Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 73–91 | Cite as

The effects of board size and ‘busy’ directors on the market value of Italian companies



This paper presents evidence that corporate governance quality measured by (1) the board size and (2) the fraction of directors that serve on more corporate boards, influences the market value of firms. The analysis is based in Italy, a country that is characterized by family and concentrated ownership, low legal protection of investors and pyramidal firm structures. Our empirical results suggest that the level of ‘busy-ness’ of corporate directors as a measure of board effectiveness has a significant influence on firm’s market performance. By contrast, we find limited evidence that board size has a substantial impact on the market valuation, except in small and medium enterprises and in some specific industry sectors.


Accounting valuation Corporate governance Board-of-directors’ size Number of directorships ‘Busy’ directors 


  1. Baghat, S., & Black, B. (2001). The non-correlation between board independence and long term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27, 231–274.Google Scholar
  2. Brunello, G., Graziano, C., & Parigi, B. (2001). Executive compensation and firm performance in Italy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 133–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coles, J. W., McWilliams, V. B., & Sen, N. (2001). An examination of the relationship of governance mechanism to performance. Journal of Management, 27, 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51, 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cotter, J., Shivdasani, A., & Zenner, M. (1997). Do independent directors enhance target shareholder wealth during tender offers? Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denis, D., & Sarin, A. (1999). Ownership and board structures in publicly traded corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 52, 187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. L. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feltham, G. A., & Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Valuation and clean surplus accounting for operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 689–732.Google Scholar
  9. Ferris, S. P., Jagannathan, M., & Pritchard, A. C. (2003). Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. Journal of Finance, LVIII(3), 1087–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2006). Are busy boards effective monitors? Journal of Finance, LXI(2), 689–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, I. C., & Shimizu, K., (2004). Too busy to serve? An examination of the influence of overboarded directors. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 775–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermalin, B., & Weisbach, M. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9, 7–26.Google Scholar
  13. Jiraporn, P. (2007). Too busy to show up? An analysis of directors’ absences’, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenstein, S. & Wyatt, J. (1990). Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, LII(2).Google Scholar
  17. Volpin, P. F. (2002). Governance with poor investor protection: Evidence from top executive turnover in Italy. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wysocki, P. D., Tuna, A. I. & Richardson, S. (2005). Accounting for taste: Board member preferences and corporate policy choices’. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, December.Google Scholar
  19. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.CAIR, MBS, University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.Cass Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations