Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi’nin Entelektüel Sermaye’ye Etkisinin Ölçülmesi: BİST XKURY Uygulama Örneği

Öz

2000'li yılları bitirip üçüncü bin yıla doğru ilerlediğimiz şu zamanlarda diğer pek çok alanda olduğu gibi şirket yönetim metotları alanında da radikal değişimler yaşanmaktadır. Globalleşme ve yaşanan hızlı teknolojik gelişmeler, geleneksel yönetim ilkelerinin yeniden gözden geçirilmesini kaçınılmaz hale getirmiştir. Bunun bir sonucu olarak, şirketleri ve bilgiyi yönetmek, işletmelerin ve ülkelerin en önemli ekonomik görevi haline gelmiştir. Çalışmada Kurumsal Yönetim (KY) İlkelerine uyulmasının şirketlerin Entelektüel Sermayelerine (ES) olan etkileşimi ortaya konulmuştur. Bunun için hızlı bir ekonomik gelişme sürecinde olan Türkiye'de faaliyet gösteren ve KY Endeksi’ne sahip olan şirketlere ait mali veriler kullanılmıştır. KY Endeksi’ni uygulayan şirketlerin %51’ininES’lerinde değer artış olduğu rakamlarla ortaya konulmuştur. Çok uluslu şirketlerin sadece bir kısmının KY Endeksi kurallarına uygun hareket etmeleri olumlu etkileri kısıtlamaktadır. Sonuç olarak şirketlerin KY ilkelerine uymak için katlandıkları maliyetler ile aynı zamanda güncel olan piyasa değerlerine de olumlu olarak yansımaktadır. Bu durum şirketlere hem maliyet avantajı hem de rekabet avantajı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi,Entelektüel Sermaye

Assessment of The Impact of Corporate Governance Index on Intellectual Capital: BIST XKURY Case Study

Öz

Introduction

In the 21st Century, firms came to face the existential threat of competition brought about by globalization. Against this background, the firms realized that a quality management structure was a must for a robust capital structure, as well as for maintaining their existence. As more and more firms came to realize that a robust capital structure could be possible in compliance with the principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and responsibility within the framework of their management philosophy, Corporate Governance came to the fore front as a leading concept. The leading gains from compliance with Corporate Governance Principles are increased management quality, decreased capital costs, and enhanced finance opportunities and liquidity. These help firms to weather crises better.

The purpose of the study is to assess whether the Corporate Governance Index in place contributes to the Intellectual Capital, of the firms operating in developing countries. For this purpose, the analysis was carried out on the basis of financials of Turkish firms which employ the Corporate Governance Index (www.imf.org, 2016) to reveal if their Intellectual Capital were affected in such a leading emerging economy. The analysis also serves to show how international firms' interest in Corporate Governance shapes their Intellectual Capital.

Methods

The Calculated Intangible Value Method used in the study was developed out of the need to come up with an asset the information-based enterprises can put up as collateral before the banks. (Rodov & Leliaert, 2000)For such information-focused entities without substantial physical assets, presentation of assets to serve as collateral is quite a significant problem. The method defines the difference between the market value and the book value of the firm as the 'surplus value', and assumes that the market value reflects not only physical assets but also a component which can be associated within tangible assets as well.(Sasya, 2015)The actual contribution of the method is to calculate the value of the firm's intangible assets which account for the surplus value. The value of the intangible assets can be defined as the firm's ability to perform beter than an average competitor endowed with comparable tangible assets, in terms of overall profitability. (Nejati & Pirayseh, 2015)The method was developed and implemented for the first time by an American firm, NIC, and is sometimes called the NIC method. (Jin, Edvinnson , Chen, & Beding, 2014)The method establishes the value of a firm's intellectual assets through a 7-step procedure.

Findings

Initially, the financial statements of 39 firms the shares of which are traded at BIST (IstanbulStock Exchange), and 4 non-public firms, which have implemented Corporate Governance Index in Turkey regularly since 2007 among these, were used as data. However, in cases where the 'earning ratio of the business' is below the 'average earning ratio of the industry', the Calculated Intangible Value Method can not be used. 10 firms were excluded from calculations on these grounds. In other words, even though the analyzes began with a total of 43 firms, in the end, Intellectual Capital figures of only 29 firms could be calculated.

Conclusion

51.72% of the firms included in the analysis saw positive changes in their Intellectual Capital figures through the implementation of the Corporate Governance Index. On the other hand, 44.82% saw falls in their Intellectual Capital figures after the implementation of the Corporate Governance Index. Only 3.46% of all firms saw no change.The results of the test are found in the "t Stat", "t Critical", and "P" values. The p-value for a one-tailed test is 0.004261645, and the p-value for a two-tailed test is 0.008523291. Our decision rule for the p-value would be, "reject H0 if p-value is less than 0.05." Thus, we would reject H0 using the p-value decision rule.

In a nutshell, more than half of the firms which implemented the requirements of the Corporate Governance Index without interruption since 2007 saw a significant increase of Intellectual Capital. This proves that the Corporate Governance Index is crucial in terms of enhancing not only the governance structures of the firms but also the institutional memory and structural capital.Therefore, the firms should place greater emphasis on the application of the Corporate Governance Principles should they seek the ability to adapt to globalization, to with stand financial crises, and to increase market share.

Kaynakça

1. Akbay, G. (2007). Entelektüel sermaye ve bankacılık sektörü üzerinde bir uygulama. Bursa : Uludag University. Alagöz, A., & Özpeynirci, R. (2007). Kurumsal başarının entelektüel sermaye etkisi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 56-79. Carter, A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Coparative governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Revue, 33-53. Core, J. E., Hothausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief excutive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economic, 371-406. Darman Manisalı, G. (2015). Aile şirketlerine kurumsallaşma kılavuzu. İstanbul: Coparate Governance Center. De Angelo, L. E. (1988). Managerial compatiton, ınformation costs and corporate governance. The use of accounting performance measures in proxy contests. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3-36. Gampers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrek, A. (2001). Coporative governance and equity price. NBER Working Paper. Jin, Y. J., Edvinnson , L., Chen, J., & Beding, T. (2014). Navigating ıntellectual capital after the financial crisis. New York: Springer. Kalyta, P. (2011). Intellectual Capital, corporate governance, and firm value. Harward Law School Forum and Corporate Governance and Financial Regualtion. Karaca, S. (2004). Entelektüel sermaye ve yönetimi. İMMMO Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 177. Kennan, J., & Aggestam, M. (2001). Corporate governance and ıntellectualcapital: some conceptualisations. Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review. Larcker, D. F., Richardson, S. A., & Tuna, İ. (2007). Corporate Governance, accounting outcomes and organizasyon performance. The Accounting Review. Nejati, H., & Pirayseh, R. (2015). Measuring the level of intellectual capital and studying its effect on firm value by using the QTobin for companies accepted in Stock Exchange in Tehran. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. O'Sullivan, M. (2001). Contest of corportate control: Corporate governance and economic performance in USA and Germany. USA: Oxford Scholarship Online. Öztürk, M. B., & Demirgüneş, K. (2008). Kurumsal yönetim bakış açısıyla entelektüel sermaye. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 395-411. Renes, R. (2008). You Think corporate governance is expensive: Try Non-compliance. INFOCUS, Magazine of the Financial Study Association. Rodov, I., & Leliaert, P. (2000). FiMIAM :Financial Method of Intangible Assets Measurement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 332-336. Safieddine, A., Jamali, D., & Noureddine, S. (2009). Corporate governance and intellectual capital: evidence from an academic institution. The international journal of business in society, 146-157. Sasya, S. (2015). Analyis of ıntellectual capıtal effect. Bınus Business Review, 449-463. Simon, S., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship between coporate governance structures and extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditon and Taxation, 139-156. Steward, T. (1998). Intelectuel capital: The new wealth of organization. International Sience for Performance Improvment. Wahid, A., Abu, A. N., Latif, W., & Smith, M. (2013). Corporate governance and ıntellectual capital: Evidence from public. Higher Education Studies. Williamson, E. O. (1988). Corporate Finance and corporate governance. The Journal of Finance.kap.gov.tr. (2016). 06 5, 2016 tarihinde http://www.kap.gov.tr/sirketler/islem-goren-sirketler/tum-sirketler.aspx adresinden alındı tkyd.org. (2016). 02 27, 2016 tarihinde http://tkyd.org/tr/tkyd.html adresinden alındı www.imf.org. (2016). 02 26, 2016 tarihinde http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/030915.pdf adresinden alındı