Abstract
This study investigates what are the determinants of board size in Italian water State-owned enterprises. The analysis has been conducted on a sample of 105 Italian water State-owned enterprises. Furthermore, data for the year 2018 have been used to run an ordinary least squares statistical model. Most relevant findings suggest that the two ownership structure variables, expressed through the number of public owners and the degree of direct public ownership, are statistically and significantly related to board size. Specifically, the number of public owners is positively and significantly related to board size. Conversely, the degree of the direct public ownership is negatively and significantly related to board size. The investigation provides a contribution for academics and policy-makers. Given the essentiality of water resource for humanity and future generations, the study emphasizes the need to ensure the inclusion of citizens in Italian water SOEs’ ownership and boardroom as a pragmatic and functional reality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Worldwide, local governments are increasingly creating and operating State-owned enterprises (SOEs) to provide services in several industries, such as the water resource (Voorn et al. 2018; Torsteinsen 2019). In Italy, the water industry has been characterized by a long process of reforms to enhance its efficiency (Lugaresi 2000; Romano and Guerrini 2014). Nevertheless, few studies investigated the relationship between corporate governance and the efficiency in Italian water SOEs (Lugareesi 2000; Pazzi et al. 2013; Romano and Guerrini 2014; Romano et al. 2015). Grossi and Thomasson (2011) suggest that some changes in corporate governance of Italian water SOEs, ought to be done. In the last decades, literature has well-recognized the crucial importance of corporate governance in SOEs (Edwards and Clough 2005; Bozec and Dia 2007; Bachiller 2009). Though, few studies have studied the corporate governance in Italian water SOEs (Menozzi et al 2011; Romano et al. 2013; Romano and Guerrini 2014). Scholars mainly investigated the role of directors (Farrell 2005; Calabrò et al. 2013; Romano et al. 2014; Federo et al. 2020). SOEs board are not randomly structured (Guest 2008; Linck 2008; Andrews 2022). One of the much-debated issues either in the academic (Jensen 1993; Hermalin and Weisbach 2003; Chen et al. 2008; Liang et al. 2013) or in the Italian normative (Law 178 of 2010 and Law 175 of 2016) concerns the choice of board size in SOEs. Given the significance of board size, a body of literature has analysed its determinantsFootnote 1 (Raheja 2005; Boone et al. 2007; Linck et al. 2008; Guest 2008; Menozzi et al. 2014; Andrews 2022). However, none of them have already investigated the determinants of board size in companies operating in Italian water industry. The article aims to answer the following research question: what are the determinants of board size in the Italian water SOEs? To conduct the investigation, it has been analysed a sample of 105 Italian majority/SOEs operating in the water sector. This study aims to enhance the academic literature on water utility management. Moreover, it contributes to the debate on corporate governance in local public utilities (Hodges et al. 1996). Then, the author answers the call for more specific research on public utilities governance mechanisms (Grossi and Reichard 2008; Farrell 2005). Finally, it answers to the request from other previous studies (Calabrò et al. 2013) for what concerns the need for future research investigating the “black box” of the Italian local public utilities’ board of directors. This article provides a helpful contribution mainly for academics and policy-makers. The paper is organized as follows. The theoretical background is provided in Sect. “Theoretical background”. Section “Research hypotheses development” is devoted to the research hypotheses development. The methodology is shown in Sect. “Methodology”, while Sect. “Empirical findings” is dedicated to the empirical findings. Discussion and conclusion are given in Sect. “Discussion and conclusion”.
Theoretical background
The main characteristics of corporate governance in Italian SOEs
The term “State-owned enterprises” is the most frequently used by academics and practitioners to define enterprises in which the central or local governments have significant control, through full, majority, or significant minority ownership (Aharoni 1981; Bruton et al. 2015). In Italy, the State ownership phenomenon is particularly relevant (Grossi and Reichard 2008). Italian SOEs are characterized by a high separation between the ultimate ownership (the citizens) and the control rights (the public owners) (Berle and Mens 1932). As a consequence, there are more complex agency problems (Allegrini and Greco 2013; Calabrò et al. 2013; Allini et al. 2016). The agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976) may be a powerful heuristic in explaining the behaviour of a board of directors (Miller-Millesen 2003). Prior studies (Calabrò et al. 2013; Allini et al. 2016) have considered the agency theory perspectives to investigate some corporate governance characteristics in Italian SOEs. Gnan et al. (2010, pg. 724) remark: “Applying agency theory to SOEs, it can be noted that the owner-manager relationship is broken down into two other agency relationships (Villalonga 1999): (1) the relationship between citizens (the ‘real’ owners of SOEs) and the government (the ‘formal’ owner); (2) the relationship between the government (the ‘formal’ owner) and the managers of SOEs. Moreover in the cases in which some private investors are present in SOEs’ ownership, an additional kind of agency relationship concerns the government (as control shareholder) and the minority shareholders” (OECD 2005). Furthermore, compared to other countries, in Italian SOEs, the boards are typically characterized by the presence of politically connected directors (Menozzi et al. 2011; Giosi and Caiffa 2021). Indeed, in Italian SOEs’ boards, government and board members are linked by a so-called “reciprocal opportunism” (Apriliyanti and Kristiansen 2019) since most board positions are assigned to bureaucrats and politicians interested in gaining political benefits rather than pursuing the public interest (Young et al. 2008; Dragomir et al. 2021). Despite all these main critical issues of corporate governance, in Italian SOEs, there are not forms of citizens’ engagement in the board of directors, devoted to promote a democratic governance (Andrews 2022).
A typical sector managed by Italian SOEs: the water industry
The European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is based on the idea that water management needs to take account of social, ecological and economic issues and that its prime scope is the sustainable management and the use of water resources. Promoting an efficient management of water resources is helpful to reduce waste, allocate resources rationally and limit negative effects on development (Lugaresi 2000). The Italian water industry has been characterized by a long process of reform with the purpose to enhance its efficiency. To achieve this scope, deep changes in the governance of water services took place. Originally, the supply of water was provided by several local public firms which were managed directly by the local municipalities. Most of them were very small in structure and size. A re-organization of the water sector started in 1994, with the Law n. 196 (the so-called Galli Law). Among other, this law established that the water services may be provided by public or mixed or private enterprises. The process of reform continued in 2002 with the Italian budget law. It identified three methods to assign the management of water supply: in-house entrustment, public tender and direct grant to a public–private company in which the private partner must be selected by a tender. Then, in 2006, the Italian Law n. 152 of 2006 established new water services standards, defining more specifically the activities and tasks for the several water industry’s operators. In 2009, the Law 191 first established that water services had to be franchised to public–private utilities in which the private partner held at least 40% of the shareholdings. Secondly, it also established that water services could not be managed wholly by public partners after December 2011. Though, due to the increasing prices for water services, users started to complain about the reforms carried out over the years, stating that they generated a progressive transition from a public to a private interest focus (Massarutto 2011, 2015). This aspect has been emphasized in 2011 with a national referendum in which the Italian electorate rejected the proposal to privatize the water service. Moreover, given the importance of water as a fundamental public good for all European citizens, directive 2014/23/EU emphasized that the concessions concerning the water sector are often subject to specific and complex regimes which require special considerations, In addition, directive 2014/25/EU clearly establishes that none of the Member States are obliged to externalize the provision of water services, if they prefer to organize them in alternative ways (e.g. through the in-house companies).
Nowadays, water supply is generally managed through public ownership (Mellah and Ben Amor 2016). The public ownership of all the water resources has a dual value. On the one hand, it constitutes a matter of principle, ruling out the legal possibility of private ownership of natural resources that are indispensable for human life. On the other hand, it prevents the law of basic interests from being distracted by side issues (Lugaresi 2000). For some critical resources that involve public interests, as water resource, management and decisions should be taken not by a single owner, whether public or private, but through a process that is democratic and deliberative (Di Robilant 2014). Specifically, Di Robilant (2014) focuses on the role of citizens in generating new property forms that are later ratified by the policy-makers. Specifically, for what concern water resource, Di Robilant (2014, pg. 326) states that: “Italy has spawned a vocal ‘water movement’ which has called for a new legal conceptualization of water beyond private or public ownership. Water implicates interests that go well beyond the short-term economic interest of human users and raises distributive questions. Potable water serves basic survival and health needs and, hence, should be equally accessible to all. Furthermore, water involves questions of stewardship and protection of the interests of future generations. Water also implicates fundamental non-human, ecological interests. These interests are not likely to be represented when water is governed through private property or public property. The concept of ‘common goods’ is being revived to provide an alternative to public and private ownership. Ownership of ‘common goods’ differs from public ownership in an important way because it gives citizens collectively not only use entitlements, but also the right to participate in management decisions”. Though, the participation of citizens is still an occasional phenomenon in the Italian system (Lugaresi 2000).
Research hypotheses development
The relationship between the number of public owners and board size in Italian SOEs
According to the first paragraph of the current Italian civil code’s article 2449, if the State or other public entities hold shares in a corporation that does not invest within the capital market, the Statute could empower them to appoint directors, in proportion to the piece of capital that they hold. An investigation conducted on a sample of Italian local public utilities confirms that this regulatory provision has been well-accepted (Calabrò et al. 2013). Next, according to the second paragraph of the current Italian civil code’s article 2449, the directors appointed by the first paragraph may only be removed from the public bodies that nominated them. The power of direct nomination and the power to revoke attributed to the public owners, de facto nullifies the board’s ability to exercise an effective oversee function (Young et al 2008). In Italian SOEs, each public owner is more incentivised to pursue its self-own personal interests than the interest of citizens (the “real” owners) (Menozzi et al. 2011; Vining and Moore 2022). When more than one public owner controls SOEs, the board must “serve multiple masters” (Waterman and Meier 1998) since, according to the agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976; Fama 1980; Eisenhardt 1989), it is the “agent” of an increasingly heterogeneous group of public owners (Werner et al. 2005; Connelly et al. 2010; Desender et al. 2013). Each owner influences the business strategy through the pressures exercised on board members (Anderson et al. 2003). From agency theory, a plausible behavioural outcome is that directors focus their efforts on mediating over goals between the owners (Vining et al. 2014; Vining and Weimer 2016; Aguir and Misra 2017) and without considering the interests of all the citizens (the “real” owners) (Collin 2007; Su et al. 2008; Cornett et al. 2010; Dahya et al. 2008). This also happens in Italian water SOEs (Grossi and Thomassion 2015). In general, the extent of agency costs, arising from managerial discretion, increases in the number of owners and in the number of owners with different goals (Vining and Moore 2022). Indeed, the more public owners there are, the more there could be conflicting the interests and objectives that they wish to pursue (Gunasekhar and Dinesh 2017). Hence, SOEs with multiple public owners are likely to have larger boards (Andrews 2022). Conversely, a small number of public owners generates greater convergence in the interests of ownership, reducing the costs associated with achieving agreement about its strategic control (Jensen and Meckling 1976). Consequently, a smaller number of directors will be enough to ensure that the board effectively represents owners’ interests (Kieschnick and Moussawi 2004).
For all above, it seems appropriate to formulate the following research hypothesis:
H1
The number of public owners is positively associated with board size in Italian SOEs.
The relationship between the degree of public ownership and board size in Italian SOEs
The degree of public ownership concentration may assume values ranging between the two extreme 0 and 100% (Bel and Fageda 2010; Boardman and Moore 2020). In Italy, a typical sector of activity characterized by a higher public ownership concentration is the water sector (Utilitalia 2019). Ownership concentration has long been considered an effective external control mechanism to monitor the decisions and actions of management and to influence the board of directors (Haider and Fang 2016). Previous studies argue that the degree of ownership is associated with the board size (Kaplan and Minton 1994; Shleifer and Vishny 1986; Beiner et al. 2004; Kenneth et al. 2009; Allegrini and Greco 2013), finding a negative relationship between the degree of shareholdings held by the largest owner and board size (Yermack 1996; Barucci and Falini 2005). This inverse relationship is also verified in SOEs scenario (Munisi et al. 2014; Andrews 2022). Conforming to the agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976), concentrated ownership reduces the costs arising from the divergence among owners’ interests and between the interests of owners and directors who control it (Aziz et al. 2015; Moez 2018). A higher public ownership concentration reduces the request for a larger board for the following main reasons. Public owners with the larger holdings will take more responsibility to monitor the managers (Shleifer and Vishny 1986; Mishra 2011; Munisi et al. 2014). Moreover, the need for an advisory role decreases in the presence of a higher concentrated public ownership (Guest 2008; Chen and Al-Najjar 2012; Munisi et al. 2014). Furthermore, majority public-owned SOEs are therefore likely to need fewer executive directors than minority public-owned SOEs where the latter experience higher transaction costs associated with bringing private and public actors together (Hoppe and Schmitz 2010).
We therefore hypothesize:
H2
The degree of public ownership is negatively associated with board size in Italian SOEs.
The relationship between CEO duality and board size in Italian SOEs
CEO duality refers to the situation in which the Chairman is also the Chief Executive Officer (Baliga et al. 1996; Rechner and Dalton 1989). Generally, CEO duality takes place when the individual playing the role of CEO held this position for a long time (Quan et al. 2010) or in the case in which the supervision of shareholders is weak (Bebchuk and Fried 2005). Empirical evidence on the effects of CEO duality on board size is controversial (Linck et al. 2008; Boone et al. 2007; Guest 2008; Elsayed 2010). Moreover, few prior studies have examined how CEO duality in SOEs affects other corporate governance mechanism (Bozec and Dia 2007; Peng et al. 2007, 2010). The effects of CEO duality phenomenon on other corporate governance variables are context-specific (Tian and Lau 2001; Bozec and Dia 2007; Peng et al. 20072010; Elsayed 2011). Specifically, in SOEs, the CEO duality phenomenon is a double-edged sword. Indeed, its implications on corporate governance depend on the purposes to which the majority public owner has decided to give priority (Firth et al. 2014). Specifically, when the majority public ownerships want to pursue profit goals, the increased power linked to the CEO duality may give CEOs a greater capability to pursue the private interests, sacrificing the ownership value (Firth et al. 2014). Conversely, when the public majority owner wants to pursue non-profit goals, a CEO duality may be advantageous for the corporate governance in SOEs (Firth et al. 2014). According to the agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976), the roles of CEO and Chairman should be separated to exercise a more effective monitoring function (Judge et al. 2003) and to reduce agency costs (Yu and Ashton 2015). CEO duality vanishes de facto the board of directors’ ability to monitor management’s opportunistic behaviours (Boyd 1995; Finkelstein and D’Aveni 1994). CEO duality may detract from the board of directors’ effectiveness by reflecting the relative power of the CEO in setting the board’s agenda, controlling information flow, and weakening the independence of outside members (Boyd 1995; Brickley et al. 1997; Desai et al. 2003). When CEO duality occurs, the CEO will dominate the board (Daily and Dalton 1993, 1994); therefore, the board of directors’ power decreases, while CEO power increases (Daily and Schwenk 1996). CEO power, in turn, may also significantly affect the board structure, including its size (Hermalin and Weisbach 2003).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to formulate the following research hypothesis:
H3
CEO duality is negatively associated with board size in Italian SOEs.
The relationship between being an in-house company and board size in Italian SOEs
In Italy, the overall requirements that companies must have to be qualified as in-house companies are established by Law n. 50 of 2016. The in-house companies may be considered as a “longa manus” of the public ownership that have been constituted them (Tangi et al. 2021). Indeed, a true “inter-organic relationship” exists between the public partner and the juridical entity of the in-house company (Cisternino 2020). Formally, they are entities with distinct legal autonomy. Substantially, the public ownership exercises a real relationship of juridical subordination over them. Hence, the board of directors in the in-house companies is in a position of absolute hierarchical subordination (Cisternino 2020). As a consequence, its role is different in the in-house companies than the role that it assumes in other firms. Indeed, in the in-house companies, the public ownership has the statutory power to dictate the strategic decisions and operational choices (Cisternino 2020). Consequently, the board of directors of the in-house companies does not have significant management powers because the public ownership must exercise a wider power than usually Italian company law assigns to the majority partners (Gruner 2012; Cisternino 2020). Hence, the so-called “controllo analogo” does not allude to the dominant influence that the ownership is ordinarily able to exercise over the board of directors (Cisternino 2020). Conversely, it manifests itself as a true power of command that is directly exercised over the board of directors in a manner and intensity that is not attributable to the rights and faculties that generally accrue to the shareholders (Cisternino 2020). Hence, it is a power to control in which the company bodies are not entrusted with any significant management autonomy (Cisternino 2020).
For all above, it seems appropriate to formulate the following research hypothesis:
H4
Being an in-house company is negatively associated with board size in Italian SOEs.
Methodology
The context of investigation
The hypotheses formulated in the prior section were tested on a sample of Italian water SOEs for the following main reasons. The companies operating in water industry represent a typical example of enterprises mainly owned by public owner/s (Mellah and Ben 2016; Utilitalia 2019). Therefore, the considerations presented in Sect. “The main characteristics of corporate governance in Italian SOEs” of this paper surely are relevant for companies operating in this sector of activity. Moreover, there are also other prior studies (Romano and Guerrini 2014; Poomdeeying 2019) that explicitly mentioned firms operating in water industry when investigating the main characteristics of board of directors in Italian SOEs. Furthermore, how Sect. “A typical sector managed by Italian SOEs: the water industry” emphasized, over time the water industry has been widely reformed by Italian regulator to improve its efficiency (Lugaresi 2000; Romano and Guerrini 2014). Though, Romano et al. (2015) find a negative relationship between board size and efficiency in Italian water utilities, without considering the factors affecting the board size. This is the first paper that analyses the determinants of board size on a sample of Italian water SOEs. Specifically, the Italian SOEs under investigation in this study have been selected following rigorous criteria presented in Table 1.
At the end of these steps above mentioned, the sample consisted of 105 Italian water SOEs.
Statistical model specification and description of statistical variables
A linear multiple regression model has been used to assess the contribution of independent variables in predicting board size of the 105 Italian water SOEs selected. Specifically, the following ordinary least squares (OLSFootnote 2) statistical model has been developed:
This statistical model is composed of one dependent variable (\({\mathrm{ln}\_b}_{\mathrm{size}}\)), four explanatory variables (\(\mathrm{Shares},\) \({\mathrm{ln}}_{\mathrm{Public}\_\mathrm{owners}}\), \({\mathrm{CEO}}_{\mathrm{Dual}}\) and \({\mathrm{In}}_{\mathrm{house}}\)) and four control variables that are \({\mathrm{ln}}_{{\mathrm{Comp}}_{\mathrm{Size}}+1}\) and the local distribution variables \(\mathrm{north}\), southFootnote 3 and centre. Table 2 presents a short description of all variables above mentioned.
Empirical findings
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics are show as follows. The median value of the number of directors sitting on the boards is equal to 3. Besides, it varies largely since it ranges from the case of a sole directorship to a maximum of 12 directors. Then, on average, the public owners hold the whole shareholding of SOEs (90.40%). Moreover, on average, the number of public owners is almost equal to 40. It varies largely since it ranges from the case of one public owner to the case of 276 public owners. Additionally, most SOEs are characterized by non-dual CEOs (CEO duality occurs only for the 7% of SOEs) and they are not in-house companies (only the 21% of SOEs are in-house companies). Then, the median value of number of salaried employees is equal to 45. It varies largely since it ranges from the case of 0 salaried employees to the case of 1316 salaried employees. With reference to the geographical distribution, the majority of SOEs are located in Northern Italy (63%), followed by Southern Italy and Sardinia (19%). Only the 18% of SOEs are located in Central Italy.
Table 3 summarizes all the above.
The correlation issues Footnote 4
The correlation matrix shows the relationshipFootnote 5 between two variables (Pallant 2011). This study presents the correlation matrix in Table 4 indicating the correlation between ln_bsize with other study variables. Precisely, it shows a positive correlation between ln_bsize and lnPublic_owners and between ln_bsize and \({\mathrm{ln}}_{{\mathrm{Comp}}_{\mathrm{Size}}+1}\). Moreover, it shows a negative correlation between ln_bsize and Shares. Additionally, independent variables do not seem to be correlated among others. This study also considers variance inflation factors (VIF) to analyse the issue of multicollinearity (Hamilton 2012). If VIF values are greater than 10, multicollinearity problems occur (Gujarati and Porter 2009). Conversely, there is no multicollinearity if the VIF value of each variable presents a value less than 10. How Table 5 shows, for each variable of this study, the VIF values are below 2. Hence, no multicollinearity problems occur.
Test for heteroskedasticity
Table 6 shows the Breusch–Pagan test for heteroskedasticity. Specifically, it reveals that the data does not have elements of heteroskedasticity.
Regression analysis
The main results of the OLS model suggest as follows. From a first overview and looking at the R2 adjusted, it emerges that the model is able to explain a little more of the 35% of the analysed phenomenon. Furthermore, it allows to reject the null hypothesis that all the regression coefficients are equal to 0 at the 0.01 level since the p value associated with the F-statistic is very small. Then, looking at the relationship of each single independent variable with \(\mathrm{ln}\_{b}_{\mathrm{size}}\), it is possible to provide the following ulterior considerations. Firstly, it emerges that the variable lnpublic_owners is positively and significantly associated with \(\mathrm{ln}\_{b}_{\mathrm{size}}\). Conversely, the variable Shares is negatively and significantly associated with \(\mathrm{ln}\_{b}_{\mathrm{size}}\). Moreover, referring to control variables, it emerges that \({\mathrm{ln}}_{{\mathrm{Comp}}_{\mathrm{Size}}+1}\) is positively and significantly associated with ln_bsizeFootnote 6.
Table 7 shows all the above.
Discussion and conclusion
In Italian SOEs, the main issues are linked to the presence of agency problems (Jensen and Meckling 1976) and the presence of political connections within boards (Menozzi et al. 2011; Giosi and Caiffa 2021). One of the much-debated issues either in the academic (Jensen 1993; Hermalin and Weisbach 2003; Chen et al. 2008; Liang et al. 2013) or in the Italian normative (Law 178 of 2010 and Law 175 of 2016) concerns the choice of board size in SOEs. This study has investigated what are the determinants of board size on a sample of 105 Italian SOEs operating in water industry for the main following reasons. The firms operating in water sector represent a classical example of companies mainly owned by one or more public administration/s (Mellah and Ben 2016; Utilitalia 2019). Therefore, the considerations presented in Sect. “The main characteristics of corporate governance in Italian SOEs” of this article surely are relevant for these companies. Additionally, there are also other prior literature (Romano and Guerrini 2014; Poomdeeying 2019) that explicitly cited enterprises operating in water sector when studying the typical characteristics of board of directors in Italian SOEs. Moreover, despite this sector is one of the most regulated by Italian policy-maker, literature has provided few contributions on corporate governance in Italian water SOEs (Menozzi et al 2011; Romano et al. 2013; Romano and Guerrini 2014). Romano et al. (2015) find that a larger board negatively influences water utilities’ efficiency, without considering the factors affecting the board size. This is the first paper that analyses the determinants of board size on a sample of 105 Italian water SOEs. In line with US and UK studies (Guest 2008; Linck et al. 2008; Andrews 2022), this article concludes that Italian water SOEs’ boards are not randomly structured. This study found support for the hypotheses that: a) the greater are the number of public owners, the larger will be the board size in Italian water SOEs; b) the greater are the degree of public ownership, the smaller will be the board size in Italian water SOEs. In line with other prior studies investigating some corporate governance characteristics in Italian SOEs (Calabrò et al. 2013; Allini et al. 2016), these two main results find its support from the agency theory (Jensen and Mecklig 1976). Indeed, this theoretical lens suggests that board size may be influenced by the ownership structure (Andrews 2022). Precisely, following the agency theory, the more public owners there are, the more are conflicting the interests that they wish to pursue (Gunasekhar and Dinesh 2017). Consequently, the owners influence the decision-making processes through the pressure that they exercise on board members (Anderson et al. 2003). Besides, directors believe that the interest of the collective converges to protect the owners’ interests in Italian water SOEs (Grossi and Thomasson 2015). Some authors who drew from agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976) have also substantiated that if degree of public ownership is high in SOEs, public owner/s has/have a greater incentive to monitor managers (Shleifer and Vishny 1986; Mishra 2011; Munisi et al. 2014), therefore rendering a greater board size redundant. In the case of an higher degree of public ownership concentration the need for an advisory role decreases (Guest 2008; Chen and Al-Najjar 2012; Munisi et al. 2014) since public owners are able to hold more under control the administration of the State-owned enterprises. Also, in the case of a higher public ownership concentration, the transactions costs too are lower compared to the cases where more number of owners (private and public) are present (Hoppe and Schmitz 2010). For all these reasons, this study confirms that if the degree of public ownership concentration is high, a greater board could be redundant (Boone et al. 2007). These results not only find their fundamentals in the “principal-agent” relationship provided by the agency theory, but they also add a new contribution to this theoretical lens. Indeed, they suggest that in the case of an essential service for the survival of humanity such as the water resource, the relationship “principals-agents” destroys value, since it does not consider the wellness of citizens (the ultimate owners). This study emphasized the failure of “principals-agents” relationship and specifically the failure of public property in Italian water SOEs. Citizens pay the taxes that are supposed to finance public services and are therefore the only ones fully interested in ensuring that there are no influences that hinder the smooth running of the board and that public services are run efficiently. Di Robilant (2014, pg. 326) pointed: “Water involves questions of stewardship and protection of the interests of future generations. Water also implicates fundamental non-human, ecological interests. These interests are not likely to be represented when water is governed through private property or public property. The concept of ‘common goods’ is being revived to provide an alternative to public and private ownership. Ownership of ‘common goods’ differs from public ownership in an important way because it gives citizens collectively not only use entitlements, but also the right to participate in management decisions”. In this regard, I encourage a deliberative democratic property forms (Di Robilant 2014), as a pragmatic and functional reality, and the inclusion of citizens in the board of directors (Andrews 2022) in Italian water SOEs. In particular, I propose to regulators to draft laws that establish a direct involvement of the citizens (the ultimate owners) in the decision-making processes of Italian water service. Primarily, ensuring their presence in the boardroom of Italian water SOEs, then, with the transition from the public ownership (the government that operate as “agent” of citizens) towards a deliberative democratic property as a pragmatic and functional reality (Di Robilant 2014), characterized by the inclusion of citizens (as ultimate owners). Though, it could happen that citizens will have no interest in involving themselves in decision-making processes of Italian water SOEs. Indeed, for each of them, the opportunity cost could be high, while the benefit is divided among all other citizens. To overcome this point, I suggest the following. Firstly, giving some incentives to citizens who decide to involve themselves in all this (e.g. the possibility to benefit from the water resource without pay the bill). Secondly, the involvement of citizens in the decision-making processes of Italian water industry for a small period, opting for a voluntary rotation system, may be encouraged. Future research could investigate if these solutions enhance efficiency in Italian water SOEs.
This study has some limitations. Only the Italian SOEs operating in water industry has been considered. Consequently, the obtained result might not occur or be less pronounced in SOEs operating in other industries or/and in other countries. Additionally, this study considers only the year 2018. Hence, there is a loss of information related to the observation of the phenomenon for only one year. Although this study considered a large set of variables, there may be other determinants of board size in Italian water SOEs which have not been considered. Future studies could conduct other investigations to overcome these limitations.
Notes
See meta-analysis Dalton et al. 1999.
OLS regression is the most used form of correlation analysis in social sciences (De Maris 2002). This method has been considered the fittest to the purpose of this study due to the fact that the study investigates the impact of more than one independent variables on a dependent variable (ln_bsize) other things being equal (De Maris 2002).
Sardinia and Sicily have been included in the variable “south” since other prior studies (Guerrini and Romano 2014) have done the same.
To avoid collinearity problems, in this study, a control variable indicating whether SOEs are located in Northern Italy has not been taken into account in the OLS statistical model.
This relationship can be categorized into three parts which are high (ranging from 0.50 to 0.99), low (ranging from 0.10 and 0.29) and medium (ranging from 0.30 and 0.49) correlation (Pallant 2011).
References
Aguir I, Misra L (2017) Ownership level choice and value creation in international joint ventures: the role of investor protection. Int Rev Econ Financ 49:515–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2017.03.004
Aharoni Y (1981) Note-performance evaluation of State-owned enterprises: a process perspective. Manag Sci 27(11):1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.27.11.1340
Allegrini M, Greco G (2013) Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary disclosure: evidence from Italian listed companies. J Manag Gov 17(1):187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9168-3
Allini A, Manes Rossi F, Hussainey K (2016) The board’s role in risk disclosure: an exploratory study of Italian listed State-owned enterprises. Public Money Manag 36(2):113–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1118935
Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2003) Founding family ownership, corporate diversification and firm leverage. J Law Econ 46(2):653–684. https://doi.org/10.1086/377115
Andrews R (2022) Determinants of local SOE board size and composition: evidence from England. J Policy Stud 37(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.52372/jps37101
Apriliyanti ID, Kristiansen SO (2019) The logics of political business in State-owned enterprises: the case of Indonesia. Int J Emerg Mark 14(5):709–730
Azeez AA (2015) Corporate governance and firm performance: evidence from Sri Lanka. J Financ Bank Manag 3(1):180–189. https://doi.org/10.15640/jfbm.v3n1a16
Aziz NAA, Manab NA, Othman SN (2015) Exploring the perspectives of corporate governance and theories on sustainability risk management (SRM). Asian Econ Financ Rev 5:1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2015.5.10/102.10.1148.1158
Bachiller P (2009) Effect of ownership on efficiency in Spanish companies. Manag Decis 47(2):289–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910938920
Baliga BR, Moyer RC, Rao RS (1996) CEO duality and firm performance: what’s the fuss? Strateg Manag J 17(1):41–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1%3c41::AID-SMJ784%3e3.0.CO;2-#
Barucci E, Falini J (2005) Determinants of corporate governance in the Italian financial market. Econ Notes 34:371–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0391-5026.2005.00155.x
Bebchuk LA, Fried JM (2005) Pay without performance: overview of the issues. J Appl Corp Financ 17(4):8–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2005.00056.x
Beiner S, Drobetz W, Schmid F, Zimmermann H (2004) Is board size an independent corporate governance mechanism? Int Rev Soc Sci 57:327–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-5962.2004.00257.x
Bel G, Fageda X (2010) Partial privatisation in local services delivery: an empirical analysis of the choice of mixed firms. Local Gov Stud 36(1):129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930903435856
Berle AA, Means GC (1932) The modern corporation and private property. Macmillan, New York
Boardman AE, Moore MA (2020) Local government mixed enterprises. In: Billis D, Rochester C (eds) Handbook on hybrid organisations. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 66–81
Boone AL, Field LC, Karpoff JM, Raheja CG (2007) The determinants of corporate board size and compositions: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 85(1):66–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.004
Boyd BK (1995) CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model. Strateg Manag J 16:301–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160404
Bozec R, Dia M (2007) Board structure and firm technical efficiency: evidence from Canadian State-owned enterprises. Eur J Oper Res 177:1734–1750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.001
Bresciani S, Del Giudice M, Papa A (2017) Public control and strategic governance in State-owned public utilities: empirical evidence from Italian listed firms. Sinergie 35(102):47–64. https://doi.org/10.7433/s102.2017.05
Brickley JA, Coles JL, Jarrell G (1997) Leadership structure: separating the CEO and chairman of the board. J Corp Finan 3:189–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(96)00013-2
Bruton GD, Peng MW, Ahlstrom D, Stan C, Xu K (2015) State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Acad Manag Perspect 29(1):92–114. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0069
Butt S, Hasan A (2009) Impact of ownership structure and corporate governance on the capital structure of Pakistani listed companies. Int J Bus Manag 4(2):50–57. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v4n2p50
Calabrò A, Torchia M, Ranalli F (2013) Ownership and control in local public utilities: the Italian case. J Manag Gov 17:835–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9206-1
Chen CH, Al-Najjar B (2012) The determinants of board size and independence: evidence from China. Int Bus Rev 21(5):831–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.09.008
Chen WC, Lin BJ, Yi B (2008) CEO duality and firm performance—an endogenous issue. Corp Ownersh Control 6(1):58–65. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i1p6
Cisternino A (2020) Fallimento di società in-house e relazione interorganica: l'atteso punto di conciliazione nella recente giurisprudenza. Il diritto fallimentare e delle società commerciali. Giappichelli
Collin SO (2007) Governance strategy: a property right approach turning governance into action. J Manag Gov 11:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-007-9027-4
Connelly BL, Hoskisson RE, Tihanyi L, Certo ST (2010) Ownership as a form of corporate governance. J Manag Stud 47(8):1561–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00929.x
Cornett MM, Guo L, Khaksari S, Tehranian H (2010) The impact of state ownership on performance differences in privately-owned versus State-owned banks: an international comparison. J Financ Intermed 19(1):74–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2008.09.005
D’Inverno G, Carosi L, Romano G (2021) Environmental sustainability and service quality beyond economic and financial indicators: a performance evaluation of Italian water utilities. Socioecon Plan Sci 75:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100852
Dahya J, Dimitrov O, McConnell JJ (2008) Dominant shareholders, corporate boards, and corporate value: a cross-country analysis. J Financ Econ 87(1):73–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.10.005
Daily CM, Dalton DR (1993) Board of directors leadership and structure: control and performance implications. Entrep Theory Pract 17(3):65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879301700305
Daily CM, Dalton DR (1994) Bankruptcy and corporate governance: the impact of board composition and structure. Acad Manag J 37(6):1603–1617. https://doi.org/10.5465/256801
Daily C, Schwenk C (1996) Chief executive officers, top management teams, and boards of directors: congruent or countervailing forces? J Manag 22(2):185–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200201
Dalton DR, Daily CM, Johnson JL, Ellstrand AE (1999) Number of directors and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manag J 42:674–686. https://doi.org/10.2307/256988
De Maris A (2002) Explained variance in logistic regression. Sociol Methods Res 31:27–74
Desai A, Kroll M, Wright P (2003) CEO duality, board monitoring, and acquisition performance: a test of competing theories. J Bus Strateg 20(2):137–156. https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.20.2.137-156
Desender KA, Aguilera RV, Crespi R, García-Cestona M (2013) When does ownership matter? Board characteristics and behavior. Strateg Manag J 34(7):823–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2046
Di Robilant A (2014) Property and democratic deliberation: the numerus clausus principle and democratic experimentalism in property law. Am J Comp Law 62(2):367–416. https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2014.0004
Dragomir VD, Duitru M, Feleaga L (2021) Political interventions in State-owned enterprises: the corporate governance failures of a European airline. J Account Public Policy 40(5):106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106855
Edwards M, Clough R (2005) Corporate governance and performance: an exploration of the connection in a public sector context. University of Canberra, Canberra
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191
Elsayed K (2010) A multi-theory perspective of board leadership structure: what does the Egyptian corporate governance context tell us? Br J Manag 21(1):80–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00632.x
Elsayed K (2011) Board size and corporate performance: the missing role of board leadership structure. J Manag Gov 15(3):415–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9110-0
Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Polit Econ 88(2):288–307. https://doi.org/10.1086/260866
Farrell CM (2005) Governance in the UK public sector: the involvement of the governing board. J Public Adm 83(1):89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00439.x
Federo R, Ponomareva Y, Aguilera RV, Saz-Carranza A, Losada C (2020) Bringing owners back on board: a review of the role of ownership type in board governance. Corp Gov Int Rev 28:348–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12346
Finkelstein S, D’Aveni R (1994) CEO duality as a double-edged sword: how boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Acad Manag J 37:1079–1108. https://doi.org/10.2307/256667
Firth M, He X, Rui OM, Xiao T (2014) Paragon or pariah? The consequences of being conspicuously rich in China’s new economy. J Corp Finan 29:430–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.09.004
Giosi A, Caiffa M (2021) Political connections, media impact and State-owned enterprises: an empirical analysis on corporate financial performance. J Public Budg Account Financ Manag 33(3):261–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-12-2019-0188
Gnan L, Hinna A, Scarozza D, Montaduro F (2010) SOEs ownership and control: independence and competence of board members. Corp Ownersh Control 8(1):720–740. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv8i1c7p6
Grossi G, Reichard C (2008) Municipal corporatization in Germany and Italy. Public Manag Rev 10(5):597–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802264275
Grossi G, Thomasson A (2011) Jointly owned companies as instruments of local government: comparative evidence from the Swedish and Italian water sectors. Policy Stud 32(3):277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2011.561695
Grossi G, Thomasson A (2015) Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: the case of Malmö-Copenhagen port. Int Rev Adm Sci 81(3):604–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314548151
Gruner G (2012) Compiti e ruolo del socio pubblico: direzione (società miste) e dominio (società in house). In: Il diritto dell'economia pp 3–11
Guerrini A, Romano G (2014) Water management in Italy: governance, performance and sustainability. Springer
Guest PM (2008) The determinants of board size and composition: evidence from the UK. J Corp Finan 14:51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2008.01.002
Gujarati DN, Porter DC (2009) Basic econometrics, 5th edn. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, pp 320–351
Gunasekhar S, Dinesh KGS (2017) The impact of corporate governance and firm performance on chief executive officer’s compensation—evidence form State-owned enterprises in India. International Conference on Data Management, Analytics and Innovation (ICDMAI), Zeal Education Society, Pune, India, Feb 24–26, 2017
Haider J, Fang HX (2016) Board size and corporate risk: evidence from China. J Asia Pac Bus 17(3):229–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2016.1203718
Hamilton LC (2012) Statistics with Stata. version 12: Cengage Learning
Hermalin BE, Weisbach MS (2003) Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature. National Bureau of Economic Research. pp 1–38. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.233111
Hodges R, Wright M, Keasey K (1996) Corporate governance in the public services: concepts and issues. Public Money Manag 16(2):7–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969609387915
Hoppe EI, Schmitz PW (2010) Public versus private ownership: quantity contracts and the allocation of investment tasks. J Public Econ 94(3–4):258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.009
Jensen MC (1993) The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J Financ 48(3):831–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jia X (2020) Corporate social responsibility activities and firm performance: the moderating role of strategic emphasis and industry competition. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1774
Judge TA, Erez A, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ (2003) The core self-evaluations scale: development of a measure. Pers Psychol 56(2):303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
Kaplan S, Minton B (1994) Appointments of outsiders to Japanese boards: determinants and implications for managers. J Financ Econ 36:225–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(94)90025-6
Kenneth ML, Sukesh P, Mengxin Z (2009) Determinants of the size and structure of corporate boards: 1935–2000. J Financ Manag 38:747–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2009.01055.x
Kieschnick R, Moussawi R (2004) The board of directors: A bargaining perspective. Working paper, University of Texas at Dallas
Leoncini R, Marzucchi A, Montresor S, Rentocchini F, Rizzo U (2016) Better late than never: a longitudinal quantile regression approach to the interplay between green technology and age for firm growth. SEEDS Working Paper Series 16/2016, Ferrara
Li D, Lin H, Yang Y (2016) Does the stakeholders—corporate social responsibility (CSR) relationship exist in emerging countries? Evidence from China. Soc Responsib J 12(1):147–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2015-0018
Liang Q, Xu P, Jiraporn P (2013) Board characteristics and Chinese bank performance. J Bank Financ 37(8):2953–2968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.018
Linck JS, Netter JM, Yang T (2008) The determinants of board structure. J Financ Econ 87:308–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.03.004
Lugaresi N (2000) Rethinking water law: the Italian case for a water code. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1284/1/Libro_Water_Law_definitivo.pdf
Massarutto A (2011) Privati dell’acqua? Tra bene comune e mercato. Il Mulino, Bologna, Bologna
Massarutto A (2015) L’acqua. Il Mulino, Bologna
Mellah T, Ben AT (2016) Performance of the Tunisian Water Utility: an input-distance function approach. Util Policy 38:18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2015.11.001
Menozzi A, Gutiérrez Urtiaga M, Vannoni D (2011) Board composition, political connections, and performance in State-owned enterprises. Ind Corp Chang 21(3):671–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr055
Menozzi A, Erbetta F, Fraquelli G, Vannoni D (2014) The determinants of board compensation in SOEs: an application to Italian local public utilities. Appl Financ Econ 24(1–3):145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603107.2013.870649
Miller-Millesen JL (2003) Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: a theory driven approach. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 32:521–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257463
Mishra DR (2011) Multiple large shareholders and corporate risk taking: evidence from East Asia. Corp Gov Int Rev 19(6):507–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00862.x
Moez D (2018) Agency costs, corporate governance and the nature of controlling shareholders: evidence from French listed firms. Int J Acc Financ Report 8(3):256–277. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijafr.v8i3.13621
Monteduro F, Hinna A, Ferrari R (2011) The board of directors and the adoption of quality management tools. Public Manag Rev 13(6):803–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.539109
Munisi G, Hermes N, Randøy T (2014) Corporate boards and ownership structure: evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Int Bus Rev 23(4):785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.12.001
OECD (2005) Corporate governance of State-owned enterprises—a survey of OECD countries. OECD Publishing
Pallant J (2011) Survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. pp 1–378
Pazzi S, Duygun M, Ausina ET, Zambelli S (2013) Efficiency of water utilities: does local public ownership matter? Evidence from Italy, pp 1–19. Available at https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=XXIEEP&paper_id=98
Peng MW, Zhang S, Li X (2007) CEO duality and firm performance during China’s institutional transitions. Manag Organ Rev 3(2):205–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00069.x
Peng MW, Li Y, Xie E, Su Z (2010) CEO duality, organizational slack, and firm performance in China. Asia Pac J Manag 27(4):611–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9161-4
Poomdeeying R (2019) Board characteristics and firm riskiness: evidence from Thailand, pp 1–30. Available at http://ethesisarchive.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/2019/TU_2019_6002042239_11472_11522.pdf
Qiao P, Fung A, Miao J, Fung HG (2017) Powerful chief executive officers and firm performance: integrating agency and stewardship theory. Chin World Econ 25(6):100–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12223
Quan XF, Wu SN, Wen F (2010) Managerial power, private income and compensation rigging. Econ Res J (China) 11:73–86
Raheja CG (2005) Determinants of board size and composition: a theory of corporate boards. J Financ Quant Anal 40(2):283–306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109000002313
Rechner PL, Dalton DR (1989) The impact of CEO as board chairperson on corporate performance: evidence vs. rhetoric. Acad Manag Exec 3:141–143. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1989.4274764
Romano G, Guerrini A (2014) The effects of ownership, board size and board composition on the performance of Italian water utilities. Util Policy 31:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2014.06.002
Romano M, Kapelan Z, Savić DA (2013) Evolutionary algorithm and expectation maximisation strategies for improved detection of pipe bursts and other events in water distribution systems. J Water Resour Plan Manag. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000347
Romano G, Salvati N, Guerrini A (2014) Factors affecting water utility companies decision to promote the reduction of household water consumption. Water Resources Manag J 28:5491–5505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0818-5
Romano G, Guerrini A, Leardini C (2015) Exploring the link between corporate governance efficiency of Italian water utilities. Agua y Territorio/water and Landscape 6:123–132. https://doi.org/10.17561/at.v0i6.2815
Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J Polit Econ 94(3):461–488. https://doi.org/10.1086/261385
Sidki M, Borger L, Boll D (2022) The effect of board members’ education and experience on the financial performance of German State-owned enterprises. J Manag Gov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09663-4
Su Y, Xu D, Phan PH (2008) Principal-principal conflicts in the governance of the Chinese public corporation. Manag Organ Rev 4(1):17–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00090.x
Tangi L, Soncin M, Agasisti T, Noci G (2021) Exploring e-maturity in Italian local governments: empirical results from a three-step latent class analysis. Int Rev Adm Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211012752
Tian JJ, Lau CM (2001) Board composition, leadership structure, and performance in Chinese shareholding companies. Asia Pac J Manag 18:245–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010628209918
Torsteinsen H (2019) Debate: corporatization in local government—the need for a comparative and multidisciplinary research approach. Public Money Manag 39(1):5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1537702
Utilitalia (2019) Il servizio idrico in Italia, pp 1–11. https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Utilitalia.pdf
Villalonga B (1999) Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political. pp 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00074-3
Vining A, Moore M (2022) Listed public-private enterprises: stock market information, agency costs and productive efficiency outcomes. Int J Public Sect Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2021-0050
Vining AR, Weimer DL (2016) The challenge of fractionalized property rights in publicprivate hybrid organizations: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Regul Gov 10(2):161–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12086
Vining AR, Boardman AE, Moore MA (2014) The theory and evidence pertaining to local government mixed enterprises. Ann Public Coop Econ 85(1):53–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12029
Voorn B, van Thiel S, van Genugten M (2018) Corporatization as more than a recent crisis-driven development. Public Money Manag 38(7):481–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1527533
Waterman RW, Meier KJ (1998) Principal-agent models: an expansion? J Public Adm Res Theory 8:173–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024377
Werner S, Tosi HL, Gomez-Mejia LR (2005) Organizational governance and employee pay: how ownership structure affects the firm’s compensation strategy. Strateg Manag J 26:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.452
Yermack D (1996) Higher market valuation of companies a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40:185–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00844-5
Young M, Peng MW, Ahlstrom D, Bruton G, Jiang Y (2008) Governing the corporation in emerging economies: a review of the principal-principal perspective. J Manag Stud 45:196–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00752.x
Yu M, Ashton JK (2015) Board leadership structure for Chinese public listed companies. China Econ Rev 34:236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.01.010
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. No other funding was received by the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
I have no conflict of interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cersosimo, C. The determinants of board size in Italian State-owned enterprises operating in water industry. Decision 50, 169–182 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-023-00347-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-023-00347-y