualized and dynamic manner.

This study seeks to contribute to the debate surrounding corporate strategy, political connectedness and corporate risk-taking by using actual monetary political contributions as an explicit measure of political connection. This study furthers scholarly understanding on the dynamics of corporate political activities using political contributions in monetary terms as a measure of political connectedness and its impact on risk-taking. Furthermore, the authors explore this topic using insights from nonmarket strategy literature and studies on political contributions.