Improving management of enterprises based on corporate governance
- 1. Republic of Uzbekistan Under the Cabinet of Ministers Higher School of Business and Entrepreneurship "Business Management" graduate student
Description
The aim of this research is to inspect whether Corporate Governance (CG) attributes such as Audit Meeting Frequency, Ownership Concentration, Board Meeting Frequency, Foreign Ownership, Institutional Ownership, Board Gender Diversity, Audit Committee Size, Board Size, Audit Reputation and CEO Compensation affect firms’ performance in every where. This research employed the pooled least square method to estimate the association among attributed of CG and firm performance measures (Return on Asset and Tobin’s Q) by selecting the Cement Sector and Energy sector companies listed in Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) during 2009–2022. A substantial result is that the energy sector’s CG system does not differ from the cement sector. Tobin’s Q is lesser than ROA, suggesting the same condition as companies in the cement sector. On average, firms in the energy sector are older than the firms in the cement sector. It contradicts the result of profitability proxies of the energy sector. Being older firms, the profitability proxies show lower returns as compared to cement sector firms.
Files
685-688 Khudayarov Ikram Abdukarimovich.pdf
Files
(1.7 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:447332e4ec82fd1fe07f6975e41e76f3
|
1.7 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- 1. Abdullah SN (2004) Board Composition, CEO duality and performance among Malaysian listed companies. Corp Gov 4:47–61
- 2. Aggarwal R, Erel I, Ferreira M, Matos P (2011) Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from Institutional Investors. J Financ Econ 100(1):154–18)
- 3. Allen F, Gale D (2000) Corporate governance and competition. In: Vives X (ed) Corporate Governance: theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
- 4. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277
- 5. Baccar A, Ben-Mohamed E, Bouri A (2013) Managerial optimism, overconfidence and board characteristics: toward a new role of corporate governance.
- 6. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7(7):287–301Ben Barka H, Legendre F (2017) Effect of the board of directors and the audit committee on firm performance: a panel data analysis. J Manage Governance 21(3):737–755
- 7. Ben Mahamed E, Baccat A, Bouri A (2013) Managerial optimism, overconfidence and board characteristics: towards a new role of corporate governance. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7(7):287–301
- 8. Boone AL, Casares Foedld L, Karpoff JM, Raheja CG (2007) The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 85(2007):66–101
- 9. Boyd BK (1995) CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model. Strateg Manag J 16(4):301–312
- 10. Bozec R (2005) Boards of directors, market discipline and firm performance. J Bus Finance Account 32(9–10):1921–1960
- 11. Brown R, Sarma N (2007) CEO overconfidence, CEO dominance and corporate acquisitions. J Econ Bus 59(5):358–379