The paradox of independent board members and financial return of state-owned enterprises: Case of Lithuania
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.18
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2024, Issue #1, pp. 205-217
- 230 Views
-
75 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The relationship between governance measures and company performance is a widely debated topic in economics, finance, and organizational analyses with diverse outcomes in the existing scholarly body of work. This study aims to examine the relationship between the share of independent members on the board and the financial return of state-owned enterprises. Lithuania was chosen as a setting for the research because the country has been successfully implementing ambitious corporate governance reforms in the public sector and thus is recognized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for its efforts. Within the examined dataset of 27 Lithuanian state-owned enterprises spanning 2015 to 2021, there was a notable rise in the proportion of independent board members, ascending from 13% in 2015 to 61% in 2021. However, no statistically significant correlation is discerned between the share of independent board members and financial performance indicators, specifically return on assets (r (181) = –0.020, p > 0.05) and return on equity (r (181) = –0.104, p > 0.05). The quantitative results are complemented through the administration of semi-structured interviews with a subset of board members affiliated with these enterprises. The absence of a relationship between independent board members and the financial return is explained via a more significant influence of state decisions than the effect of a board. Therefore, the appointment of independent board members alone cannot be regarded as the sole guarantor of improvement in financial returns.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G38, H82, M21, O16
-
References50
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Key indicators of state-owned enterprises in Lithuania in 2010, 2015 and 2021
- Table 2. Independent board members and state-owned enterprise return in Lithuania, 2015–2021
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics
- Table 4. Inter-item correlation matrix for the relationship between the share of independent board members and state-owned enterprise return
- Table 5. Linear regression analysis for the relationship between the share of independent board members and state-owned enterprise return
-
- Abang’a, A. O., Tauringana, V., Wang’ombe, D., & Achiro, L. O. (2022). Corporate governance and financial performance of state-owned enterprises in Kenya. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 22(4), 798-820.
- Al-Saidi, M. (2021). Board independence and firm performance: Evidence from Kuwait. International Journal of Law and Management, 63(2), 251-262.
- Bøhren, Ø., & Staubo, S. (2016). Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management, 22(1), 3-30.
- Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.-C., & Saffar, W. (2008). Political connections of newly privatized firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(5), 654-673.
- Böwer, U. (2017). State-owned enterprises in emerging Europe: The good, the bad, and the ugly. IMF Working Papers, 2017(221).
- Bozec, R., & Dia, M. (2007). Board structure and firm technical efficiency: Evidence from Canadian state-owned enterprises. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1734-1750.
- Cheng, Q., & Ng, A. (2018). State ownership, governance and financial performance of Chinese state owned enterprises. Journal of Accounting, 8(1).
- Curi, C., Gedvilas, J., & Lozano-Vivas, A. (2016). Corporate governance of SOEs and performance in transition countries. Evidence from Lithuania. Modern Economy, 7(12).
- Fuzi, S. F. S., Halim, S. A. A., & Julizaerma, M. K. (2016). Board independence and firm performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 460-465.
- Gani, L., & Jermias, J. (2006). Investigating the effect of board independence on performance across different strategies. The International Journal of Accounting, 41(3), 295-314.
- Governance Coordination Center (GCC). (2011). State-owned enterprises in Lithuania: Annual report 2010.
- Governance Coordination Center (GCC). (2016). State-owned enterprises in Lithuania: Annual report 2015.
- Governance Coordination Center (GCC). (2018). State-owned enterprises in Lithuania: Annual report 2017.
- Governance Coordination Center (GCC). (2022). State-owned enterprises in Lithuania: Annual report 2021/2022.
- Guan, J., Gao, Z., Tan, J., Sun, W., & Shi, F. (2021). Does the mixed ownership reform work? Influence of board chair on performance of state-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 122, 51-59.
- Heo, K. (2018). Effects of corporate governance on the performance of state-owned enterprises (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8555). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
- Hermanto, Y. B., Lusy, L., & Widyastuti, M. (2021). How financial performance and state-owned enterprise (SOE) values are affected by good corporate governance and intellectual capital perspectives. Economies, 9(4), 134.
- Hoitash, U. (2011). Should independent board members with social ties to management disqualify themselves from serving on the board? Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 399-423.
- Huse, M. (1994). Board-management relations in small firms: The paradox of simultaneous independence and interdependence. Small Business Economics, 6(1), 55-72.
- Ilham, R. N., Arliansyah, A., Juanda, R., Sinta, I., Multazam, M., & Syahputri, L. (2022). Application of good corporate governance principles in improving benefits of state-owned enterprises (An emperical evidence from Indonesian Stock Exchange at moment of Covid-19). International Journal of Economic, Business, Accounting, Agriculture Management and Sharia Administration (IJEBAS), 2(5), 761-772.
- 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.
- Jurkonis, L., & Aničas, I. (2015). Impact of the board on management of Lithuanian state owned enterprises. Ekonomika, 94(3), 139-151.
- Jurkonis, L., Merkliopas, Š., & Kyga, K. (2016). Impact of the corporate governance reform on the management effectiveness of state-owned enterprises in Lithuania in 2012–2014. Ekonomika, 95(2), 158-178.
- Kanakriyah, R. (2021). The impact of board of directors’ characteristics on firm performance: A case study in Jordan. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(3), 341-350.
- Kloviene, R., Gimzauskiene, E., & Misiunas, D. (2015). The significance of SOEs performance measurement as policy instrument in Baltic countries. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 286-292.
- Koerniadi, H., & Tourani-Rad, A. (2012). Does board independence matter? Evidence from New Zealand. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 6(2), 3-18.
- Kumar, M. V. S., Nagarajan, N. J., & Schlingemann, F. P. (2021). The performance of acquisitions of founder CEO firms: The effect of founder firm premium. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(4), 619-646.
- Kuzman, T., Talavera, O., & Bellos, S. K. (2018). Politically induced board turnover, ownership arrangements, and performance of SOEs. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(3), 160-179.
- Lefort, F., & Urzúa, F. (2008). Board independence, firm performance and ownership concentration: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 615-622.
- Leung, S., Richardson, G., & Jaggi, B. (2014). Corporate board and board committee independence, firm performance, and family ownership concentration: An analysis based on Hong Kong firms. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 10(1), 16-31.
- Liu, Y., Miletkov, M. K., Wei, Z., & Yang, T. (2015). Board independence and firm performance in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 30, 223-244.
- M., T., & Sasidharan, A. (2020). Does board independence enhance firm value of state-owned enterprises? Evidence from India and China. European Business Review, 32(5), 785-800.
- Menozzi, A., Gutiérrez Urtiaga, M., & Vannoni, D. (2012). Board composition, political connections, and performance in state-owned enterprises. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(3), 671-698.
- Musleh Alsartawi, A. (2019). Board independence, frequency of meetings and performance. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(1), 290-303.
- Namey, E., Guest, G., McKenna, K., & Chen, M. (2016). Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(3), 425-440.
- OECD. (2015). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2022). Note by the OECD Secretariat on Lithuania’s implementation of corporate governance accession review recommendations (DAF/CA/CG/ACS(2022)4/FINAL). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
- Okhmatovskiy, I., Grosman, A., & Sun, P. (2022). Hybrid governance of state-owned enterprises. In M. Wright, G. T. Wood, A. Cuervo-Cazurra, P. Sun, I. Okhmatovskiy, & A. Grosman (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of State Capitalism and the Firm (pp. 449-478). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ramdani, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). The impact of board independence and CEO duality on firm performance: A quantile regression analysis for Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 607-627.
- Rutledge, R. W., Karim, K. E., & Lu, S. (2016). The effects of board independence and CEO duality on firm performance: Evidence from the NASDAQ-100 Index with controls for endogeneity. Journal of Applied Business & Economics, 18(2).
- Ryan Jr., H. E., & Wiggins III, R. A. (2004). Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(3), 497-524.
- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. (2022, December 22). Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės ir savivaldybės įmonių įstatymas [Law on state and municipal enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania]. (In Lithuanian).
- Shan, Y. G. (2019). Managerial ownership, board independence and firm performance. Accounting Research Journal, 32(2), 203-220.
- Simpson, S. N. Y. (2014). Boards and governance of state-owned enterprises. Corporate Governance, 14(2), 238-251.
- Singhchawla, W., Evans, R., & Evans, J. (2011). Board independence, sub-committee independence and firm performance: Evidence from Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Economics & Business, 15(2), 1-15.
- Souther, M. E. (2021). Does board independence increase firm value? Evidence from closed-end funds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(1), 313-336.
- Uribe-Bohorquez, M.-V., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I.-M. (2018). Board independence and firm performance: The moderating effect of institutional context. Journal of Business Research, 88, 28-43.
- Wagner, A. F. (2011). Board independence and competence. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 20(1), 71-93.
- Wasowska, A., & Postula, I. (2018). Formal and informal governance mechanisms in state-owned enterprises: Evidence from post-transitional Poland. Baltic Journal of Management, 13(4), 410-432.
- Wong, S. C. Y. (2018). The state of governance at state-owned enterprises (Public Sector Opinion No. 40). Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation.