Does corporate governance beget firm performance in Fortune Global 500 companies?

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to determine the impact of corporate governance practices on the financial outcomes of Fortune Global 500 Companies, thus covering impact of geographical differences (USA and non-USA) as well. Design/methodology/approach The study is a quantitative research based on a positivist paradigm using deductive reasoning and secondary data collection. Data collection has been done from secondary sources (annual reports, Edgar submissions and financial statistics from renowned financial databases such as yahoo.finance, Bloomberg, Ycharts statistics and Morningstar. Data were collected for 8 years (2005-2012). Findings The study found a strong positive relationship between corporate governance and firm performance. Smaller board sizes are found to generate better firm performance in Fortune Global 500 Companies. Frequency of board meetings have also been found to have inverse relationship with firm performance. The study supports board independence to improve transparency in board decision-making process. CEO compensation has been found to have inverse relationship with firm performance. The robustness of our results has been measured with the usage of three dependent variables, and we have found same results with varying significance level. Research limitations/implications Due to selection of globally broad sample set qualitative aspects of corporate governance could not be covered. Nevertheless, there is a need to go beyond the quantitative techniques (secondary data) of measuring corporate governance mechanisms. Practical implications The population set is unique combination of big players and global diversification. Hence, the corporate governance practices of these firms as understood from the results of this study can be bench-marked for emerging corporates of varying global context. Originality/value The research is original and unique as it significant and globally diverse population of Fortune Global 500 Companies over a period of 8 years for 11 variables of interest. Results are helpful in bench marking for the rest of market players.

Effect of Audit Committee Independence on the Financial Performance of Insurance Firms in Kenya

“…Corporate governance has become a major subject of discussion for researchers, policy makers and private sector leaders alike because of the critical role it plays in the management of both public and corporate affairs (Foo & Witkowska, 2011;Momoh and Ukpong (2013). The discipline became popular after the 1970s following the integration of global markets (Malik & Makhdoom, 2016). The development of international standards and the growing global debate on the subject is clear evidence of the importance of corporate governance (Sookram, 2016).…”

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Shape the Relationship between Corporate Governance and Financial Performance?

“…Study Malik & Makhdoom (2016) found a strong positive relationship between corporate governance and company performance. Findings on Bhatt & Bhatt (2017) shows that company performance is positively and significantly related to corporate governance.…”

“…The more frequent the director's meetings represent the higher ability to monitor their engagement and larger discussions lead to better decisions that improve performance. Conversely, study conducted by Malik & Makhdoom (2016) concluded that the frequency of board meetings is inversely proportional to firm performance. Mardiyati (2016) also found the frequency of board meetings to have a negative and significant impact on the performance of the company.…”

Boardroom or War Room: An Expectational Analysis of CFO – Executive Board Relationships in Adventist Local Conferences

“…The success of executive boards in fulfilling its functional role and responsibilities as the center and foundation of an entities' governance significantly impacts the financial outcomes and overall operating performance, effectiveness and efficiency of the corporation and organization (Malik and Makhdoom, 2016). Gwin, Lesueur and Sanders (2018) noted the complexity of today's business climate and culture requires boards to accelerate their functional strategy capacity) into areas such as (1) Working Board (Portfolio Investor Strategy); (2) Thinking Board (Customer Intimate Strategy); (3) Responsive Board (Execution Engine Strategy); and (4) Inspiring Board (Talent Magnet Strategy) to develop specific approaches to be proactive in the oversite of establishing and monitoring the strategy initiatives of the business they serve to ensure that the well-being of the shareholders and stakeholders are maximized (Moran, 2016).…”