ANALYSING THE ROLE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN IMPROVING FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF INDIAN COMPANIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53555/0y9kxp33Keywords:
Corporate Governance, Board Size, Panel data, Firm performance, India, Fixed effectsAbstract
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on firm’s financial performance (FP) of Indian companies. This study is based on annual data of 115 companies listed on Bombay stock exchange for the period 2014-2025. The authors have used GLS random effects and fixed effects models to estimate the impact of corporate governance mechanism on firm’s financial performance in India. Also, we have used return on assets, return on equity, earning per share and Tobin’s Q (TQ) to measure firm performance. This research uses a descriptive research design. The results show that board size and independence are unable improve firm performance. Gender diversity show positive impact on firm’s performance and CEO duality showed negative relations with the dependent variables.
References
1.Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
2.Almaqtari, F. A., Al-Hattami, H. M., Al-Nuzaili, K. M., & Al-Bukhrani, M. A. (2020). Corporate governance in India: A systematic review and synthesis for future research. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1803579.
3.Amran, N. A. (2011). Corporate governance mechanisms and company performance: Evidence from Malaysian companies. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(6), 101-114.
4.Arora, A. and Sharma, C. (2016), "Corporate governance and firm performance in developing countries: evidence from India", Corporate Governance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 420-436.
5.Arora, Akshita, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Indian Pharmaceutical Sector (2012). Arora. A. (2012), ‘Corporate Governance and Firm Performance of Indian Pharmaceutical Sector’, Asian Profile, 40(6), 537-550, Asian Research Service, Canada, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2610488
6.Bhagat, S., & Black, B. (2002). The non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27(2), 231–273.
7.Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of corporate finance, 14(3), 257-273.
8.Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2019). Corporate governance and firm performance: The sequel. Journal of Corporate Finance, 58, 142-168.
9.Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6288.00034
10.Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial review, 38(1), 33-53.
11.Chaudhary, N., & Gakhar, K. (2018). Corporate governance and financial performance with a perspective on board size and frequency of board meetings: Empirical evidence from India. Drishtikon: A Management Journal, 9(1), 37-64.
12.Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(3), 371–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00058-0
13.Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<269::AID-SMJ950>3.0.CO;2-K
14.Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 674–686. https://doi.org/10.2307/256988
15.Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629101600103
16.Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
17.Gulzar, I., Haque, S. I., & Khan, T. (2020). Corporate governance and firm performance in Indian textile companies: Evidence from NSE 500. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 13(2), 210-226.
18.Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941–952. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279222
19.Horváth, R., & Spirollari, P. (2012). Do the board of directors’ characteristics influence firm’s performance? The US evidence. Prague economic papers, 4(2), 470-486.
20.Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
21.Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
22.Kiranmai, J., & Mishra, R. K. (2019). Corporate Governance Practices in Listed State-owned Enterprises in India: An Empirical Research. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(1), 94-121.
23.Mishra, R. and Kapil, S. (2017), "Effect of ownership structure and board structure on firm value: evidence from India", Corporate Governance, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 700-726.
24.Mohan, A., & Chandramohan, S. (2018). Impact of corporate governance on firm performance: empirical evidence from India. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature (IMPACT: IJRHAL) ISSN (P), 2347-4564.
25.Pandey, K. D., & Sahu, T. N. (2017). An empirical analysis on capital structure, ownership structure and firm performance: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 8(2), 63.
26.Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
27.Shrivastav, S. M. (2016). The Relationship Between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: An Analysis Using Panel Data Approach. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309160065
28.Srivastava, A. (2011). Ownership structure and corporate performance: Evidence from India. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(1), 23-29.
29.Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(1), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(99)00018-5
30.Yan, C. C., Hui, Y. Z., & Xin, L. (2021). The relationship between board size and firm performance. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 257, p. 02079). EDP Sciences.
31.Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00844-5
32.Yin Li, T., Suet Ching, L., Shanmugaretnam, S., Teh Boon Gaik, B., Author, C., & Rahman, A. (2024). Panel Data Analysis on the Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance: Evidence from Bursa Malaysia Companies with Good CG Disclosures. In MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING REVIEW (Vol. 23).
