Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

KURUMSAL YÖNETİM VE FİRMA PERFORMANSI: BORSA İSTANBUL’DA BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 819 - 828, 01.11.2020
https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.778853

Abstract

Kurumsal yönetimin firma performansı üzerindeki etkisi kaçınılmazdır. Kurumsal yönetim ile firma performansı arasındaki ilişkinin doğru değerlendirilmesi ile koordinasyon ve performans artırımı mümkündür. Adalet, güvenilirlik, hesap verilebilirlik, tarafsızlık ve şeffaflık kurumsal yönetimin unsurlarıdır. Çalışmadaki temel amaç; kurumsal yönetim ile firma performansı ilişkisini ortaya koyabilmektir. Amaç; İlişkideki olumlu ve olumsuz tarafları ortaya çıkararak karşılaşılabilecek problemleri bertaraf edebilecek çözümler üretmektir.
Çalışmada aktif kârlılık ve öz kaynak kârlılığı verileri kullanılarak kurumsal yönetim değişkenlerinin firma performansını etkileme gücü araştırılmaktadır. Literatür incelendiğinde öne çıkan dört kurumsal yönetim değişkeni söz konusudur. Bunlar; Yönetim Kurulu üye sayısı, ayrıklık, bağımsız üye sayısı ve mülkiyet yapısıdır. Bağımsız değişken kurumsal yönetim değişkenleri iken bağımlı değişken firma performansıdır. Kurumsal yönetim ile firma performansı ilişkisini ölçebilmek amacıyla çoklu doğrusal regresyon tekniği kullanılmıştır.
İlişkiyi belirlemede 179 imalat sanayi şirket verileri kullanılmıştır. Sonuçta; yönetim kurulu üye sayısı, bağımsız üye sayısı ve mülkiyet ile firma performansının anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Fakat ayrıklık ile firma performansı ile ilgili herhangi bir ilişkiye rastlanmamıştır.

References

  • Abdullah, S.N. (2004). Board Composition, Ceo duality and Performance among Malaysian listed companies. Corporate Governance, 4(4), 47-61.
  • Adekunle, S.A. ve Aghedo, E.M. (2014). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance of Selected Quoted Companies in Nigeria. Euopean Journal of Business and Management, 6(9), 53-59.
  • Agbonifoh, B.A.(1999). Business Ethics. In A.U. Inegbenebor - B.E. Osaze Introduction to business.
  • Aktan, C. C. (2006). Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi. SPK Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi, 4(196).
  • Bayrakdaroğlu, A. (2010). Mülkiyet Yapısı ve Finansal Performans: İMKB Örneği. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 12.
  • Berle, A. ve Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporate and Private Property. McMillian, New York, NY.
  • Bonn, I.,Yoshikowa,T. ve Phan, P.H. (2004) Effects of Board Structure on Firm Performance: A Comparison between Japan and Australia. Asia Business – Management, 3,105-125.
  • Clarkson, R.- Deck, A. (1997). Effective governance of micro finance industry: Estimating a micro finance industry.
  • Core, J., W. Guay, ve T. Rusticus. (2004). Does weak governance cause weak stock returns? An examination of firm operating performance and analysts expectations. Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Dahya, J. ve McConnell J.J. (2003). Outside Directors and Corporate Board Decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance, Article in Press, Corrected Proof.
  • Donaldson, W. (2003). Congressional Testimony Concerning the Implementation of the Sarkones-Oxley Act of 2002.
  • Ege, İ., Topaloğlu, E. E. ve Özyamanoğlu, M. (2013). Finansal Performans ile Kurumsal Yönetim Notları Arasındaki İlişki: BIST Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(9), 101.
  • Fosberg, R. (1989). Outside directors and managerial monitoring. Akron Business and Economic Review 20, 24-32.
  • Glossary , P. (2013) . Glossary a definition of corporate governance. 14(40).
  • Gujarati, D., (1992). Essentials of Econometrics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
  • Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution,exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(831-880).
  • Lipton, M. ve Lorsch J., (1992). A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate Governance. Business Lawyer, 59 (59-77). Love, I. (2011). Corporate Governance and Performance around the World: What we know and What we don’t know. The World Bank Research Observer, 261,(42-70).
  • Luo, Y. (2005). Corporate Governance And Accountability In MultinationalEnterprises: Concepts And Agenda. Journal of International Management, 11(1), 1-18.
  • Mak, Y.T.,Yuanto, K., (2001). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pasific-Bosin Finance Journal, 13,(301-318).
  • Memiş, M.Ü. ve Çetenak, E.H. (2012). Kurumsal Yönetimin Kazanç Yönetimi Uygulamaları Üzerine Etkisi: İMKB’de İşlem Gören Şirketler Üzerine Uygulama. Ç. Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(3), 205-224.
  • Vafeas, N. (2000). Board structure and the informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19(2), (139-160).
  • William, Q., Judge, Naoumova I. ve Koutzevol, N. (2003). Corporate Governace and Firm Performance in Russia: an empirical study.. Journal of World Business, 38(385-396).
  • Yenice, S. ve Dölen, T. (2013). İMKB’de İşlem Gören Firmaların Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerine Uyumunun Firma Değeri Üzerindeki Etkisi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 9(19), .200-214.
  • Yermack, D.( 1996). Higher market valuation for firms with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40,( 185-211). Zubaidah, Z.A., Nurmala, M.K. ve Kamaruzaman J. (2009). Board Structure and Corporate Performance in Malaysia. International Journal of Economic and Finance, 1(1),(150-164).

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED QUOTED COMPANIES IN TURKEY

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 819 - 828, 01.11.2020
https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.778853

Abstract

The effect of corporate governance on business output is unevitable. It is possible to maximize coordination and performance by evaluating the connection between corporate governance and business output correctly. In corporate governance, fairness, reliability, accountability, objectivity and transparency are required to stand out. The primary purpose of this work is to reveal the connection between corporate governance and business output. This is to enable to make a healthier assessment by revealing the positive and negative aspects of the relationship and to provide solutions to the problems that may arise when necessary.
It examines corporate governance variables and analyses if they affect on firm performance as measured by return on presence (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). According to the review of literature, we select four corporate governance variables. These are; board members, CEO and chairman, board structure and ownership concentration which assisted as the independent variables and the dependent variable is firm performance. The linear multiple regression was used to assess the connection between corporate governance and firm performance.
In this article data for 179 manufacturing firms from ISE are collected from 2018 in order to determine how is the relation between corparate governance and business performance. As a result of the analyzes, it is reach that there is positive and meaningful relation between board members, board structure, ownership concentration and firm performance. But findings from the study show that there is no meaningful relationship between CEO chairman and firm performance.

References

  • Abdullah, S.N. (2004). Board Composition, Ceo duality and Performance among Malaysian listed companies. Corporate Governance, 4(4), 47-61.
  • Adekunle, S.A. ve Aghedo, E.M. (2014). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance of Selected Quoted Companies in Nigeria. Euopean Journal of Business and Management, 6(9), 53-59.
  • Agbonifoh, B.A.(1999). Business Ethics. In A.U. Inegbenebor - B.E. Osaze Introduction to business.
  • Aktan, C. C. (2006). Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi. SPK Kurumsal Araştırmalar Serisi, 4(196).
  • Bayrakdaroğlu, A. (2010). Mülkiyet Yapısı ve Finansal Performans: İMKB Örneği. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 12.
  • Berle, A. ve Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporate and Private Property. McMillian, New York, NY.
  • Bonn, I.,Yoshikowa,T. ve Phan, P.H. (2004) Effects of Board Structure on Firm Performance: A Comparison between Japan and Australia. Asia Business – Management, 3,105-125.
  • Clarkson, R.- Deck, A. (1997). Effective governance of micro finance industry: Estimating a micro finance industry.
  • Core, J., W. Guay, ve T. Rusticus. (2004). Does weak governance cause weak stock returns? An examination of firm operating performance and analysts expectations. Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Dahya, J. ve McConnell J.J. (2003). Outside Directors and Corporate Board Decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance, Article in Press, Corrected Proof.
  • Donaldson, W. (2003). Congressional Testimony Concerning the Implementation of the Sarkones-Oxley Act of 2002.
  • Ege, İ., Topaloğlu, E. E. ve Özyamanoğlu, M. (2013). Finansal Performans ile Kurumsal Yönetim Notları Arasındaki İlişki: BIST Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(9), 101.
  • Fosberg, R. (1989). Outside directors and managerial monitoring. Akron Business and Economic Review 20, 24-32.
  • Glossary , P. (2013) . Glossary a definition of corporate governance. 14(40).
  • Gujarati, D., (1992). Essentials of Econometrics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
  • Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution,exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(831-880).
  • Lipton, M. ve Lorsch J., (1992). A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate Governance. Business Lawyer, 59 (59-77). Love, I. (2011). Corporate Governance and Performance around the World: What we know and What we don’t know. The World Bank Research Observer, 261,(42-70).
  • Luo, Y. (2005). Corporate Governance And Accountability In MultinationalEnterprises: Concepts And Agenda. Journal of International Management, 11(1), 1-18.
  • Mak, Y.T.,Yuanto, K., (2001). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pasific-Bosin Finance Journal, 13,(301-318).
  • Memiş, M.Ü. ve Çetenak, E.H. (2012). Kurumsal Yönetimin Kazanç Yönetimi Uygulamaları Üzerine Etkisi: İMKB’de İşlem Gören Şirketler Üzerine Uygulama. Ç. Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(3), 205-224.
  • Vafeas, N. (2000). Board structure and the informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19(2), (139-160).
  • William, Q., Judge, Naoumova I. ve Koutzevol, N. (2003). Corporate Governace and Firm Performance in Russia: an empirical study.. Journal of World Business, 38(385-396).
  • Yenice, S. ve Dölen, T. (2013). İMKB’de İşlem Gören Firmaların Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerine Uyumunun Firma Değeri Üzerindeki Etkisi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 9(19), .200-214.
  • Yermack, D.( 1996). Higher market valuation for firms with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40,( 185-211). Zubaidah, Z.A., Nurmala, M.K. ve Kamaruzaman J. (2009). Board Structure and Corporate Performance in Malaysia. International Journal of Economic and Finance, 1(1),(150-164).
There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section Issue
Authors

Şükran Güngör Tanç 0000-0002-0675-2479

Tuğba Çetinel 0000-0003-3579-6347

Publication Date November 1, 2020
Submission Date August 10, 2020
Acceptance Date August 31, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 13 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Güngör Tanç, Ş., & Çetinel, T. (2020). CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED QUOTED COMPANIES IN TURKEY. Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 13(3), 819-828. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.778853

Creative Commons Lisansı
This Journal Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.