Характеристики комитетов совета директоров и их влияние на финансовую эффективность: исследование российских компаний

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

Корпоративное управление, будучи одной из ключевых составляющих корпоративной финансовой архитектуры, в значительной степени определяет финансовую эффективность компании. Однако, большинство исследований по данной теме сосредоточены на изучении влияния характеристик совета директоров и редко уделяют внимание характеристикам комитетов совета директоров, при этом специфика институциональной и корпоративной среды в России ограничивает применимость результатов, полученных для иностранных компаний. Данная работа направлена на преодоление существующих лакун путем анализа влияния характеристик ключевых комитетов совета директоров на рыночные показатели эффективности 100 крупнейших российских публичных компаний реального сектора в период с 2014 по 2021 годы. Результаты анализа панельных данных подтверждают значимое влияние разнообразия профессионального опыта членов комитетов по аудиту, по стратегии и по устойчивому развитию на Q Тобина и совокупную доходность акции (total shareholder return, TSR), причем выявленные эффекты более значимы, чем влияние размера, независимости комитетов и разнообразия образования в них. Кроме того, выявлен значимый корректирующий эффект власти генерального директора (СЕО), ослабляющего как положительные, так и отрицательные эффекты характеристик комитетов совета директоров, что согласуется с результатами некоторых предыдущих исследований. Проведенное исследование не только вносит вклад в существующий пул академических работ, но также полезно для практического анализа состава органов корпоративного управления в крупнейших российских компаниях, что особенно актуально в условиях значительных изменений, происходивших на фоне введения беспрецедентных санкций и структурной перестройки российской экономики начиная с 2022 года.

Об авторах

К. Попов

НИУ ВШЭ, Москва, Россия

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: kpopov@hse.ru

Список литературы

  1. Myers S.C. Financial architecture. European Financial Management. 1999;5(2):133-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00086 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00086
  2. Ivashkovskaya I., Stepanova A., Eliseeva N. Does corporate financial architecture contribute to sustainable corporate growth? The evidence from Russian companies. Journal of Corporate Finance Research = Korporativnye Finansy. 2014;8(4):11-33. https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.8.4.2014.11-33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.8.4.2014.11-33
  3. Muravyev A. Board of directors in Russian publicly traded companies in 1998–2014: Structure, dynamics and performance effects. Economic Systems. 2017;41(1):5-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.12.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.12.001
  4. Belikov I. Effective boards of directors: A new approach. Journal of Corporate Finance Research = Korporativnye Finansy. 2019;13(1):120-130. https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.13.1.2019.120-130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.13.1.2019.120-130
  5. Dergunova I.V., Dolgopyatova T.G. The board work experience diversity and the performance of Russian companies. Russian Management Journal = Rossiiskii zhurnal menedzhmenta. 2021;19(1):5-34. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2021.101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2021.101
  6. Kirpishchikov D.A., López-Iturriaga F.J., Zavertiaeva M.A. Boards of directors in BRIC countries: A review of empirical studies. Russian Management Journal = Rossiiskii zhurnal menedzhmenta. 2021;19(2):195-228. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2021.204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2021.204
  7. Макеева Е.Ю., Попов К.А., Дихтярь А.А., Судакова А.В. Взаимосвязь характеристик совета директоров с ESG-рейтингами и стоимостью российских компаний. Российский журнал менеджмента. 2022;20(4):498-523. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2022.403 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2022.403
  8. Zavertiaeva M., Ershova T. Rule with an iron hand: powerful CEOs, influential shareholders and corporate performance in Russia. European Journal of Management and Business Economics. 2022;38(4):385-396. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-08-2021-0228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-08-2021-0228
  9. Zhang T., Li Y., Hou D. Has the Resignation of Independent Directors Holding Government Positions Improved Firm Performance? - A Quasi-Natural Experiment From China. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;12:825366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.825366 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.825366
  10. Mensah L., Bein M.A. Sound Corporate Governance and Financial Performance: Is There a Link? Evidence from Manufacturing Companies in South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana. Sustainability. 2023;15(12):9263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129263
  11. Saha R. Corporate governance, voluntary disclosure and firm valuation relationship: evidence from top listed Indian firms. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies. 2024;14(1):187-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-09-2021-0288 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-09-2021-0288
  12. Uyar A., Kuzey C., Kilic M., et al. Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2021;28(6):1730-1748. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2141
  13. Darouichi A., Kunisch S., Menz M., et al. CEO tenure: An integrative review and pathways for future research. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2021;29(6):661-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12396 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12396
  14. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976;3(4):305-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  15. Jiraporn P., Jumreornvong S., Jiraporn N., et al. How do independent directors view powerful CEOs? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. Finance Research Letters. 2016;16:268-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.12.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.12.008
  16. Fernandez-Temprano M.A., Tejerina-Gaite F. Types of director, board diversity and firm performance. Corporate Governance. 2020;20(2):324–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2019-0096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2019-0096
  17. Chen G., Chen X., Wan P. Naive independent directors, corporate governance and firm performance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:984661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.984661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.984661
  18. Kasbar M.S.H., Tsitsianis N., Triantafylli A., et al. An empirical evaluation of the impact of agency conflicts on the association between corporate governance and firm financial performance. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2023;24(2):235-259. http://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-09-2021-0247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-09-2021-0247
  19. Ellili N.O.D. Impact of environmental, social and governance disclosure on dividend policy: What is the role of corporate governance? Evidence from an emerging market. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2022;29(5):1396-1413. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2277
  20. Pinto G., Rastogi S. Corporate governance impact on dividend policy of NIFTY-500 indexed Indian pharmaceutical companies (2014–2019). Corporate Governance. 2022;22(7):88-99. http://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2021-0309 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2021-0309
  21. Marques T.A., de Sousa Ribeiro K.C., Barboza F. Corporate governance and debt securities issued in Brazil and India: A multi-case study. Research in International Business and Finance. 2018;45:257-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.156
  22. Merendino A., Melville R. The board of directors and firm performance: empirical evidence from listed companies. Corporate Governance. 2019;19(3):508-551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2018-0211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2018-0211
  23. Freeman R.E. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984. 292 p.
  24. Baldenius T., Melumad N., Meng X. Board composition and CEO power. Journal of Financial Economics. 2014;112(1):53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.004
  25. Hillman A.J., Dalziel T. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review. 2003;28(3):383-396. http://doi.org/10.2307/30040728 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729
  26. Jackling B., Johl S. Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2009;17(4):492-509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00760.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00760.x
  27. Jermias J., Gani L. The impact of board capital and board characteristics on firm performance. The British Accounting Review. 2014;46(2):135-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.12.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.12.001
  28. Gonzales M., Guzman A., Pablo E., Trujilo M.A. Does gender really matter in the boardroom? Evidence from closely held family firms. Review of Managerial Science. 2020;14:221-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0292-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0292-1
  29. Bai K., Ullah F., Arif M., et al. Stakeholder-Centered Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainable Development: Evidence from CSR Practices in the Top Companies by Market Capitalization at Shanghai Stock Exchange of China. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):2990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042990
  30. Ji Z., Abdoune R. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Performance in China: Does the Background of Foreign Women Directors Matter? Sustainability. 2023;15(13):9873. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139873
  31. Kumar P. The impact of executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes on voluntary disclosures: Does audit quality matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2024;25(2):240-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11-2022-0302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11-2022-0302
  32. Endo K. Corporate governance beyond the shareholder-stakeholder dichotomy: Lessons from Japanese corporations’ environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(4):1625-1633. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2457
  33. Mustafa A.S., Che-Ahmad A., Chandren S. Board diversity, audit committee characteristics and audit quality: The moderating role of control-ownership wedge. Business Horizons. 2018;14(3):587-614. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.287217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.42
  34. Pucheta Martínez M.C., Gallego Álvarez I. Do board characteristics drive firm performance? An international perspective. Review of Managerial Science. 2020;14:1251-1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00330-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00330-x
  35. Vitolla F., Raimo N., Rubino M. Board characteristics and integrated reporting quality: an agency theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020;27(2):1152-1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1879 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1879
  36. Zhang J.Q., Zhu H., Ding H. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013;114(3):381-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0
  37. Gerged A.M., Yao S., Albitar K. Board composition, ownership structure and financial distress: Insights from UK FTSE 350. Corporate Governance. 2022;23(2):628-649. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2022-0069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2022-0069
  38. Garanina T., Muravyev A. The gender composition of corporate boards and firm performance: Evidence from Russia. Emerging Markets Review. 2021;48:100772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100772 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100772
  39. Bennouri M., Chtioui T., Nagati H., et al. Female board directorship and firm performance: What really matters? Journal of Banking & Finance. 2018;88:267-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.12.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.12.010
  40. Kang Y.S., Huh E., Lim M.-H. Effects of Foreign Directors’ Nationalities and Director Types on Corporate Philanthropic Behavior: Evidence from Korean Firms. Sustainability. 2019;11(11), 3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113132
  41. Green C.P., Homroy S. Female directors, board committees and firm performance. European Economic Review. 2018;102:19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.12.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.12.003
  42. Pfeffer J., Salancik G. The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row; 1978. 336 p.
  43. Gulzar I., Bisati A.I., Haque S.M.I. Endogeneity and the Dynamics of Corporate Governance and Innovation in India’s Manufacturing Sector. Business Perspectives and Research. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/22785337221148580 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/22785337221148580
  44. Hayness K.T., Hillman A. The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal. 2010;31(11):1145-1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.859
  45. Reeb D.M., Zhao W. Director capital and corporate disclosure quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2013;32(4):191-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.003
  46. Singh D., Delios A. Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India. Journal of World Business. 2017;52(5):615-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.02.002
  47. Mishra S. Do Independent Directors Improve Firm Performance? Evidence from India. Global Business Review. 2023;24(5):1092-1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920917310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920917310
  48. Miletkov M., Poulsen A., Wintoki M.B. Foreign independent directors and the quality of legal institutions. Journal of International Business Studies. 2017;48:267-292. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0033-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0033-0
  49. Harjoto M. A., Laksmana I., Yang Y.-W. Board nationality and educational background diversity and corporate social performance. Corporate Governance (Bingley). 2019;19(2):217-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0138
  50. Estélyi K.S., Nisar T.M. Diverse boards: why do firms get foreign nationals on their boards? Journal of Corporate Finance. 2016;39:174-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.006
  51. Masulis R.W., Wang C., Xie F. Globalizing the boardroom – The effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2012;53(3):527-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.12.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.12.003
  52. Hooghiemstra R., Hermes N., Oxelheim L., et al. Strangers on the board: The impact of board internationalization on earnings management of Nordic firms. International Business Review. 2019;28(1):119-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.08.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.08.007
  53. Bernile G., Bhagwat V., Yonker S. Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics. 2018;127(3):588-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.12.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.12.009
  54. Andersen A., Garel A., Gilbert A., Tourani-Rad A. Social capital, human capital, and board appointments. Global Finance Journal. 2022;54:100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100758
  55. Fedaseyeu V., Linck, J.S., Wagner, H.F. Do qualifications matter? New evidence on board functions and director compensation. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2018;48:816-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.12.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.12.009
  56. Bonini S., Deng J., Ferrari M., et al. Long-tenured independent directors and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2022;43(8):1602-1634. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3370
  57. Wang T. Board human capital diversity and corporate innovation: a longitudinal study. Corporate Governance. 2022;22(4):680-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2021-0126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2021-0126
  58. Pang J., Zhang X., Zhou X. From classroom to boardroom: The value of academic independent directors in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2020;62:101319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101319
  59. Huang W., Teklay B. Business Professors in the boardroom: Can they walk-the-talk? Finance Research Letters. 2021;39:101590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101590 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101590
  60. Chaudhry N.I., Roomi M.A., Aftab I. Impact of expertise of audit committee chair and nomination committee chair on financial performance of firm. Corporate Governance. 2020;20(4):621-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2020-0017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2020-0017
  61. Harjoto M.A., Indrarini L., Yang Y.W. Board diversity and corporate investment oversight. Journal of Business Research. 2018;90:40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.033
  62. Brown J.A., Anderson A., Salas J.M., et al. Do investors care about director tenure? Insights from executive cognition and social capital theories. Organization Science. 2017;28(3):471-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1123
  63. Li N., Wahid A.S. Director tenure diversity and board monitoring effectiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research. 2018;35(3):1363-1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12332
  64. Faleye O., Hoitash R., Hoitash U. Industry expertise on corporate boards. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. 2018;50:441-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0635-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0635-z
  65. Al-Okaily J., Naueihed S. Audit committee effectiveness and family firms: impact on performance. Management Decision. 2020;58(6):1021-1034. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0422 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0422
  66. Al Farooque O., Buachoom W., Sun L. Board, audit committee, ownership and financial performance – emerging trends from Thailand. Pacific Accounting Review. 2020;32(1):54-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2018-0079 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2018-0079
  67. Maroun W. Corporate governance and the use of external assurance for integrated reports. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2022;30(5):584-607. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12430 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12430
  68. Eberhardt-Toth E. Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;140:1926-1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.127
  69. Martínez-Ferrero J., Lozano M. B., Vivas M. The impact of board cultural diversity on a firm’s commitment toward the sustainability issues of emerging countries: The mediating effect of a CSR committee. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2021;28(2):675-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.2080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2080
  70. Jarboui A., Ben Hlima N.D., Bouaziz D. Do sustainability committee characteristics affect CSR performance? Evidence from India. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2023;30(2):628-652. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2021-0225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2021-0225
  71. Hambrick D.C., Mason P.A. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review. 1984;9(2):193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
  72. Shahab Y., Ntim C.G., Chen Y., et al. Chief executive officer attributes, sustainable performance, environmental performance, and environmental reporting: New insights from upper echelons perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2345
  73. Wang Y., Qiu Y., Luo Y. CEO foreign experience and corporate sustainable development: Evidence from China. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022;31(5):2036-2051. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3006
  74. Xu P., Zhang Z. Facilitation or inhibition? Impact of CEO’s financial background on industrial AI transformation of manufacturing companies. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1126801. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1126801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1126801
  75. Wijethilake C., Ekanayake A., Perera S. Board involvement in corporate performance: evidence from a developing country. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economics. 2015;5(3):250-268. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaee-12-2012-0050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2012-0050
  76. Liu Y., Wu Y., Wu W. Which kind of board benefits more from the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and radical innovation? The asymmetric roles of board characteristics in China. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. 2023;10(1):388. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01906-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01906-5
  77. Kao M.-F., Hodgkinson L., Jaafar A. Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Governance. 2019;19(1):189-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144
  78. Oradi J., Izadi J. Audit committee gender diversity and financial reporting: evidence from restatements. Managerial Auditing Journal. 2020;35(1):67-92. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-10-2018-2048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-10-2018-2048
  79. Khan M., Iqbal M. Environmental disclosure and idiosyncratic risk; exploring the role of governance. Social Responsibility Journal. 2023;19(8):1435-1450. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2022-0352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2022-0352
  80. Busru S.A., Fahad P. The role of corporate governance in ensuring the quality of earnings: Empirical evidence from the emerging market. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review. 2023;7(1):21-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv7i1p2
  81. Park J.-H., Kim C., Chang Y.K., et al. CEO hubris and firm performance: Exploring the moderating roles of CEO power and board vigilance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018;147:919-933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2997-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2997-2
  82. Muravyev A., Berezinets I., Ilina Y. The structure of corporate boards and private benefits of control: Evidence from the Russian stock exchange. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2014;34:247-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.03.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.03.008
  83. Velte P. Does CEO power moderate the link between ESG performance and financial performance? A focus on the German two-tier system. Management Research Review. 2020;43(5):497-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2019-0182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2019-0182
  84. Nurgozhaeva R. Corporate Governance in Russia State-Owned Enterprises: Real Or Surreal? Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 2022;17(1):24-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.3
  85. Michelon G., Parbonetti A. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance. 2012;16:477-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3
  86. Sarto F., Saggese S., Vigano R., et al. Human capital and innovation: mixing apples and oranges on the board of high-tech firms. Management Decision. 2019;58(5):897-926. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2017-0594 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2017-0594
  87. Usman O., Yakubu U.A. An investigation of the post-privatization firms’ financial performance in Nigeria: The role of corporate governance practices. Corporate Governance. 2019;19(3):404-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2018-0190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2018-0190
  88. Albitar K., Hussainey K., Kolade N., et al. ESG disclosure and firm performance before and after IR: The moderating role of governance mechanisms. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management. 2020;28(3):429-444. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-09-2019-0108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-09-2019-0108
  89. ESG вопросы в практике российских публичных компаний. Российский институт директоров; 2021. (дата обращения: 30.06.2023) URL: https://rid.ru/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/2021_%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%94_%D0%98%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_ESG.pdf
  90. Hermalin B.E., Weisbach M.S. Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. FRBNY Economic Policy Review. 2003;9(1):7-26. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.233111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.233111
  91. Wintoki M.B., Linck J.S., Netter J.M. Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics. 2012;105(3):581-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005
  92. Jatana C. Board characteristics and CEO turnover–performance relationship: evidence from India. Corporate Governance. 2023;23(4):766-799. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2022-0038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2022-0038
  93. Kopyrina O., Stepanova A. The influence of ownership structure and board independence on the cost of debt in BRIC countries. Economic Systems. 2023;47(2):101097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2023.101097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2023.101097
  94. Paradimitri P., Pasiouras F., Tasiou M., et al. The effects of board of directors’ education on firms’ credit ratings. Journal of Business Research. 2020;116:294-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.059
  95. Wang M.-J., Su X.-Q., Wang H.-D., et al. Directors’ education and corporate liquidity: evidence from boards in Taiwan. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. 2017;49:463-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-016-0597-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-016-0597-6
  96. Sidki M., Boerger L., Boll D. The effect of board members’ education and experience on the financial performance of German state-owned enterprises. Journal of Management and Governance. 2024;28:445-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09663-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09663-4
  97. Agyei-Mensah B.K. The impact of board characteristics on corporate investment decisions: an empirical study. Corporate Governance. 2021;21(4):569-586. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2020-0125 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2020-0125
  98. Saeed A., Ali Q., Riaz H., et al. Audit Committee Independence and Auditor Reporting for Financially Distressed Companies: Evidence From an Emerging Economy. SAGE Open. 2022;12(2):21582440221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221089951
  99. Brahma S., Economou F. CEO power and corporate strategies: a review of the literature. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. 2024;62:1069-1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-023-01231-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-023-01231-7
  100. Humphery-Jenner M., Islam E., Rahman L., et al. Powerful CEOs and Corporate Governance. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 2022;19(1):135-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12305
  101. Какими будут российские IPO в 2024 году. Vedomosti. 13 февраля 2024 г. (дата обращения: 20.07.2024) URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/investments/articles/2024/02/13/1019892-kakimi-budut-rossiiskie-ipo-v-2024-godu
  102. Bahia Gama M.A., Lana J., Bueno G., et al. Moderating the connections: media coverage and firm market value. Corporate Governance. 2023;23(3):607-627. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2022-0068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2022-0068
  103. Mustun T., Abdul Wahab E.A. Political connections, board ethnicity and value relevance in Mauritius. Asian Review of Accounting. 2023;31(5):680-711. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-10-2022-0238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-10-2022-0238
  104. García-Gómez C.D., Zavertiaeva M.A., Kirpishchikov D., et al. Board social capital in an emerging market: Do directors’ connections affect corporate risk-taking? Borsa Istanbul Review. 2023;23(5):1173-1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.07.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.07.005
  105. Yang H., Xue K. Board diversity and the marginal value of corporate cash holdings. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2023;79:102048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102048
  106. Blau P.M. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press; 1977. 307 p.

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы
Действие
1. JATS XML
Скачать

© Попов К., 2024

Creative Commons License
Эта статья доступна по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».