KURUMSAL YÖNETİM UYGULAMALARININ AR-GE VE İNOVASYON MALİYETLERİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: BORSA İSTANBUL’ DA BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2021, , 967 - 994, 01.11.2021

Hüseyin Ali Kutlu , Bekir Gerekan

https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.929923

Cited By: 1

Öz

Hazırlanan çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal yönetim uygulamalarının Ar-Ge giderleri ve inovasyon maliyetleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, Borsa İstanbul’a (BİST) kayıtlı işletmelerden 2009 – 2017 yıllarına ait Ar-Ge ve inovasyon maliyetleri eksiksiz şekilde elde edilen işletmeler analiz kapsamında incelenmiştir. STATA 15.0 programı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen panel regresyon analizine göre; yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün, bağımsız üye sayısının, cinsiyet çeşitliliğinin, yönetim kurulu başkanı görev süresinin, yönetim kurulu toplantı sıklığının ve işletme büyüklüğünün gerçekleşen Ar-Ge giderleri üzerinde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı ve pozitif etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca yönetim kurulu yabancı üye sayısı, yönetim kurulu sahipliği ve işletme yaşının ise ortaya çıkan Ar-Ge giderleri üzerinde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı ve negatif etkiye sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte inovasyon maliyetleri üzerinde etkilerinin incelendiği rol ikiliği ve işletme büyüklüğünün istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı ve pozitif, yönetim kurulu yabancı üye oranı ve işletme yaşının ise inovasyon maliyetleri üzerinde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı ve negatif etkiye sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal Yönetim, İnovasyon Maliyetleri, Ar-Ge Giderleri, Ar-Ge, İnovasyon

EFFECT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES ON R&D AND INNOVATION COSTS: A CASE STUDY ON BORSA İSTANBUL

Öz

This study aimed to reveal the impact of corporate governance practices (CGP) on research and development (R&D) expenses and innovation costs. The businesses registered in Borsa Istanbul (BIST), with complete data regarding R&D and innovation costs for 2009–2017, were analyzed. The panel regression analysis performed through the STATA 15.0 program revealed that the board size, number of independent board members, gender diversity in the board of directors, chairman’s tenure, board meeting frequency, and business scale had a statistically significant and positive effect on the realized R&D expenses. Furthermore, it was determined that the number of foreign members of the board of directors, board ownership, and the organizational age had a statistically significant and negative effect on the nominal R&D expenses. However, it was also discovered that the role duality and business scale had a statistically significant and positive impact. In contrast, the foreign member ratio on the board of directors and organizational age had a statistically significant and negative effect on innovation costs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate Governance, Innovation Costs, R&D Expenses, R&D, Innovation

Kaynakça

• Aghion, P., Van, R. J. ve Zingales L. (2013). Innovation and Institutional Ownership. The American Economic Review, 103(1): 277-304.
• Ahlering, B. ve Deakin, S. (2007). Labor Regulation, Corporate Governance, and Legal Origin: A Case of Institutional Complementarity?. Law and Society Review, 41(4): 865-908.
• Ahmed, E. ve Hamdan, A. (2015). The Impact Of Corporate Governance On Firm Performance: Evidence From Bahraın Stock Exchange. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 3(5): 25-48.
• Akdoğan N, Gülhan O. ve Aktaş M. (2017). The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Turkish Banking Sector. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 13:181-195.
• Al Hares, A., Ntim, C., Al-Hares, O. ve Al Abed, R. (2018). Frequency of Board Meetings and R&D Investment Strategy: Evidence from OECD Countries, Theoretical Economics Letters, 8: 3016-3033.
• Al-Najjar, B. (2014). Corporate Governance, Tourism Growth and Firm Performance: Evidence From Publicly Listed Tourism Firms in Five Middle Eastern Countries. Tourism Management, 42: 342-351.
• AlQudah, A.M., Azzam, M.J., Aleqab, M.M. ve Shakhatreh, M.Z. (2019). The Impact of Board of Directors Characteristics on Banks Performance: Evidence From Jordan. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 23(2): 1 – 16.
• Ararat, M. A., Çetin M. ve Tansel A. (2010). Impact of Board Diversity on Boards's Monitoring Intensity and Firm Performance: Evidence From The Istanbul Stock Exchange. 17th Annual Conference of The Multinational Finance Society, 1- 33, New Jersey: Multinational Finance Society.
• Ashwin, A.S., Krishnan, R.T. ve George, R. (2016). Board Characteristics, Financial Slack and R&D Investments An Empirical Analysis of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46: 8–23.
• Atılgan, Ö. (2017). Yönetim Kurulu Büyüklüğü, Bağımsız Üye Oranı ve Kadın Üye Oranı ile Finansal Performans İlişkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2): 315-354.
• Aygün, M., ve İç, S. (2010). Genel Müdürün Aynı Zamanda Yönetim Kurulu Üyesi Olması Firma Performansını Etkiler mi?. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 47: 192-201.
• Aytekin, S. ve İbiş, A. (2014). Mülkiyet Yapısının İşletmelerin Finansal Performansı Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi: BİST Metal Eşya, Makina Endeksi (XMESY) Üzerinde Bir Uygulama. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 40: 119 – 130.
• Balsarı, Ç. K., Varan, S. ve Özkan, S. (2015). Impact of Foreign Ownership on Innovation. Journal of Economics and Management, 20(A): 86-96.
• Balsmeier, B., Lee F. ve Gustavo M. (2017). Independent Boards and Innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123: 536-557.
• Baraco, D.G. ve Brown, A.M. (2008). Corporate Social Reporting and Board Representation: Evidence From The Kenyan Banking Sector. Journal of
• Management and Governance, 12(4):309-324.
• Barker, V.L. ve Mueller, G.C. (2002). CEO Characteristics and Firm R&D Spending. Management Science, 48(6): 782-801.
• Başaran, S. D. ve Keleş, S. (2015). Yenilikçi Kimdir? Öğretmenlerin Yenilikçilik Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (4): 106-118.
• Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M. ve Zimmermann, H. (2006). An Integrated Framework of Corporate Governance and Firm Valuation. European Financial Management, 12: 249- 283.
• Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. ve McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Response To Sustainability Initiatives: Evidence From The Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2): 369-383.
• Bentz, F. (1997). Managing Technological Innovation: Competitive Advantage from Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Bhagat, S. ve Bolton, B. (2013). Director Ownership, Governance, and Performance. Journal of Fınancıal and Quantitative Analysis, 48(1): 105–135.
• Black, B. S., Jang H. ve Kim, W. (2006). Does Corporate Governance Predict Firms’ Market Values? Evidence from Korea. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 22: 366- 413.
• Blibech, N. ve Berraies, S. (2018). The Impact of CEO' Duality and Board's Size and Independence on Firms’ Innovation and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 9(1): 22-29.
• Bobillo, A., Rodríguez-Sanz, J.A. ve Tejerina-Gaite, F. (2017). Corporate Governance Drivers of Firm Innovation Capacity. Rev Int Econ, 1–21.
• Brossard, O., Lavigne S. ve Sakinc M.E. (2013). Ownership Structures and R&D in Europe: The Good Institutional Investors, the Bad and Ugly Impatient Shareholders. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4): 1031-1068.
• Cebula, R.J. ve Rossi, F. (2015). Ownership Structure and R&D: An Empirical Analysis of Italian Listed Companies. PSL Quarterly Review, 68(275): 297-325.
• Chang, R.D., Chang, Y.W., Chang, C.P. ve Hu, F. (2008). The Effects of Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Investment Opportunity Set on Firm Performance. Corporate Ownership & Control, 5(4): 135 – 148.
• Chau, G. ve Gray, S.J. (2010). Family Ownership, Board Independence and Voluntary Disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19: 93-109.
• Chen, H.L. (2012). Board Characteristics and R&D Investment: Evidence from Taiwan’s Electronics Industry. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 2(4): 161-170.
• Chen, C.J., Lin, S.W., Lin, Y.H. ve Hsiao, Y.C. (2016). Ownership Structure, Independent Board Members and Innovation Performance: A Contingency Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69: 3371–3379.
• Cheng, E.C.M. ve Courtenay, S.M. (2006). Board Composition, Regulatory Regime and Voluntary Disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting, 41(3):262 – 289.
• Choi, S., Lee, S. ve Williams, C. (2011.) Ownership and Firm Innovation in a Transition Economy: Evidence From China. Research Policy, 40(3): 441-452.
• Choi, S.B., Il Park, B. ve Hong, P. (2012). Does Ownership Structure Matter for Firm Technological Innovation Performance?. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(3): 267- 288.
• Chou, T.K. (2017). The Effects of Board Characteristics and Ownership Structure on R&D Investment. Proceedings of 8th Global Business Research Conference, 13 - 14 July 2017, LIUC-Universita Cattaneo, Milan, Italy.
• Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V. B. ve Sen, N. (2001). An Examination of the Relationship of Governance Mechanisms to Performance. Journal of Management, 27 (1): 23–50.
• Cornett, M. M., Marcus A. J., Saunders, A. & Tehranian, H. (2007). The Impact of Institutional Ownership on Corporate Operating Performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31: 1771– 1794.
• Cucculelli, M. (2018). Firm Age and The Probability of Product Innovation. Do CEO Tenure and Product Tenure Matter?. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(1): 153–179.
• Cuervo, A. (2002). Corporate Governance Mechanisms: A Plea for Less Code of Good Governance and More Market Control. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10(2): 84-93.
• Dainien, R. ve Dagiliene, L. (2014). Accounting-Based Valuation of Innovation: Challenges and Perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156 (2014): 589 – 593.
• Demsetz, H. Villalonga, B. (2001). Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(2001): 209–233.
• Doğan, M., Elitaş, B.L., Ağca, V. ve Ögel, S. (2013). The Impact of CEO Duality on Firm Performance: Evidence From Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2): 149-155.
• Doğan, M. ve Tiryakioğlu, M. (2018). Sahiplik Yapısı ve Ar-Ge Harcamaları: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 14(1): .67-79.
• Donaldson, L. ve Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16 (1): 49- 64.
• Eng, L.L. ve Shackell, M. (2001). The Implications of Long-Term Performance Plans and Institutional Ownership for Firms’ Research and Development Investments. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 16(2): 117-139.
• Eng, L. L. ve Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate Governance and Voluntary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(4): 325-345.
• Fauzi, F. ve Locke, S. (2012). Board Structure, Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: A Study of New Zealand Listed-Firms. AAMJAF, 8(2): 43–67.
• Fidancı, N. (2017). Araştırma, Geliştirme (Ar-Ge) ve Tasarım Harcamalarının Vergisel Düzenlemeler ve Teşvikler Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi ve Muhasebeleştirilmesi. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi Şubat 2017, 10 (5): 69-90.
• Finkelstein, S., ve D’Aveni, R. (1994). CEO Duality as a Double-Edged Sword: How Boards of Directors Balance Entrenchment Avoidance and Unity Of Command. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1079–1108.
• Forbes, D.P. ve Milliken F.J. (1999). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision-Making Groups. Academic Management Review, 24(3) : 489-505.
• Galia, F. ve Zenou, E. (2012). Board Composition and Forms Of Innovation: Does Diversity Make a Difference?. European Journal of International Management, 6(6): 630-650.
• García, C.Q. ve Velasco, C.A.B. (2016). Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams and Innovation Capabilities: The Initial Public Offerings of Biotechnology Firms. Long Range Planning, 49 (2016): 507–518.
• Goegel, L. ve Jong, P. (2017). Wearing Two Hats: CEO Duality, Risk, Innovation, and Firm Performance in the IT Industry. Review of Contemporary Business Research, 6(2): 16-25.
• Golden, B. R. ve Zajac, E. J. (2001). When Will Boards Influence Strategy? Inclination Power 5 Strategic Change. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1087–1111.
• Graves, S.B. ve Waddock S.A. (1990). Institutional Ownership and Control: Implications for Long-Term Corporate Strategy. The Executive, 4(1): 75-83.
• Gunnarsson, J., Cikusa, N. ve Hansen, A.D. (2017). Impact of Innovation and Places on Corporate Governance the Case of Wind Turbine Production. Journal of Advances in Economics and Finance, 2(1): 9-28.
• Gürbüz, A. O. ve Ergincan, Y. (2004). Kurumsal Yönetim: Türkiye’deki Durumu ve Geliştirilmesine Yönelik Öneriler. İstanbul: Literatür Yayınları.
• Jermias, J. (2007). The Effects of Corporate Governance on The Relationship Between Innovative Efforts and Performance. Eur. Accounting. Rev., 16(4): 827- 854.
• Jiménez, J.M.R. ve Fuentes, M.M.F. (2015). Management Capabilities, Innovation, and Gender Diversity In The Top Management Team: An Empirical Analysis In Technology-Based SMEs. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19: 107–121.
• Juhmani, O. (2013). Ownership Structure and Corporate Voluntary Disclosure: Evidence from Bahrain. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 3(2): 133-148.
• Kara, E., Erdur, D. ve Karabıyık, L. (2015). Effects of Corporate Governance Level on The Financial Performance of Companies: A Research on BIST Corporate Governance Index (XKURY). Ege Academic Review, 15(2): 265-274.
• Khanchel, I. (2007). Corporate Governance: Measurement and Determnant Analyss. Manageral Audtng Journal, 22(8): 740-760.
• Kılıç, M. (2014). Yönetim Kurulu Yapısının İşletme Performansına Etkisi: Türkiye’de Bir Uygulama. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 16(3): 33-56.
• Kılıç, R. ve Keklik, B. (2012). KOBİ’lerde Genel Firma Özelliklerinin İnovasyon Uygulamalarına Etkisi: Balıkesir İlinde Bir Araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(Ocak-Haziran): 93-118.
• Kılıç, M. ve Kuzey, C. (2019). The Effect of Corporate Governance on Carbon Emission Disclosures: Evidence From Turkey. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(1): 35-53.
• Kocamış, T.U. ve Güngör, A. (2014). Türkiye’de Ar-Ge Harcamaları ve Teknoloji Sektöründe Ar-Ge Giderlerinin Kârlılık Üzerine Etkisi: Borsa İstanbul Uygulaması. Maliye Dergisi, 166(Ocak-Haziran): 127-138.
• Kostellou, S. ve Tsakiri, A. (2010). R&D Spending and Subsequent Market Returns. Does Expensing Versus Capitalizing Matter for European Firms?. A dissertation submitted for the partial fulfillment for the degree of MSc in Management.https://www.ihu.edu.gr/gateway/files/document/dissertations/Kostellou-Tsakiri.pdf
• L’Huillier, B.M. (2014). What Does “Corporate Governance” Actually Mean?. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 14(3): 300-319.
• Labelle, R., Francoeur, C., ve Lakhal, F. (2015). To Regulate or Not to Regulate? Early Evidence on the Means Used Around the World to Promote Gender Diversity in the Boardroom. Gender,Work and Organization, 22(4): 339–363.
• Labunska, S., Petrova, M. ve Prokopishyna, O. (2017). Asset and Cost Management for Innovation Activity. Economic Annals-XXI, 165(5-6): 13-18.
• Laksmana, I. (2008). Corporate Board Governance and Voluntary Disclosure of Executive Compensation Practices. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25 (4): 1147-1182.
• Lee, S. (2012). Financial Determinants of Corporate R&D Investment in Korea. Asian Economic Journal, 26(2): 119-135.
• Lee, M. (2015). Impact of Corporate Governance on Research and Development Investment in the Pharmaceutical Industry in South Korea. Osong Public Health Res Perspect, 6(4): 249-255.
• Liao, L., Luo, L.,ve Tang, Q. (2015). Gender Diversity, Board Independence, Environmental Committee and Greenhouse Gas Disclosure. British Accounting Review, 47(4): 409-424.
• Lin, C.Y. ve Ho, Y.H. (2007). Technological Innovation for China’s Logistics Industry. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(4): 1–19.
• Littkemann, J. (1996). Dealing With Innovation Costs in Financial Accounting: An International Comparison. Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel, No. 392, Universität Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Kiel. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/181068
• Luo, Y. (2005). Corporate Governance and Accountability in Multinational Enterprises: Concepts and Agenda. Journal of International Management, 11 (1): 1-18.
• Lückerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on Boards and Firm Performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(2): 491-509.
• Makkonen, T., Williams, A.M. ve Habersetzer, A. (2018). Foreign Board Members and Firm Innovativeness: An Exploratory Analysis For Setting A Research Agenda. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,1-32.
• Mallette, P. ve Fowler, K. L. (1992). Effects of Board Composition and Stock Ownership on the Adoption of ‘Poison Pills. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (5): 1010–1035.
• Mat Rabi, N., Zulkafli, A. H., ve Haat, C.M.H. (2010). Corporate Governance, Innovation Investment and Firm Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies. Journal of Management, Economia. Seria Management, 13(2): 225-239.
• Mezghanni, B.S. (2010). How Ceo Attributes Affect Firm R&D Spending? New Evidence From A Panel Of French Firms [Bil¬diri]. Crises et nouvelles problématiques de la Valeur, Mayıs 2010, Nice, France.
• Midavaine, J., Dolfsma, W. ve Aalbers, R. (2016). Board Diversity and R&D Investment. Management Decision, 54(3): 558-569.
• Miller, T. ve Triana, A.C. (2009). Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom: Mediators of the Board Diversity–Firm Performance Relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5): 755-786.
• Milliken, F. J. ve Martins, L.L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding The Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21 (2): 402–433.
• Minetti R., Murro P. ve Paiella M. (2015). Ownership Structure, Governance, and Innovation. European Economic Review, 80(2015): 165-193.
• Muhasebe Sistemi Uygulama Genel Tebliği (1992). T.C.Resmi Gazete,21447, 12 Aralık 1992.
• Musteen, M., Barker, V.L. ve Baeten, V.L. (2006). CEO Attributes Associated With Attitude Toward Change: The Direct and Moderating Effects of CEO Tenure. Journal of Business Research, 59(5): 604-612.
• Müller, V.O. (2014). The Impact of Board Composition on the Financial Performance of FTSE100 Constituents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109(2014): 969 – 975.
• Noor, M. A. M. (2011). The Effect of Implementation of Malaysia Code of Corporate Governance (MCCG) 2007 on Corporate Governance Attributes and Financial Performance. University Utara Malaysia, Ph. D. DPA Dissertation, Malezya.
• Ntim, C.G. ve Osei, K.A. (2011). The Impact of Corporate Board Meetings on Corporate Performance in South Africa. African Review of Economics and Finance, 2(2): 83-103.
• O’Connell, V. ve Cramer, N. (2010). The Relationship Between Firm Performance and Board Characteristics In Ireland. European Management Journal, 28: 387– 399.
• Ocak, M. ve Özden, E. A. (2017). Yönetim Kurulu Toplantı Sayısını Etkileyen Faktörler: Borsa İstanbul’a İlişkin Bulgular. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(2): 217-230.
• OECD (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (1999). Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD.
• Okere, W., Eluya, D.F., Lawal, A.I., Oyebisi, I., Eseyin, O., Popoola, O. ve Awe, T.E. (2019). Foreign Expatriates on Board and Financial Performance: A Study of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(2): 418-423.
• Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., ve Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a Different View Create Something New? The Effect Of Employee Diversity On Innovation. Research Policy, 40(3): 500- 509.
• Otluoğlu, E., Sarı, E. S. ve Otluoğlu, K. Ö. Ç. (2016). Yönetim Kurulu Çeşitliliğinin Finansal Performansa Etkisi: BIST 100 Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(46): 749-758.
• Pearce, J. A. ve Zahra, S. A. (1991). The Relative Power of CEOs and Boards of Directors: Associations with Corporate Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2): 135- 153.
• Pfeifer, C. ve Wagner, J. (2012). Is Innovative Firm Behavior Correlated With Age and Gender Composition of The Workforce? Evidence From A New Type of Data for German Enterprises. Journal for Labour Market Research,47(3): 1-9.
• Rechner, P. L. ve Dalton, D. R. (1991). CEO Duality and Organizational Performance: A ongitudinal Analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (2): 155–160.
• Reed, D. (2002). Corporate Governance Reforms in Developing Countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 37: 223-247.
• Ren, H., Chandrasekar, K. ve Li, B. (2012). Moderating Effects of Board and Managerial Incentive on the Relationship between R&D Investment and Firm Performance Evidence from Listed Manufacturing Firms in China. The Journal of International Management Studies, 7(1): 41-55.
• Rupley, K.H., Brown, D. ve Marshall, R.S. (2012). Governance, Media and The Quality of Environmental Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31: 610-640.
• Samaha, K., Dahawy, K., Hussainey, K. ve Stapleton, P. (2012). The Extent of Corporate Governance Disclosure and Its Determinants in a Developing Market: The Case of Egypt. Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 28 (2012): 168–178.
• Setayesh, M.H., Rezaei, G. ve Kazemnezhad, R. (2016). Corporate Governance, Investment in Research and Development and Company Performance: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach Based on Data from a Developing Country. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3): 1114-1122.
• Shapiro, D., Tang, Y., Wang, M. ve Zhang, W. (2015). The Effects of Corporate Governance on the Innovation Performance of Chinese SMEs. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 13(4): 311-335.
• Singh, D.A. ve Gaur, A.S. (2013). Governance Structure, Innovation and Internationalization: Evidence From India. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 300-309.
• Singh, M. (2015). Firm R&D Strategies Impact of Corporate Governance. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 17(3): 35-44.
• Soliman, M.M., Ragap, A.A. ve Eldin, M.B. (2014). Board Composition, Ownership Structure and Voluntary Disclosure: An Empirical Study of The Listed Companies In Egypt. Corporate Ownership & Control, 11(2): 415-426.
• Sternberg, E. (1998). Corporate Governance: Accountability in The Marketplace. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
• Sunday, O. ve Godvin, O. (2017). Effects of Board Globalizing on Financial Performance of Banks in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 7(4):1-10.
• Şahin, M. (2004). Üretim Sistemlerinin Tasarım Kuruluş ve İşleyişi, Genel İşletme. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. Talavera, O., Yin, S., ve Zhang, M. (2018). Age Diversity, Directors’ Personal Values, and Bank Performance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 55: 60–79.
• Talke, K., Salomo, S. ve Rost, K. (2010). How Top Management Team Diversity Affects Innovativeness and Performance Via The Strategic Choice To Focus On Innovation Fields. Research Policy, 39: 907–918.
• Taşkın, F. D. ve Mandacı, P. E. (2017). Şirket Yönetim Kurulundaki Kadın Üyelerin Firma Performansına Etkisi. İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1): 29-45.
• Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2016). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi. İstanbul: Beta Yayın.
• Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2017). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayın.
• Terjesen, S., Couto, E.B. ve Francisco, P.M. (2016). Does The Presence Of Independent and Female Directors Impact Firm Performance? A Multi-Country Study Of Board Diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 20(3): 447-483.
• Teruel, M., Parra, M. D., ve Segarra, A. (2015). Gender Diversity and Innovation in Manufacturing and Service Firms. Working Paper, Universitat Rovira I Virgili Department D’economia.
• Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. ve Huse, M. (2011). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism To Critical Mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2): 299-317.
• Tribo, J., Berrone, P. ve Surroca, J. (2007). Do The Type and Number of Blockholders Influence R&D Investments? New Evidence from Spain. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5): 828-842.
• Ujunwa, A., Nwakoby, I. ve Ugbam, C.O. (2012). Corporate Board Diversity and Firm Performance: Evidence From Nigeria. Corporate Ownership and Control, 9(2): 216-223.
• Uyar, A., Kılıç, M. ve Bayyurt, N. (2013). Association Between Firm Characteristics and Corporate Voluntary Disclosure: Evidence From Turkish Listed Companies. Intangible Capital, 9(4): 1080-1112.
• Ün, T. (2018). Uygulamalı Panel Veri Ekonometrisi. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
• Vafeas, N. ve Theodorou, E. (1998). The Relationship Between Board Structure and Firm Performance in the UK. The British Accounting Review, 30: 383-407.
• Vafeas, N. (2003). Length of Board Tenure and Outside Director Independence. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 30(2003): 1043-1064.
• Yangfan, T. (2015). Ownership Concentration and Innovation: Empirical Examination From China. Hong Kong Baptist Üniversitesi, An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration, Accounting Concentration, Hong Kong.
• Zhaohui, Z. ve Ding, W. (2012). The Board Structure and R&D Investment A Study on the Chinese Listed IT Companies [Bil¬diri]. 2012 International Symposium on Management of Technology (ISMOT), 8-9 Nov. 2012, Hangzhou, China.