Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 153–185 | Cite as

Does the capital of social capital matter? Relational resources of the board and the performance of Brazilian companies

  • Luciano Rossoni
  • Cezar Eduardo Aranha
  • Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva


Based on theories of social capital, in this study, we seek to assess the impact of a board’s social capital on the market value of companies listed on the Brazilian stock exchange. As our indicator of social capital, we use the relational resources identified in the direct, indirect and heterogeneous ties of the board. Employing panel data from 508 observations, our results indicate that heterogeneous relational resources have a stronger and more significant influence than the resources available from board members’ direct relationships. Additionally, as the effects of board interlock are endogenously determined by several factors related to the firm level, we seek to mitigate the endogeneity problem using models of instrumental variables and simultaneous equations. Our hypotheses were consistent after controlling for endogeneity. We also check whether the board’s social capital could present a U-inverted effect on the market value. This relationship was only plausible in social capital by indirect ties. Finally, we isolate the effect of relational resources within and between industries on Tobin’s Q. There was no significant effect through interlocks within the same industry. However, ties with companies in several other industries were significant.


Social capital Board interlock Social networks analysis Performance Market value Endogeneity 



The authors would like to thank CNPq (Grants 307932/2013-3, 471930/2014-8 and 301513/2016-3) and FAPERJ for financial support (Grant E-26/201.528/2014). Thanks also to Editor-in-chief Lino Cinquini for the dedication into the development of this paper, to Delci Grapegia Dal Vesco for help with endogeneity in panel data models and to the four anonymous reviewers for valuable comments.


  1. Afuah, A. (2013). Are network effects really all about size? The role of structure and conduct. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aivazian, V. A., Ge, Y., & Qiu, J. (2005). The impact of leverage on firm investment: Canadian evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves, P., Couto, E. B., & Francisco, P. M. (2016). Executive pay and performance in Portuguese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriessen, D., & Gubbins, C. (2009). Metaphor analysis as an approach for exploring theoretical concepts: The case of social capital. Organization Studies, 30, 845–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, B. S., Carvalho, A. G., & Gorga, E. (2012). What matters and for which firms for corporate governance in emerging markets? Evidence from Brazil (and other BRIK countries). Journal of Corporate Finance, 18, 934–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, B., Carvalho, A. G., & Sampaio, J. O. (2014). The evolution of corporate governance in Brazil. Emerging Markets Review, 20, 176–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, B. S., & 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
  9. Bohman, L. (2012). Bringing the owners back in: An analysis of a 3-mode interlock network. Social Networks, 34, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond, M., Glouharova, S., & Harrigan, N. (2010). The political mobilization of corporate directors: Socio-economic correlates of affiliation to European pressure groups. British Journal of Sociology, 61, 306–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti, S. P. (1997). Structural holes: unpacking burt’s redundancy measures. Connections, 20, 35–38.Google Scholar
  12. Bozec, R., Dia, M., & Bozec, Y. (2010). Governance–performance relationship: A re-examination using technical efficiency measures. British Journal of Management, 21, 684–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brookfield, J., Chang, S., Drori, I., Ellis, S., Lazzarini, S. G., Siegel, J., et al. (2012). The small worlds of business groups: Liberalization and network dynamics. In B. Kogut (Ed.), The small world of corporate governance (pp. 77–116). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural Holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31–56). New York: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Carvalhal-da-Silva, A. L., & Leal, R. P. C. (2005). Corporate governance index, firm valuation and performance in Brazil. Brazilian Review of Finance, 3, 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Chahine, S., Filatotchev, I., & Zahra, S. A. (2011). Building perceived quality of founder-involved IPO firms: Founders’ effects on board selection and stock market performance. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chandler, D., Haunschild, P. R., Rhee, M., & Beckman, C. M. (2013). The effects of firm reputation and status on interorganizational network structure. Strategic Organization, 11, 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, G., Hambrick, D. C., & Pollock, T. G. (2008). Puttin’ on the Ritz: Pre-IPO enlistment of prestigious affiliates as deadline-induced remediation. Academy of Management Journal, 5, 954–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A Simple Approximation of Tobin’s Q. Financial Management, 23, 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connelly, B. L., & Van Slyke, E. J. (2012). The power and peril of board interlocks. Business Horizons, 55, 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Davis, G. F. (1996). The significance of board interlocks for corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 4, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, G. F., & Mizruchi, M. S. (1999). The money center cannot hold: Commercial banks in the U.S. system of corporate governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fan, J. P., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2007). Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 330–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2006). Are busy boards effective monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61, 689–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filatotchev, I., Chahine, S., & Bruton, G. D. (2016). Board interlocks and initial public offering performance in the United States and the United Kingdom: An institutional perspective. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315621145.
  28. Finegold, D., Benson, G. S., & Hecht, D. (2007). Corporate boards and company performance: Review of research in light of recent reforms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 865–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischer, H. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Effects of social capital and power on surviving transformational change: The case of initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flap, H. D., & Degraaf, N. D. (1986). Social capital and attained occupational-status. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 145–161.Google Scholar
  31. Flickinger, M., Wrage, M., Tuschke, A., & Bresser, R. (2016). How CEOs protect themselves against dismissal: A social status perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1107–1117. doi: 10.1002/smj.2382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fracassi, C., & Tate, G. (2012). External networking and internal firm governance. The Journal of Finance, 67, 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freeman, L. C., Borgatti, S. P., & White, D. R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González, M., Gúzman, A., Pombo, C., & Trujillo, M. A. (2015). The role of family involvement on CEO turnover: Evidence from Colombian family firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23, 266–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1361–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greene, W. H. (Ed.). (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian corporations. Abacus, 38, 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haunschild, P. R., & Beckman, C. M. (1998). When do interlocks matter? Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 815–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. He, J., & Huang, Z. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., Certo, S. T., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). What I like about you: A multilevel study of shareholder discontent with director monitoring. Organization Science, 22, 675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Horton, J., Millo, Y., & Serafeim, G. (2012). Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39, 399–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Inoue, C. F., Lazzarini, S. G., & Musacchio, A. (2013). ‘Leviathan as a minority shareholder: Firm-level implications of state equity purchases. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1775–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jlassi, M., Naoui, K., & Mansour, W. (2014). Overconfidence behavior and dynamic market volatility: Evidence from international data. Procedia Economics and Finance, 13, 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., Bolton, J. F., & Tuggle, C. (2011). Antecedents of new director social capital. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1782–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39, 232–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, D. W. (2003). Interlocking ownership in the Korean Chaebol. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim, Y. (2005). Board network characteristics and firm performance in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 800–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kim, Y. (2007). The proportion and social capital of outside directors and their impacts on firm value: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1168–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, Y., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Toward a social capital theory of director selection. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 282–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2013). The service role of outside boards in high tech start-ups: A resource dependency perspective. British Journal of Management, 24, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lazzarini, S. G., Musacchio, A., Bandeira-de-Mello, R., & Marcon, R. (2015). What do state-owned development banks do? Evidence from BNDES, 2002-09. World Development, 66, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leal, R. P. C., Carvalhal, A. L., & Iervolino, A. P. (2015). One decade of evolution of corporate governance practices in Brazil. Brazilian Review of Finance, 13, 134–161.Google Scholar
  55. Lester, R. H., Hillman, A., Zardkoohi, A., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Former government officials as outside directors: The role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li, K., & Prabhala, N. R. (2007). Self-selection models in corporate finance. In B. E. Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of corporate finance (Vol. 1, pp. 39–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Lin, N. (1982). Social resources and instrumental action. In N. Lin (Ed.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 131–145). Beverly Hills: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: Capital captured through social relations. In N. Lin (Ed.), Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (pp. 19–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lin, N., Cook, K., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Transaction Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zajac, E. J. (2011). Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8), 820–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martins, H. C., Schiehll, E., & Terra, P. R. S. (2017). National governance quality, ownership structure, and debt maturity: A comparative study of Brazil and Chile. Corporate Governance: An International Review. doi: 10.1111/corg.12192.
  62. McDonald, M. L., Khanna, P., & Westphal, J. D. (2008). Getting them to think outside the circle: Corporate governance, CEOs’ external advice networks, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mendes-da-Silva, W. (2011). Small worlds and board interlocking in Brazil: A longitudinal study of corporate networks, 1997–2007. Brazilian Review of Finance, 9, 521–528.Google Scholar
  64. Mendes-da-Silva, W., & Onusic, L. M. (2014). Corporate e-disclosure determinants: Evidence from the Brazilian market. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 11, 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mendes-da-Silva, W., Rossoni, L., Martin, L., & Martelanc, R. (2008). The influence of Corporate Relationships Networks on the Performance of Firms in the Novo Mercado of BOVESPA. Brazilian Review of Finance, 6, 337–358.Google Scholar
  66. Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mizruchi, M. S., & Stearns, L. B. (2001). Getting deals done: The use of social networks in bank decision-making. American Sociological Review, 66, 647–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mizruchi, M. S., Stearns, L. B., & Marquis, C. (2006). The conditional nature of embeddedness: A study of borrowing by large U.S. firms, 1973–1994. American Sociological Review, 71, 310–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nahapiet, J. (2008). The role of social capital in inter-organizational relationships. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 580–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.Google Scholar
  71. Núñez, G., & Oneto, A. (2015). Corporate governance in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru: The determinants of risk in corporate debt issuance. United Nations.
  72. Peng, M. W. (2004). Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pombo, C., & Gutiérrez, L. H. (2011). Outside directors, board interlocks and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Colombian business groups. Journal of Economics and Business, 63, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Procianoy, J. L., & Verdi, R. S. (2009). Bovespa New Markets Adoption-Novo Mercado, Nível 1 and Nível 2, Determinants and Consequences. Brazilian Review of Finance, 7, 107–136.Google Scholar
  76. Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 747–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rabelo, F. M., & Vasconcelos, F. C. (2002). Corporate governance in Brazil. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rossoni, L., & Machado-da-Silva, C. L. (2013). Legitimacy, corporate governance and performance in Brazilian stock exchange. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 53, 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Saavedra, S., Gilarranz, L. J., Rohr, R. P., Schnabel, M., Uzzi, B., & Bascompte, J. (2014). Stock fluctuations are correlated and amplified across networks of interlocking directorates. EPJ Data Science, 3, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sánchez, L. P. C., & Barroso-Castro, C. (2015). It is useful to consider the interlocks according to the type of board member (executive or non-executive) who possesses them? Their effect on firm performance. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 24, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Santos, R. L., Silveira, A. M., & Barros, L. A. (2012). Board interlocking in Brazil: directors’ participation in multiple companies and its effect on firm value and profitability. Latin American Business Review, 13, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (2011). Behavioral finance in the financial crisis: Market efficiency, Minsky, and Keynes. Russel Sage Foundation.
  83. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2008). Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 73–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Silveira, A. D. M., & Dias, A. L. (2010). What is the impact of bad governance practices in a concentrated ownership environment? International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 7, 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Silveira, A. D. M., Leal, R. P. C., Carvalhal-da-Silva, A. L., & Barros, L. A. B. D. C. (2010). Endogeneity of Brazilian corporate governance quality determinants. Corporate Governance, 10, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. (2009). Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 16–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vesco, D. G. D., & Beuren, I. M. (2016). Do the board of directors composition and the board interlocking influence on performance? Brazilian Administration Review, 13, e160007.Google Scholar
  89. Volpin, P. F. (2002). Governance with poor investor protection: Evidence from top turnover in Italy. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weber, C., Davis, G. F., & Lounsbury, M. (2009). Policy as myth and ceremony? The global spread of stock exchanges, 1980–2005. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1319–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 361–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wurthmann, K. A. (2014). Service on a stigmatized board, social capital, and change in number of directorships. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 814–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zona, F., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Withers, M. C. (2015). Board interlocks and firm performance: Toward a combined agency–resource dependence perspective. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315579512.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UniGranRio and Brazilian Institute of Social Research (IBEPES)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.IBM ResearchCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Fundação Getúlio VargasSao PauloBrazil
  4. 4.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations