KURUMSAL YÖNETİŞİMİN ŞİRKET PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: VİETNAM’DA GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLEN DENEYSEL ÇALIŞMA

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 35 - 49, 25.04.2018

Esra Sipahi Erkin Artantaş Deniz Şişman

https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.413108

Abstract

Vietnam’da faaliyet gösteren borsaya kayıtlı şirketler üzerinde gerçekleştirilen bu deneysel çalışma, kurumsal yönetişim ve şirket performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada kurumsal yönetişim; CEO’nun ikili rolü, yönetim kurulunun büyüklüğü, kurulun özerkliği ve sahiplik konsantrasyonları dâhil olmak üzere bir dizi değişken ile temsil edilmiştir. Buna ek olarak şirket performansı; (i) varlık getirisi (ROA), (ii) özsermaye karlılığı (ROE), (iii) Altman’ın (1968) z-skoru ve (iv) Tobin’in Q oranı olmak üzere dört farklı yöntemle ölçülmüştür. Vietnam’da faaliyet gösteren 177 şirketten oluşan veri kümesi üzerinde 2008 ile 2012 arasında 5 senelik bir süre için uygulanabilir genelleştirilmiş En Küçük Kareler (FGLS) modeli kullanılarak elde edilen bulgular kurumsal yönetişim firma performansı üzerindeki birçok etkisini ortaya koymuştur. İlk olarak CEO’nun ikili rolü şirket performansıyla pozitif korelasyona sahiptir. İkinci olarak yönetimsel insiyatifleri ve şirket performansı arasındaki ilişkide yapısal bir değişim mevcuttur. Üçüncüsü ise yönetim kurulunun özerkliğinin şirket performansı üzerinde zıt etkilere sahip olmasıdır. Dördüncü olarak, bu çalışma yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü ile şirket performansı arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu destekleyen deneysel bulgulara ulaşamamıştır.

Keywords

Kurumsal Yönetişim, Şirket Performansı, Borsaya Kayıtlı Şirketler, Vietnam

The Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance: Empirical Study in Vietnam

Abstract

This empirical research for listed firms in Vietnam is conducted to examine the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance. In this study, corporate governance is proxied by a set of variables, including a dual role of the CEO, board’s size, board independence and ownership concentration. In addition, firm performance is measured by four different methods which are (i) return on asset (ROA), (ii) return on equity (ROE), (iii) Z-score by Altman (1968) and (iv) Tobin’s Q. Using the Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) on the dataset of 177 listed companies in Vietnam for the period of 5 years, from 2008 to 2012, the findings of this study indicate multiple effects of corporate governance on firm performance. First, duality role of the CEO is positively correlated with firm performance. Second, there is a structural change in relation between managerial ownership and firm performance. Third, board independence has opposite impacts on firm performance. Fourth, this study however fails to provide an empirical evidence support the statistically significant relationship between board size and firm performance.

Keywords

Corporate Governance, Firm Performance, Listed Companies, Vietnam

References

• Abidin, Z. Z., Kamal, N. M., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Board structure and corporate performance in Malay-sia.International Journal of Economics and Finance, 1(1), 150.
• Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2978933
• Baliga, B., Moyer, R. C., & Rao, R. S. (1996). CEO duality and firm performance what's the fuss. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 41–53.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1<41::AID-SMJ784>3.0.CO;2-#
• Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (1999). The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm perfor-mance.The Business Lawyer, 921–963. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.11417
• Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (2000). Board independence and long-term firm performance. Unpublished pa-per,University of Colorado. Retrieved from http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/bhagat/bb-022300.pdf
• Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Fi-nance,14(3), 257–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2008.03.006
• Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal,16(4), 301–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160404
• Brainard, W. C., & Tobin, J. (1968). Pitfalls in financial model building. The American Economic Review, 58(2),99–122.
• Brown, L., & Caylor, M. (2004). Corporate governance and firm performan-ce.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.586423
• Cui, H., & Mak, Y. T. (2002). The relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance in high R&Dfirms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(4), 313–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(01)00047-5
• Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180258
• Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms.Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00003-8
• FPT Securities’ Website. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.fpts.com.vn/Hermalin, B. E., & Weis-bach, M. S. (1991). The effects of board composition and direct incentives on firm perfor-mance. Financial Management, 101–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3665716
• Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196729
• HOSE’s Website. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.hsx.vn/hsx/Default.aspx
• Joh, S. W. (2003). Corporate governance and firm profitability evidence from Korea before the econo-mic crisis.
• Journal of Financial Economics, 68(2), 287–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00068-0
• Klapper, L. F., & Love, I. (2004). Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emer-ging
• markets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(5), 703–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(03)00046-4
• Klein, A. (1998). Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure 1. The Journal of Law and Econo-mics,41(1), 275–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467391
• Le Minh, T., & Walker, G. (2008). Corporate governance of listed companies in Vietnam. Bond Law Re-view, 20(2),6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1696313
• Ministry of Finance. (2012). TT-BTC regulations for corporate govnernance at listed companies. Retri-eved from http://thuvienphapluat.vn/archive/Thong-tu-121-2012-TT-BTC-quy-dinh-quan-tri-cong-ty-ap-dung-cho-con g-ty-dai-chung-vb145477.aspx
• Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation An empi-rical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90048-7
• Muth, M., & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure a contingency approach. Corporate Governance An International Review, 6(1), 5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00076
• Nguyen, N. D. (2008). Corporate governance in Vietnam: regulations, practices and problems. Retrie-ved from http://www.sme-gtz.org.vn/Portals/0/AnPham/ CORPORA-TE%20GOVERNANCE%20IN%20VIETNAM.pdf
• Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors. The organization and its envi-ronment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 218–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393956
• Prime Minister of Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2007). Converting Hochiminh Stock Center into Ho Chi Cinh Stock Exchange. Retrieved from http://chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&mode=detail&document_id=24 536
• Rechner, P. L., & Dalton, D. R. (1991). CEO duality and organizational performance. A longitudinal analysis.Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 155–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120206
• Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. (1990). Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 26(2), 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(90)90002-H
• Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1999). Managerial Ownership and the Performance of Firms Evidence from the UK.Journal of Corporate Finance, 5(1), 79–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(98)00016-9
• Vo, H. D., & Phan, B. G. T. (2013a). Corporate governance and firm performance: Empirical evidence from listed companies on Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exhange. UEH Journal of Economic Development, 275, 1–15
• Vo, H. D., & Phan, B. G. T. (2013b). Woman member in board of directors and firm performance: Empi-rical evidence from Vietnam. Banking Journal, 85, 21–30.
• Vo, H. D., & Phan, B. G. T. (2013c). The role of CEO duality, experience of board and growth opportunity on firm performance. Open University Journal, 3(31), 52–65.
• Vo, H. D., & Phan, B. G. T. (2013d). The relationship between corporate governance and firm perfor-mance.Unpublished paper, Ho Chi Minh City Open University.
• Williamson, O. E. (1988). Corporate finance and corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 567–591.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04592.x
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). South-Western College.
• Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500208