Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 737–755 | Cite as

Effect of the board of directors and the audit committee on firm performance: a panel data analysis

  • Hazar Ben Barka
  • François Legendre


This research examines the relationship between independent directors, the audit committee (AC), and firm performance, taking into account the impact of the chief executive officer’s powers and block shareholders. We use the maximum likelihood estimator, based on agency theory assumptions and cylindered panel data, to examine three models of firm performance. The results show that the independence of the board is reflected clearly by increased economic and equity performance of the firm. However, an AC that is fully independent or meets frequently is associated with lower firm performance. Unlike pension funds, institutional shareholders can be considered an effective control mechanism in the context of France. Our results development includes advanced explanations for market liquidity and shareholders’ portfolios. The study period ends before the European regulation on ACs came into effect in 2008. This allows for an appreciation of soft law in French corporate governance. It also lets us compare the data with the way firms operate their boards one decade later. The evidence provides useful guidelines on the supremacy of soft law in corporate governance and suggests that the composition and functioning of the board of directors should be moderated based on the firms’ context. The specificity of the cylindered panel data helps to better examine the impact of the board and AC’s independence and functioning in French corporate governance structure.


Independent directors Audit committee External shareholders CEO power 


  1. AFEP-CNPF, Viénot corporate governance report. (1995).
  2. AFEP-Medef. (2002). Bouton corporate governance report,
  3. AFEPMEDEF, Viénot corporate governance report. (1999).
  4. Agrawal, A., & Chadha, S. (2005). Corporate governance and accounting scandals. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 3, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board characteristics accounting report integrity, and the cost of debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Barka, H. (2012). L’indépendance des administrateurs les risques du métier face à la mondialisation de la finance. Revue Française de Comptabilité, 451, 36–39.Google Scholar
  8. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private proprety. London: The MacMillan corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Black, B., & Kim, W. (2012). The effect of board structure on firm value: A multiple identification strategies approach using Korean data. Journal of Financial Economics, 104, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brick, I. E., & Chidambaran, N. K. (2010). Board meetings, committee structure, and firm value. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brickley, J., Coles, J., & Terry, R. (1994). Outside directors and the adoption of poison pills. Journal of Financial Economics, 35, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broye, G., & Moulin, Y. (2012). Les déterminants de la rémunération des administrateurs externes dans les sociétés françaises du SBF 120. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 15, 53–78.Google Scholar
  13. Bryce, M., Ali, M. J., & Mather, P. R. (2015). Accounting quality in the pre-/post-IFRS adoption periods and the impact on audit committee effectiveness—Evidence from Australia. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 35, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cai, J., Garner, J. L., & Walkling, R. A. (2009). Electing directors. Journal of Finance, 64, 2389–2421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cai, C. X., Hillier, D., Tian, G., & Wu, Q. (2015). Do audit committees reduce the agency costs of ownership structure. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 35, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carcello, J., & Neal, T. L. (2000). Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 75, 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavaco, S., Challe, E., Crifo, P., & Reberioux, A. (2012). Conseils d’administration et performance des sociétés cotées, Report for CDC Research Institute,
  18. Chen, G., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., & Rui, O. M. (2006). Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 424–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, H. L., Hsu, W. T. & Chan, C. Y. (2016). Independent directors’ human and social capital, firm internationalization and performance implications: An integrated agency-resource dependence view. International Business Review, 25(4), 1265–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Choi, J. J., Park, S. W., & Yoo, S. S. (2007). The value of outside directors: Evidence from corporate governance reform from Korea. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42, 941–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coffee, J. (1991). Liquidity versus control: The institutional investor as corporate monitor. Columbia Law Review, 91, 1277–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., Saunders, A., & Tehranian, H. (2007). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31, 1771–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cotter, J. F., Shivdasani, A., & Zenner, M. (1997). Do independent directors enhance target shareholders wealth during tender offers? Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dahya, J., & McConnell, J. (2005). Outside directors and corporate board decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.Google Scholar
  26. Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duru, A., Iyengar, R. J., & Zampelli, E. M. (2016). The dynamic relationship between CEO duality and firm performance: The moderating role of board independence. Journal of Business Research,. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.001.Google Scholar
  28. Faccio, M., & Lasfer, M. A. (2000). Do occupational pension funds monitor companies in which they hold larges takes? Journal of Corporate Finance, 6, 71–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Public Economics, 88(2), 288–307.Google Scholar
  30. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). The separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feldmann, D. A., & Schwarzkopf, D. L. (2003). The effect of institutional ownership on board and AC composition. Review of Accounting & Finance, 2(4), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. García-Sánchez, I. M., Frías Aceituno, J. V., & Domínguez, L. R. (2015). The ethical commitment of independent directors in different contexts of investor protection. Business Research Quarterly, 18, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. (2007). The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Godard, L., & Schatt, A. (2005). Faut-il limiter le DUALITY des fonctions dans les conseils d’administration? Le cas français. Revue des sciences de gestion, 213, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goh, B. W. (2009). ACs, Boards of Directors, & Remediation of Material Weaknesses. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(2), 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hahn, P. D., & Lasfer, M. (2015). Impact of foreign directors on board meeting frequency. International Review of Financial Analysis,. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2015.11.004.Google Scholar
  37. Hartzell, J., & Starks, L. (2003). Institutional investors and executive compensation. Journal of Finance, 58, 2351–2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 88(1), 96–118.Google Scholar
  39. Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution : A survey of the economic literature. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 7–26.Google Scholar
  40. Hou, W., Li, S., & Priem, R. L. (2013). How do CEOs matter? The moderating effects of CEO compensation and tenure on equity ownership in international joint ventures. Journal of International Management, 19, 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hutchinson, M., & Gul, F. A. (2004). Investment opportunity set, corporate governance practices and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10, 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kamarudin, K. A., Ismail, W. A. W., & Samsuddin, M. E. (2012). The influence of CEO duality on the relationship between audit committee independence and earnings quality. Procedia-Social and Behavior Science, 65, 919–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karamanou, I., & Vafeas, N. (2005). The association between Corporate Boards, audit committees and management earnings forecasts: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), 453–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khondkar, K., Ashok, R., & Sanghyun, S. (2015). Board structure & AC monitoring: Effects of AC monitoring incentives & board entrenchment on audit fees. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 31(2), 17–31.Google Scholar
  46. Klein, A. (2002). Economic determinants of AC independence. The Accounting Review, 77(2), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Komarev, I., C. & Prat Dit Hauret, C. (2011). Le comité d’audit dans la gouvernance des sociétés cotées, Revue Française de Comptabilité, no 441.Google Scholar
  48. Krivogorsky, V. (2006). Ownership, board structure, and performance in continental Europe. The International Journal of Accounting, 41, 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Masulis, R. W., Wang, C., & Xie, F. (2012). Globalizing the boardroom—The effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miletkov, M. K., Poulsen, A. B., & BabajideWintoki, M. (2014). The role of corporate board structure in attracting foreign investors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 29, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Managerial ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murphy, K. J., & Van Nuys, K. (1994). Governance, Behavior, and Performance of State and Corporate Pension Funds. Working Paper: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  54. Park, Y. W., & Shin, H. H. (2003). Board composition and earning management in Canada. Journal of Corporate Finance, 185, 1–27.Google Scholar
  55. Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1997). Institutional shareholders and corporate goverance in the United Kingdom. In K. S. Keasey, S. Thompson & M. Wright (Eds.), Corporate Goverance: Economic, Management, Financial Issues (pp. 18-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Singh, M., & Davidson III, W. N. (2003). Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27, 793–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sun, J., Lan, G., & Liu, G. (2014). Independent audit committee characteristics and real earnings management. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomsen, S., Pedersena, T., & Kvist, H. K. (2006). Blockholder ownership: Effects on firm value in market and control based governance systems. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(2), 246–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vafeas, N. (2005). ACs, boards, and the quality of reported earnings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 1093–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walters, B. A., Kroll, M. J., & Wright, P. (2007). CEO tenure, boards of directors, and acquisition performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ya’acob, N. S. (2016). CEO duality and compensation in the market for corporate control: Evidence from Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yang, T., & Zhao, S. (2014). CEO duality and firm performance: Evidence from an exogenous shock to the competitive environment. Journal of Banking & Finance, 49, 534–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISCCBCarthage UniversityBizerteTunisia
  2. 2.CEPN-CNRS UMR no 7234University Paris 13, PRES Sorbonne Paris CitéVilletaneuseFrance
  3. 3.ÉruditeUniversity Paris Est CréteilCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations