CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

Öz

Ineffective implementation of corporate governance or having a low corporate governance understanding is shown as one of the reasons for the emergence of financial crises at micro (enterprise level) and macro level (global scale), which have increased in recent years. The role of corporate governance in the production of accurate, reliable, transparent and comparable financial information directly affects the financial performance of enterprises that are facing more and more resource constraints. In this context, the aim of this study is to determine the relationship between corporate governance practices and financial performance of 156 companies continuously traded in İstanbul Stock Exchange (BIST) during 2008-2018 period, using Dynamic Panel Data Analysis. While corporate governance rating is used as a measure of corporate governance, Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE) and Tobin's Q are used as proxies of financial performance. The results revealed a positive relationship between corporate governance practices and the financial performance of companies, i.e., as corporate governance of firms increases, financial performance increases correspondingly.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Governance Rating
• Financial Performance

KURUMSAL YÖNETİM İLE FİNANSAL PERFORMANS İLİŞKİSİ: TÜRKİYE’DE AMPİRİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Kurumsal yönetimin etkin bir şekilde uygulanmaması veya düşük kurumsal yönetim anlayışına sahip olma, özellikle son yıllarda artış gösteren mikro seviyede (işletme düzeyinde) ve makro seviyede (küresel ölçekte) finansal krizlerin ortaya çıkma sebeplerinden birisi olarak gösterilmektedir. Kurumsal yönetimin doğru, güvenilir, şeffaf ve karşılaştırılabilir finansal bilgi üretimindeki rolü, gün geçtikçe daha fazla kaynak sıkıntısı çekmekte olan işletmelerin finansal performansını da doğrudan etkilemektedir. Bu kapsamda, çalışmanın amacı Borsa İstanbul’da (BİST) 2008-2018 yılları arasında kesintisiz işlem gören 156 şirkette kurumsal yönetim uygulamaları ile finansal performans ilişkisini Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi Yöntemi ile tespit etmektir. Kurumsal yönetimin ölçümünde Kurumsal Yönetim Derecelendirme Notu kullanılırken, finansal performans için ise Aktif Karlılığı (ROA), Özsermaye Karlılığı (ROE) ve Tobin’s Q vekil olarak kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, şirketlerin kurumsal yönetim uygulamaları ile finansal performansı arasında pozitif bir ilişki olduğu, kurumsal yönetim arttıkça finansal performansın da arttığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Yönetim
• Kurumsal Yönetim Derecelendirmesi
• Finansal Performans

Kaynakça

1. Aggarwal, P. (2013). Impact of Corporate Governance on Corporate Financial Performance. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 13(3): 1-5.
2. Ahmed, A. S. ve Duellman, S. (2007). Accounting Conservatism and Board of Director Characteristics: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of accounting and economics, 43(2-3): 1-52.
3. Akdoğan, Y. E. ve Boyacıoğlu, M. A. (2010). Türkiye’de Kurumsal Yönetim: Genel Bir Değerlendirme. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24: 11-30.
4. Bøhren, Ø. ve Ødegaard, B. A. (2003). Governance and Performance Revisited. ECGI-Finance Working Paper, 1(28): 1-36.
5. Bouaziz, Z. ve Triki, M. (2012). The Impact of the Presence of Audit Committees on the Financial Performance of Tunisian Companies. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2(4): 57-64.
6. Brown, L. D. ve Caylor, M. L. (2009). Corporate Governance and Firm Operating Performance. Review of quantitative finance and accounting, 32(2): 129-144.
7. Canbaş, S., Doğukanlı, H. ve Düzakın, H. (2004). Tobin Q Oranı ve Günümüzde İşletme Kararları Açısından Önemi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2): 57-74.
8. Çetenak, E. (2012). İşletme Grubu İlişkisinin Firma Performansına Etkisi: IMKB’de Bir Uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Adana.

9. Du, J., Wu, F. ve Liang, X. (2016). Corporate Liquidity and Firm Value: Evidence From China’s Listed Firms. In SHS Web of Conferences. Published by: EDP Sciences, 24(16): 1-4.
10. Ehikioya, B. I. (2009). Corporate Governance Structure and Firm Performance in Developing Economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 9(3): 231-243.
11. Fama, E. F. ve Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. The journal of law and Economics, 26(2): 301-325.
12. Gompers, P., Ishii, J. ve Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate Governance and Equity Prices. The quarterly journal of economics, 118(1): 107-156.
13. Gschwandtner, A. (2005). Profit Persistence in the Very Long Run: Evidence from Survivors and Exiters. Applied Economics, 37 (7): 793-806.
14. Hamadi, M. (2010). Ownership Concentration, Family Control and Performance of Firms. European Management Review, 7(2): 116- 131.
15. Haniffa, R. ve Hudaib, M. (2006). Corporate Governance Structure and Performance of Malaysian Listed Companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7‐8): 1034-1062.
16. Hassan, S. U. ve Farouk, M. A. (2014). Impact of Audit Quality and Financial Performance of Quoted Cement Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 2(2): 1-22.
17. Iqbal, A., Mulani, J. ve Kabiraj, S. (2013). Leverage, Size of the Firm and Profitability: A Case of Pakistani Cement Industry. International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 7(1): 16-22.
18. İzci, N. A. (2016). Kurumsal Sürdürebilirliğin Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkisi: BİST Yıldız Pazarında İmalat Şirketleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mersin.
19. Jensen, M. C. ve Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4): 305-360.
20. Jusoh, M. A. ve Che-Ahmad, A. (2014). Equity Ownership, Audit Quality and Firm Performance in Malaysia using Generalized Least Square Estimations Technique. Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics. Finance and Banking (JEIEFB) An Online International Monthly Journal, 3(1): 976-991.
21. Kakani, R. K., Saha, B. ve Reddy, V. N. (2001). Determinants of Financial Performance of Indian Corporate Sector in the Post-Liberalization Era: An Exploratory Study. National Stock Exchange of India Limited, NSE Research Initiative Paper, (5): 1-38.
22. Kiel, G. C. ve Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Board Composition and Corporate Performance: How the Australian Experience Informs Contrasting Theories of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3): 189-205.
23. Kim, H. J. ve Yoon, S. S. (2007). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Korea. Management and Accounting Review (MAR), 6(2): 1-16.
24. Kowalewski, O. (2016). Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance: Financial Crisis (2008). Management Research Review, 39(11): 1494-1515.
25. Kyereboah-Coleman, A. ve Biekpe, N. (2006). The Relationship Between Board Size, Board Composition, CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Experience from Ghana. Corporate Ownership and Control, 4(2): 114-122.
26. Mizruchi, M. S. (2004). Berle and Means revisited: The governance and power of large US corporations. Theory and Society, 33(5), 579-617.
27. Moldasheva, G. (2015). Ownership, Management Responsibility and Corporate Performance of the Listed Firms in Kazakhstan. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 9(7): 2534-2542.
28. Moradi, M., Bagherpour Velashani, M. A. ve Omidfar, M. (2017). Corporate Governance, Product Market Competition and Firm Performance: Evidence from Iran. Humanomics, 33(1): 38-55.
29. Moscu, R. G. (2013). “The Relationship Between Firm Performance and Board Characteristics in Romania”. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2(1): 167-175.
30. Mule, K. R., Mukras, M. S. ve Nzioka, O. M. (2015). Corporate Size, Profitability and Market Value: An Econometric Panel Analysis of Listed Firms in Kenya. European Scientific Journal, 11(13): 376-396.
31. Nicholson, G. J., & Kiel, G. C. (2007). Can directors impact performance? A case‐based test of three theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 15(4), 585-608.
32. OECD. (2004). Principles of Corporate Governance. https://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/31557724.pdf, erişim tarihi: 27.02.2020.
33. Pedersen, T. ve Thomsen, S. (1999). Economic and Systemic Explanations of Ownership Concentration among Europe's Largest Companies. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6(3): 367-381.
34. Ponnu, C. H. ve Ramthandin, S. (2008). Governance and Performance: Publicly Listed Companies İn Malaysia. Journal Of Businees System, Governance and Ethic, 3(1): 35-39.
35. Rechner, P. L. ve Dalton, D. R. (1991). CEO Duality and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis. Strategic management journal, 12(2): 155-160.
36. Reyna, J. M. ve Encalada, J. A. (2012). The Relationship Among Family Business, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: Evidence from the Mexican Stock Exchange. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(2): 106-117.
37. Rose, C. (2016). Firm Performance and Comply or Explain Disclosure in Corporate Governance. European Management Journal, 34(3): 202-222.
38. Soysal, M. A. (2015). Kurumsal Yönetim Uygulamalarının Finansal Performansa Etkileri Türkiye Uygulaması. Kadir Has Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul.
39. Watts, R. L. ve Zimmerman, J. L. (1990). Positive Accounting Theory: A Ten Year Perspective. Accounting review, 65(1): 131-156.
40. Younas, Z. I., Mahmood, H. ve Saeed, A. (2013). Effect of Firm Performance on Corporate Governance A Panel Data Analysis. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(1): 1-8.
41. Ziaee, M. (2014). The Effect of Audit Quality on the Performance of Listed Companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 21(10): 36-43.