Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 445–471 | Cite as

Executive compensation, supervisory board, and China’s governance reform: a legal approach perspective

Original Research


China’s corporate governance system implements both American and German style mechanisms, but the supervisory board, a typical feature of German style governance is generally considered dysfunctional. After 2006, the newly amended Chinese Corporate Law significantly enhances the role played by supervisory boards. Our study examines if the new Corporate Law improves supervisory board’s monitoring over executive compensation, which becomes one of the main agency concerns in China’s emerging market, thus providing a quasi-experimental testing of the legal approach of governance (La Porta et al. in J Financ Econ 58:3–27, 2000). We examine the effects of both size and meeting frequency of supervisory boards on executive compensations in Chinese listed companies, by using data before and after the new Corporate Law became effective in 2006. We find that before the new Corporate Law became effective, supervisory boards did not affect executive compensation, although their role after that became significant; both supervisory board size and meeting frequency affect total executive compensation, and supervisory board size also influences pay-performance sensitivity. Furthermore, we find that there exists a non-linear effect of supervisory board meeting frequency on executive pay, and an optimal range exists. Policy implications are discussed.


Supervisory boards Legal approach Executive compensation 

JEL Classification

G34 G38 M4 


  1. Bai C, Liu Q, Lu J, Song FM, Zhang J (2004) Corporate governance and market valuation in China. J Comp Econ 32:599–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman M, Shaw K (2006) Stock option compensation and the likelihood of meeting analysts’ quarterly earnings targets. Rev Quant Financ Acc 26(3):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Are CEOs rewarded for luck? The ones without principals are. Quart J Econ 116:901–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwell D, Dudney D, Farrell K (2007) Changes in CEO compensation structure and the impact on firm performance following CEO turnover. Rev Quant Financ Acc 29(3):315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd B (1994) Board control and CEO compensation. Strateg Manag J 15:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen C (2002) Additional evidence on the association between director stock ownership and incentive compensation. Rev Quant Financ Acc 19(1):21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen G, Firth M, Kim J (2000) The post-issue market performance of initial public offerings in China’s new stock markets. Rev Quant Financ Acc 14:319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen G, Firth M, Gao DN, Rui OM (2006) Ownership, corporate governance, and fraud: evidence from China. J Corp Finance 12:424–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng S, Evans J, Nagarajan N (2008) Board size and firm performance: the moderating effects of the market for corporate control. Rev Quant Financ Acc 31:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Core J, Holthausen R, Larcker D (1999) Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. J Financ Econ 51:371–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crossland C, Hambrick D (2007) How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: a study of CEO effects in three countries. Strateg Manag J 28:767–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cyert R, Kang S, Kumar P (2002) Corporate governance, takeovers, and top-management compensation: theory and evidence. Manage Sci 48:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahya J, Karbhari Y, Xiao J, Yang M (2003) The usefulness of the supervisory board report in China. Corp Gov Int Rev 11:308–321Google Scholar
  14. Del Guercio D, Dann L, Partch M (2003) Governance and boards of directors in closed-end investment companies. J Financ Econ 69:111–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ding S, Wu Z, Li Y, Jia C (2009) Can the Chinese two-tier-board system control the board chair pay? Asian J Finance Account 1:1–22Google Scholar
  16. Eisenberg TS, Sundgren S, Wells MT (1998) Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. J Financ Econ 48:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elston J, Goldberg L (2003) Executive compensation and agency costs in Germany. J Bank Finance 27:1391–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firth M, Fung P, Rui O (2006) Corporate performance and CEO compensation in China. J Corp Finance 12:693–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Firth M, Fung P, Rui O (2007) Ownership, two-tier board structure, and the informativeness of earnings: evidence from China. J Account Public Policy 26:463–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groves T, Hong J, McMillan J, Naughton B (1994) Autonomy and incentives in Chinese state enterprises. Quart J Econ 109:181–209Google Scholar
  21. Groves T, Hong J, McMillan J, Naughton B (1995) China’s evolving managerial labor market. J Polit Econ 103:873–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartzell J, Starks L (2003) Institutional investors and executive compensation. J Finance 58:2351–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haw I, Qi D, Wu D, Wu W (2005) Market consequences of earnings management in response to security regulations in China. Contemp Account Res 22:95–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen MC (1993) The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J Finance 48:831–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen M, Murphy KJ (1990) Performance and top management incentives. J Polit Econ 98:225–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jia C, Ding S, Li Y, Wu Z (2009) Fraud, enforcement action, and the role of corporate governance: evidence from China. J Bus Ethics 90:561–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan S (1994) Top executive rewards and firm performance: a comparison of Japan and the United States. J Polit Econ 102:510–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karamanou I, Vafeas N (2005) The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: an empirical analysis. J Account Res 43(3):453–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kato T, Long C (2006) Executive compensation, firm performance, and corporate governance in China: evidence from firms listed in the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges. Econ Dev Cult Change 54:945–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ke B, Petroni K, Safieddine A (1999) Ownership concentration and sensitivity of executive pay to accounting performance measures: evidence from publicly and privately-held insurance companies. J Account Econ 28:185–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R (2000) Investor protection and corporate governance. J Financ Econ 58:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lansing P, Knoedgen S (2007) The causes and consequences of the global inflation of CEO salaries. Int J Manag 24(1):70–75Google Scholar
  33. Levitt A (2005) Corporate culture and the problem of executive compensation. J Appl Corp Finance 17:41–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li D, Moshirian F, Pham P, Zein J (2006) When financial institutions are large shareholders: the role of macro corporate governance environments. J Finance LXI:2975–3007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu D, Otsuka K (2004) A comparison of management incentives, abilities, and efficiency between SOEs and TVEs: the case of the iron and steel industry in China. Econ Dev Cult Change 52:759–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mengistae T, Xu L (2004) Agency theory and executive compensation: the case of Chinese state-owned enterprises. J Labor Econ 22:615–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palia D, Porter R (2004) The impact of capital requirements and managerial compensation on bank charter value. Rev Quant Financ Acc 23(3):191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan H Jr, Wiggins R III (2004) Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring. J Financ Econ 73:497–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shleifer A, Vishny R (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J Polit Econ 94:461–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shleifer A, Vishny R (1997) A survey of corporate governance. J Finance 52:737–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sun Q, Tong W (2003) China share issue privatization: the extent of its success. J Financ Econ 70:183–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vafeas N (1999) Board meeting frequency and firm performance. J Financ Econ 53:113–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vafeas N, Waegelein J (2007) The association between audit committees, compensation incentives, and corporate audit fees. Rev Quant Financ Acc 28(3):241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vafeas N, Waegelein J, Papamichael M (2003) The response of commercial banks to compensation reform. Rev Quant Financ Acc 20(4):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang F, Xu Y (2004) What determines Chinese stock returns. Financ Anal J 60:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wei Z, Xie F, Zhang S (2005) Ownership structure and firm value in China’s privatized firms: 1991–2001. J Financ Quant Anal 40:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xi C (2006) In search of an effective monitoring board model: board reforms and the political economy of corporate law in China. Conn J Int Law 22:1–46Google Scholar
  48. Xiao JZ, Dahya J, Lin Z (2004) A grounded theory exposition of the role of the supervisory board in China. Br J Manag 15:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie B, Davidson W III, DaDalt PJ (2003) Earnings management and corporate governance: the role of the board and the audit committee. J Corp Finance 9:295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeh Y, Lee T, Pen J (2002) Stock returns and volatility under market segmentation: the case of Chinese A and B shares. Rev Quant Financ Acc 18(3):239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yermack D (1996) Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40:185–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yu Y (2008) Ma, Mingzhe 18K a day: the average compensation of top three executives of PingAn tops 40 million. Jing Bao, March 21, 2008Google Scholar
  53. Yueh L (2004) Wage reforms in China during the 1990s. Asian Econ J 18:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang L, Ding S (2006) The effect of increased disclosure on cost of capital: evidence from China. Rev Quant Financ Acc 27(4):383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shujun Ding
    • 1
  • Zhenyu Wu
    • 2
  • Yuanshun Li
    • 3
  • Chunxin Jia
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  3. 3.Ryerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Peking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations