2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10101-016-0180-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolving corporate governance and firms performance: evidence from Japanese firms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
10
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
10
2
Order By: Relevance
“…First, it uses an unbalanced panel dataset of 10,043 company‐year observations from 16 countries during the period 2004–2015. This is in contrast to previous studies that focus mainly on specific time periods and on a restricted sample of companies operating in specific countries, such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom (Chen, Cheng, & Wang, ; Kiel & Nicholson, ; Ullah, ; Weir & Laing, ). Moreover, the availability of data from multiple countries adds special interest to our research because it allows the analysis to be extended to a broader point of reference than the corporate system addressed by most existing studies.…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, it uses an unbalanced panel dataset of 10,043 company‐year observations from 16 countries during the period 2004–2015. This is in contrast to previous studies that focus mainly on specific time periods and on a restricted sample of companies operating in specific countries, such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom (Chen, Cheng, & Wang, ; Kiel & Nicholson, ; Ullah, ; Weir & Laing, ). Moreover, the availability of data from multiple countries adds special interest to our research because it allows the analysis to be extended to a broader point of reference than the corporate system addressed by most existing studies.…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…First, it uses an unbalanced panel dataset of 10,043 company-year observations from 16 countries during the period 2004-2015. This is in contrast to previous studies that focus mainly on specific time periods and on a restricted sample of companies operating in specific countries, such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom (Chen, Cheng, & Wang, 2015;Kiel & Nicholson, 2003;Ullah, 2017;Weir & Laing, 2001).…”
contrasting
confidence: 58%
“…Secondly, previous studies have focused mainly on specific time periods and on a sample of firms operating in a specific country, such as Australia, Japan and UK (Kiel and Nicholson, 2003;Ullah ,2017;Weir and Laing, 2001;Chang et al, 2015), while a few papers, as far as we know, have drawn on a sample of several countries (e.g. Fauver et al, 2017, Claessens andYurtoglu, 2013;Kim and Lu, 2013;Iliev et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over time, many research and studies were carried, through which a series of relationships and contributions of corporate governance and sustainability were elucidated. The most relevant research focused on: the impact upon the increase of financial performance through the affiliation of entities to a group [29,30]; the adequate motivation and monitoring of managers with subsequent influence in share prices [31,32]; the determination of managers to apply investment policies that lead to the maximum value of the entities [33,34]; the increase of the performance and market value of entities [35][36][37][38][39][40]; the relationship between performance, structure, and stock holdings among the members of the board [41,42], and the increasing competition to attract investors and the economic performance of entities [43,44].…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have concluded that a combination of the BoD Chairman and CEO positions is not optimal for the leadership structure of an entity. This perspective shows that through the concentration of the decision authority, independence is limited and efficiency in monitoring management is reduced [36,49,77,78]. Moreover, a study conducted by Chen et al [79] shows that the duality of the CEO/chairman does not cause financial distress.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%