Impact of Corporate Governance on Firms Performance - Research Proposal Example

IMPACT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ON FIRM'S PERFORMANCE Author’s Name Class Name Professor’s Name School Introduction Effective corporate governance should be one that essentially guarantee a firm’s investors value from their investment through ensuring that the firm’s resource utilization is within the agreed measures (Arfan & Saad 2015). According to economists, a firm’s responsiveness to the internal as well as external market conditions is largely dependent on the management criteria of the firm and the ability of the specific firm’s governing structure. Corporate governance also portrays the relationship amongst both the internal and external stakeholders of the firm (Nini, Smith and Sufi 2012). The main internal stakeholders in most cases are the board of directors, executive management and the staffs employed in the firm whereas the main external stakeholders are the shareholders of the firm, debt holders, customers, suppliers, trade creditors and government among others. Effective corporate governance should fundamentally guarantee shareholders' value by ensuring the appropriate use of firms' resources, enabling access to capital and improving investor confidence. Subsequently, corporate governance instrument has been an essential issue (Masulis, Wang and Xie 2012). For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was simply ordered in the year 2002 to help in improving corporate governance system which is considered as the need of money related unrest and it was finished with the desire that governance instrument might be strengthened both the general population certainty, unwavering quality and exactness of the financial data given to the general population (Mitton 2002). The objective of the study is to explore the effects of corporate governance on the financial performance and efficiency of a firm. Study objectives 1. To determine if corporate governance affects a firm’s financial performance and efficiency 2. To identify and measure the negative implications of poor governance on a firm’s financial performance and efficiency 3. To demonstrate the impacts of ineffective and effective corporate governance practices on a firm’s financial performance Research questions What is the relationship between corporate governance and a firm’s financial performance and efficiency? Hypotheses: 1. H1: There is a positive relationship between corporate governance and a firm’s financial performance and efficiency. 2. H2: There is a negative relationship between corporate governance and a firm’s financial performance and efficiency. Literature review The World Bank, in 1999, states that corporate governance incorporates two frameworks, which are first inside corporate governance and secondly external corporate governance (Pankaj 2015). Inside corporate governance, offering need further bolstering shareholders' good fortune, takes a shot at the main assemblage of administrators to screen top governance (Bill, Iftekhar & Qiang 2015). On the other hand, outside corporate governance screens and controls chiefs' practices by technique for external controls and constrain, in which various social affairs included, for instance, suppliers, account holders (accomplices), accountants, lawyers, suppliers of FICO scores and hypothesis bank (capable associations). Bill, Iftekhar & Qiang (2015). finds that supervisors in an extensive board have different conclusions and assertion is difficult to accomplish, then the efficiency being lower, the situation could crumble if officials increment. Esra & Allam (2015) reveal that board size is conversely related to corporate performance. Haseed, Yussoff & Che (2015) holds a reverse feeling that greater board surmises people with varying establishment and points of view, which is helpful for the way of decisions; likewise, a broad assortment of their interests may execute decisions. Bill, Iftekhar & Qiang (2015). reveal board size is distinctly related to corporate performance. A board fuses internal and external administrators. Lawrence (2015) recognize that internal administrators, by balance of their positions, have impressively more information, are obligated to plot with directors and settle on decisions against shareholders. Foreign investors are often helpful to Australian companies in terms of enabling them to reach their economic potential by injecting capital to increase firm’s investment while enhancing the existing business units, boosting a firm’s depleted infrastructure, upgrading the production capacity and providing increased employment opportunities in the process (Uadiale 2010). Makki & Aziz (2014) states that, the higher growth that is normally spearheaded by foreign investment often increases dividends payable to the shareholders as well as tax revenues to Australia’s Federal and State Government hence enhancing economic growth in the form of availability of enough funds to be injected in hospitals, schools, roads and enhancing security services among other essential services. Foreign investment also has other benefits such as bringing in new businesses with connections to other markets hence opening up additional opportunities for exporting and importing goods and services (Makki & Aziz 2014). The introduction of new business opportunities will increase competition, which eventually lead to advanced innovation in the market. Despite the positive aspects related to foreign investment, there are some setbacks that in handy with such investments, for instance upon exploration of the foreign market as a result of open market opportunities, the implications of the foreign exchange rate may occasionally be severe on the new entrants into the foreign market. Research methodology This area discusses the examination method used as a piece of this study and gives a general structure to this investigation. The part displays research methodology of the investigation procedure, target population, test and inspecting frameworks, depiction of examination instruments, authenticity and faithful nature of instruments, data gathering strategies, data examination systems and good thoughts while driving the study. This study will utilize relapse technique because of the way that it will be founded on impact of corporate governance on company's performance. As per Bahl and Milne, (2006), its positivist trust that the world is an external article and its epistemology is begun on the conviction that observers are self-sufficient and that the science is without regard. He support saw that the levelheadedness of the positivist relates to the genuine information or the purposes behind get-togethers and tries to offer illuminations for the causal relationship through bona fide articles. Carter et al. (2010) portrays research outline as an arrangement, structure or a technique used to explore and get answers to the examination questions having control change. According to Anum Mohd (2010) research outline implies each one of the approach picked by an expert for focusing on a particular course of action of request or hypothesis. He diagrams it as a framework to coordinate the researcher in social event, exploring and interpreting watched substances. Hypothesis Board size H1: Board size is adversely identified with firm performance Directorate may experience a difficulty talking with each other in an immense size board, which causes amazing impairment to firm performance. Aebi, Sabato & Schmid (2012) exhibit that board size has a negative association with firm performance. Considering the declaration previously stated, this paper proposes the hypothesis as takes after. Board Structure H2: Board independence is contrarily identified with firm performance As for the association between board flexibility and firm performance, if outside boss are free and have capable limit, they could be more objective to settle on decisions and screen administrators. Observational investigation by Aebi, Sabato & Schmid (2012) check that the higher extent of free boss speaks to sheets, the better firm performance could be. CEO duality H3: CEO duality is contrarily identified with firm performance. As the executive serves as the official, expecting parts of boss and administrator at the same time, the load up could lose its self-rule and checking power, result performing a weak limit as a barrier against office issues. Accept that CEO duality seems to come apart firm performance. In light of the declaration previously stated, this paper proposes the hypotheses as takes after. H4：Insider possession is contrarily identified with firm performance About firm performance, according to meeting of interest theory, higher insider proprietorship could suit chiefs' and outside shareholders' interests, which would diminish office issues. Accurate results by Wagner (2010) likewise bear affirmation of that insider proprietorship has a positive association with firm performance. On the reason of the declaration over, this paper proposes the theories as takes after. Model specification The relation between governance mechanism and firm performance is the foundation of this model and it is given as: Performance = α + α Board Size + α BGD + α Board Meetings + α Duality + α Independent + α Leverage + α LNTA + α MTBV + α Liquidity Results Table 1.0: Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson 1 .363a .132 .110 18.71238 1.409 From the results, the R-square is 0.132 indicating that 13.2% of the independent variables was analyzed and the model is fit. Table 2.0: Coefficient analysis Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 46.137 10.745 4.294 .000 Board size .769 .606 .087 1.269 .205 .517 1.936 Board Gender Diversity .291 .112 .139 2.589 .010 .836 1.196 Board meeting per year -1.109 .369 -.157 -3.010 .003 .890 1.124 CEO Duality -2.810 2.315 -.061 -1.214 .226 .961 1.040 Percentage of independent directors .061 .079 .045 .771 .441 .720 1.390 Debt to asset ratio .356 .076 .248 4.721 .000 .880 1.136 LN of total assets -4.786 1.330 -.374 -3.598 .000 .224 4.463 Market to book value 1.907 .534 .330 3.571 .000 .284 3.525 Current ratio .198 .106 .094 1.873 .062 .960 1.042 From the table 2.0, using the model, the p-value of the board size is 0.205>0.05 at 95% significance level, the board size is not statistically significance leading to acceptance of the null hypothesis that the board size does not affect firm’s performance. Board gender diversity p-value is 0.01 0.05 hence accepting null hypothesis since p-value is not statistically significance. The p-value of Debt to asset ratio, LN of total assets and Market to book is 0.000< 0.05 hence both are statistically significance hence accepting null hypothesis. Lastly, Current ratio p-value is 0. 062 > 0.05 hence accepting null hypothesis (Saad 2010). Therefore, after accepting the null hypothesis the new model will be Performance = α +β1 Board Gender Diversity + β2 Board meeting per year +β3 Debt to asset ratio +β4 LN of total assets +β5 Market to book value + Ɛ Therefore, the results will be Table 3.0 : Model fit Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 1 .489a .239 .229 .81834 .239 22.757 5 For the second analysis, the R-squared is 22.9% indicating that the model is fit for analysis. The regression results are shown in table 4 below; Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 6.191 .437 14.182 .000 Board Gender Diversity .019 .005 .197 3.989 .000 Debt to asset ratio -.008 .003 -.113 -2.354 .019 LN of total assets -.501 .052 -.833 -9.571 .000 Market to book value .140 .023 .515 6.114 .000 Board meeting per year -.006 .016 -.017 -.367 .714 At 95% significance level only board meetings is rejected in the new model since its p-value is 0.714>0.05 hence rejecting the null hypothesis. Board Gender Diversity, Debt to asset ratio, LN of total assets and Board meeting per year is statistically significance hence we can run the last model after removing the board meetings. The final model we get Performance = α +β1 Board Gender Diversity + β2 Debt to asset ratio +β3 LN of total assets +β4 Market to book value + Ɛ Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 6.153 .424 14.516 .000 Board Gender Diversity .019 .005 .197 3.989 .000 Debt to asset ratio -.007 .003 -.109 -2.330 .020 LN of total assets -.502 .052 -.836 -9.660 .000 Market to book value .140 .023 .516 6.132 .000 From the results, all the variables they are statistically significance since. Board gender diversity is positively related with firm’s performance and market to book value. However, LN of total assets and Debt to asset ratio are negatively related. This can be also explained in the correlation table below Table 5: Correlation table Tobin's q Board Gender Diversity Debt to asset ratio Pearson Correlation Tobin's q 1.000 .003 -.138 Board Gender Diversity .003 1.000 .088 Debt to asset ratio -.138 .088 1.000 LN of total assets -.346 .312 -.035 Market to book value -.128 .149 -.146 Board meeting per year -.043 .046 -.201 Sig. (1-tailed) Tobin's q . .479 .004 Board Gender Diversity .479 . .046 Debt to asset ratio .004 .046 . LN of total assets .000 .000 .249 Market to book value .007 .002 .002 Board meeeting per year .207 .191 .000 N Tobin's q 368 368 368 Board Gender Diversity 368 368 368 Debt to asset ratio 368 368 368 LN of total assets 368 368 368 Market to book value 368 368 368 Board meeeting per year 368 368 368 Correlations LN of total assets Market to book value Board meeeting per year Pearson Correlation Tobin's q -.346 -.128 -.043 Board Gender Diversity .312 .149 .046 Debt to asset ratio -.035 -.146 -.201 LN of total assets 1.000 .824 .149 Market to book value .824 1.000 .131 Board meeeting per year .149 .131 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Tobin's q .000 .007 .207 Board Gender Diversity .000 .002 .191 Debt to asset ratio .249 .002 .000 LN of total assets . .000 .002 Market to book value .000 . .006 Board meeeting per year .002 .006 . N Tobin's q 368 368 368 Board Gender Diversity 368 368 368 Debt to asset ratio 368 368 368 LN of total assets 368 368 368 Market to book value 368 368 368 Board meeting per year 368 368 368 Conclusion In respect of board structure, board size is essentially and adversely identified with firm performance, inferring that, in a huge size board, the differences of insiders' sentiment negatively affects deciding, which is unfavorable to firm performance. In summary good corporate governance positively influence firm performance. Bibliography Arfan, A & Saad, B.N 2015, ‘Impact of board characteristics and audit committee on financial performance: A study of manufacturing sector of Pakistan’, IBA Business Review, vol.10, no.1, pp. 102-114. Bill, F, Iftekhar, H & Qiang, W 2015, ‘Professors in the boardroom and their impact on corporate governance and firm performance’, Financial Management (Wiley-Blackwell), vol .44, no.3, pp. 547-581. Ezra, A & Allah, H 2015, ‘ The impact of corporate governance on firm performance: Evidence from Bahrain Bourse’, International Management Review, vol.11, no.2, pp. 21-37. Haseed, U.R, Yussoff, I & Che, A 2015, ‘ How MCCG 2012 impacted board independence and firm performance in Malaysia: A proposed analysis’, Global Business & Management Research, vol.7, no.1, pp.21-31. Lawrence, T 2015, ‘ The impact of corporate governance on the efficiency and financial performance of GCC national banks’, Middle East Journal of Business, vol.10, no.1, pp.12-16. Makki, M & Aziz, L.S 2014, ‘ Impact of corporate governance on intellectual capital efficiency and financial performance’, Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, vol.8, no.2, pp.305-330. Muhammad, A, Masoodul, H., & Rehana, K 2013, ‘ Impact of quality corporate governance on firm performance: A ten year perspective’, Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, vol.7, no.3, pp.656-670. Neelam, R & Surendra, Y 2014, ‘ Impact of corporate governance score on abnormal returns and financial performance of mergers and acquisations’, Decision (0304-0941), vol.41, no.4, pp.371-398. Nini, G., Smith, D.C. and Sufi, A., 2012. Creditor control rights, corporate governance, and firm value. Review of Financial Studies, 25(6), pp.1713-1761. Pankaj, M 2015, ‘ The impact of board characteristics on corporate governance and disclosure practices of firms listed in Indian stock Exchange’, Journal of Corporate Governance, vol.14, no.2, pp.14-46. Renders, A., Gaeremynck, A. and Sercu, P., 2010. Corporate‐Governance Ratings and Company Performance: A Cross‐European Study. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), pp.87-106. Rohail, H, Maran, M & Satirenjit,K 2015, ‘ Diversity, corporate governance and implication on firm financial performance’, Global Business & Management Research, vol.7, no.2, pp.28-36. Saad, N.M., 2010. Corporate governance compliance and the effects to capital structure in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(1), p.105. Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A., 2013. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), pp.1045-1061. Uadiale, O.M., 2010. The impact of board structure on corporate financial performance in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), p.155. Wagner, M., 2010. The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecological Economics, 69(7), pp.1553-1560 Read More