Governance codes and types of issuer. An empirical research on a global sample

Greco, Giulio (2012): Governance codes and types of issuer. An empirical research on a global sample.

Abstract

We study the relationship between the types of issuer and the governance codes contents in the neo-institutional social theory perspective, using a global sample of over 70 national governance codes. We hypothesize that the code recommendations are influenced by the nature of isomorphic pressure to embrace new social practices, exerted by the different types of issuer. The findings show that codes issued involving multiple stakeholders’ groups and organizations into hybrid committees are more likely to: (1) include recommendations that take into account multiple political and social institutional demands; (2) adapt the mainstream agency-theory-based governance model to the national setting features. Overall, the policy-making negotiations among different stakeholders’ groups in the local institutional setting appear to be determinant in shaping the code recommendations and in improving the promotion of good governance practices among firms. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to systematically investigate the relationship between the types of issuer and the codes contents.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: governance codes, types of issuer, policy-making negotiations
• Subjects: G - Financial Economics > G1 - General Financial Markets > G18 - Government Policy and Regulation; G - Financial Economics > G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance

References

Aguilera, R. V. & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004) Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What Is the Trigger? Organization Studies, 25, 417–446.

Aguilera, R. V. & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of good governance. Corporate governance: an International review, 17(3): 376-387.

Allegrini, M., Greco, G. (2011), “Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary disclosure: evidence from Italian listed companies”, Journal of Management & Governance, forthcoming (available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/32720028107w4746/fulltext.pdf

Balgobin, R. N. S. (2008). Global governance practice: The impact of measures taken to restore trust in corporate governance practice internationally, ICFAI Journal of Corporate Governance, 7: 7–21.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: Organizations' creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and society, 36: 547-571.

Burns, L R., & D. R. Wholey (1993). Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 106-138.

Cameron, A. and Trivedi, K. (1998), Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chavent, M., Ding, Y., Fu, L., Stolowy, H., & Wang, H. (2006). Disclosure and determinants studies: An extension using the clustering divisive method (DIV). European Accounting Review, 15(2), 181–218.

Coffee, J. C. (2005) A Theory of Corporate Scandals: Why the USA and Europe Differ, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21, 198–211.

Cole, R. E. (1985). The macropolitics of organizational change: A comparative analysis of the spread of small group activities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 560-585.

Collier, P. & Zaman, M. (2005) Convergence in European corporate governance: The audit committee concept, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13: 753–68.

DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality, American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1991) Introduction. In Powell,W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 1–38. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2004). Globalization and institutions: Redefining the rule of the economic game. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Dyck, A., & Zingales, A. (2004). Private benefits of control: An international comparison. The Journal of Finance, LIX(2), 537–600.

Enrione, A., Mazza, C. & Zerboni, F. (2006). Institutionalizing codes of governance, American Behavioral Scientist, 49: 961–73.

Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–326.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Professional networks and the institutionalization of the single mindset. American Sociological Review, 50: 639-658.

Galaskiewicz, J., & S. Wasserman (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 454-479.

Gordon, J. N. & Roe, M. J. (2004) Introduction. In Gordon, J. N. and Roe, M. J. (eds) Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, 1–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greco, G. (2011), “Determinants of board and audit committee meeting frequency. Evidence from Italian listed companies”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 208-229.

Greene, W. (2003), Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses. Organization Science, 21(2): 521-539.

Gregory, H. J. & Simmelkjaer II, R. T. (2002) Comparative Study of Corporate Governance Codes Relevant to the European Union and its Member States. Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Guillen, M.F. (1998). International management and the circulation of ideas. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 5: 47-63.

Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Guler, I., Guillén, M.F., Macpherson, J.M. (2002). Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 207-232.

Haspeslagh, P. (2010). Corporate governance and the current crisis, Corporate Governance, 10(4), 375 – 377. Haveman H.A. (1993). Follow the Leader: Mimetic Isomorphism and Entry Into New Markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38:4, 593-627.

Hill, J. (2005) Regulatory Responses to Global Corporate Scandals, Wisconsin International Law Journal, 23, 367.

Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A model proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–77.

O’Shea, N. (2005) Governance how we’ve got where we are and what’s next, Accountancy Ireland, 37: 33.

OECD (2004a). Corporate Governance: a survey of the OECD Countries, Paris: OECD Publications.

OECD (2004b). Principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD Publications.

Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.

Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 455–476.

Reaz, M. & Hossain, M. (2007) Corporate governance around the world: An investigation, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 11: 169–75.

Ring, P. S., Bigley, G., D'Aunno, T., & Khanna, T. 2005. Perspectives on how governments matter. Academy of Management Review, 30(2): 308-320.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, LII(2).

Strang, D. & Macy, M. M. (2001) In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation, American Journal of Sociology, 107, 147–182.

Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L. G. (1983) Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis, quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R. & Shortell, S. M. (1997) Customization or Conformity: An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366–394.

Yoshikawa, T., Tsui-Auch, L. S. & McGuire, J. (2007) Corporate governance reform as institutional innovation: The case of Japan, Organization Science, 18: 973–88.

Zattoni, A. & Cuomo, F. (2009). Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of institutional and efficiency perspectives. Corporate governance: an International review, 16(1), 1-15.

Zingales, L. (1994), The value of the voting right: a study of the Milan stock exchange experience, Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 125-48.