European Patterns of Corporate Ownership: A Twelve-Country Study

Pedersen, Torben; Thomsen, Steen

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490118

Cited by 224 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sweden conforms to the Scandinavian civil law model in which outsider investor rights protection is weaker than common law countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom, but stronger than French civil law countries (La Porta et al, 2000). Swedish companies have traditionally favored a dominant minority ownership structure, partly as a consequence of a German-style industrialization process in which banks and entrepreneurs played a major role (Pedersen and Thomsen, 1997). Up to 6 We decided not to ask about regional HQs, which typically fulfill certain corporate HQ roles but on a regional rather than global basis.…”

Section: Research Methodology and Data Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, some MNCs have no regional HQs, some have just one, and others have several, so to include them would have created a lot of additional complexities in design. the beginning of the 1990s the corporate sector was dominated by a few large holding companies (most notably Investor AB, controlled by the Wallenburg family), and a significant number of family-owned and government-controlled companies, with fewer than 10 of the top 100 conforming to the dispersed ownership model (Pedersen and Thomsen, 1997). Over the last decade the situation has begun to change, with the privatization of government-owned companies, acquisitions of several well-known Swedish companies by foreign MNCs, and increasing levels of share ownership among the population.…”

Section: Research Methodology and Data Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas?

Birkinshaw

Braunerhjelm

Holm

et al. 2006

Strategic Management Journal

154

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the decision by a multinational corporation (MNC) to relocate its business unit and/or corporate HQ overseas. We argue that business unit HQs move overseas in response to changes in the internal configuration of their unit's activities and the demands of the product markets in which they operate, whereas corporate HQs move overseas in response to the demands of external stakeholders, in particular global financial markets and shareholders. Using data onThis paper examines the decision by a multinational corporation (MNC) to locate its corporate or business unit headquarters overseas. It is concerned with understanding the factors that lead the executives of the MNC to shift their headquarters away from the traditional home country of operation, and in particular how the drivers for corporate HQ relocation are different from the drivers of business unit HQ relocation. The study is motivated by three lines of argument.First, the research contributes to our understanding of the role of the corporate HQ in the multibusiness firm. There is a well-established distinction in the strategic management literature between Keywords: multinational corporation; headquarters; corporate strategy; internationalization * Correspondence to: Julian Birkinshaw, London Business School, Regent's Park, London NW1 4SA, U.K. E-mail: jbirkinshaw@london.edu business unit strategy (concerned with the competitive positioning of a business within its chosen industry domain) and corporate strategy (which defines the scope of businesses in which the firm participates, and the ways in which value is added across those businesses; Bourgeois, 1980;Chandler, 1991;Hofer and Schendel, 1978). Research has examined the differences between these two levels of analysis, in terms of the content of strategy and the process of strategy-making. The current research continues in this tradition by focusing on the different roles of business unit and corporate HQs in a multinational corporation, and in particular on their relationships with various internal and external stakeholders. By examining the drivers of HQ relocation decisions, we are able to show that business unit HQs move overseas in response to changes in the internal configuration of their unit's activities and the demands of the product markets in which they operate, whereas corporate HQs move overseas in response to the demands of external stakeholders, in particular global financial markets and shareholders. This externally facing role is potentially an important addition to our understanding of the role of the corporate HQ in the multi-business firm (cf. Chandler, 1991;Foss 1997;Goold, Campbell, and Alexander, 1994).Second, geographical location affects firm competitiveness, so any decision to relocate specific activities overseas is potentially very important to the future success of the MNC. There are wellestablished theories of agglomeration in the literature, and it is now accepted that proximity to specialized labor, complementary suppliers and customers, and access to ...

show abstract

Section: Research Methodology and Data Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Methodology and Data Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas?

Birkinshaw

Braunerhjelm

Holm

et al. 2006

Strategic Management Journal

154

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the negative association between capital structure and firm value meets the requirement of being a transitional variable of managerial ownership on firm performance. Thus, we can take this negative relationship as indirect evidence of Hypothesis 2 and 31 Both these papers discuss the relationship of ownership structure and investment, which in turn affects corporate value. Therefore, we used the capital expenditure on firm value equation in this study as a control variable.…”

Section: Managerial Ownership Capital Structure and Firm Valuementioning

confidence: 97%

“…So, due to the differences between US corporate governance and other systems, a different relationship between ownership and firm value could be expected. Also, recent studies of corporate governance suggest that geographical position, the tax system, industrial development, and cultural characteristics, along with other factors, affect ownership structure which in turn impacts on a firm's performance and its failure (Pedersen and Thompson, 1997). Therefore, this study is important as it provides evidence from the emerging markets and, more specifically, from Middle Eastern countries using Jordan as a case study 44 .…”

Section: Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: A Descriptive Discmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managerial ownership, capital structure and firm value

Ruan¹,

Tian²,

Ma³

2009

COC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper extends prior research to examine the managerial ownership influences on firm performance through the choices of capital structures by using a new sample of S&P 500 firm in 2005. The empirical results of OLS regressions replicate the nonlinear relationship between managerial ownership and firm value. However, we found that the turning points had moved up in our sample compared with previous papers, which implies that the managerial control for pursuing self-interest, and the alignment of interests between managers and other shareholders can only be achieved now by management holding more ownership in a firm than that found in the previous studies. Managerial ownership also drives the capital structure as a nonlinear shape, but with a direction opposite to the shape of firm value. The results of simultaneous regressions suggest that managerial ownership affects capital structure, which in turn affects firm value. Capital structure is endogenously determined by both firm value and managerial ownership; while managerial ownership is not endogenously determined by the other two variables. As a part of good tradition we have focused on a wide international representation of contributions. We have contributions made by authors from many countries of the world both developed and developing. These are papers by authors from Japan, the USA, Spain, Australia, Taiwan, Qatar, Brazil, Denmark.In this issue we were fortunate in composing a section devoted to corporate governance in a particular region with application to Japan. This is the first time for our journal to publish the special section on corporate governance in Japan. This is a result of efforts undertaken by us to get and develop very good and future-oriented relationships with corporate governance experts from Japan. I think you will enjoy reading the papers on corporate governance in Japan.In this issue of the journal we came back to the traditional issue of corporate governance -ownership structure as a special section. Major attention is paid to the link between ownership structure and performance. Our contributors were fortunate in generating new ideas and made new findings in this way.Our strategic purpose is to develop the new concepts and practices how to overcome the financial crisis with the corporate governance toolkit including mechanisms, instruments and participants. SECTION 1. ACADEMIC INVESTIGATIONS AND CONCEPTS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL CONTRACTING: BONDHOLDER TAKEOVER DEFENSES IN POISON PUTS 9Ai-Fen Cheng, Tao-Hsien Dolly KingBondholder governance through the use of bond covenants and the interactions between shareholder and bondholder governance mechanisms has been recently highlighted in the corporate governance literature. In this paper, we study bondholder governance mechanisms through takeover-related bond covenants (i.e., poison puts), confirm with agency theory on the characteristics of firms that are more likely to use these covenants, and emphasize the importance of bondholder governance in the overall struc...

show abstract

“…Government ownership is defined as a local or national government owned-majority shares in a company (Pedersen and Thomsen, 1997).…”

Section: Majority Shareholdermentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): A Proposed Framework for Malaysian Public Listed Companies

Yazid¹,

Razali²,

Hussin³

2011

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) has become an important subject of increasing interest among businesses and industries throughout the world. Along the same note, ERM is considered a critical management practice for companies to mitigate risks effectively. The main objective of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework for determinants of companies in Malaysia that implement ERM. From the review of various literatures available in this particular area of interest, several factors are found to be the main determinants of companies that implement ERM. Such factors are the presence of chief risk officer, leverage, profitability, international diversification, majority shareholder, size and turnover.

show abstract

European Patterns of Corporate Ownership: A Twelve-Country Study

Cited by 224 publications

References 29 publications

Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas?

Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas?

Managerial ownership, capital structure and firm value

Determinants of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): A Proposed Framework for Malaysian Public Listed Companies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About