Comply or Explain Approach and Firm Value on the Bucharest Stock Exchange

  • Ştefan Cristian Gherghina
  • Georgeta Vintilă
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 3/2)


This paper aims at exploring the influence of compliance with the principles and recommendations stated within the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE) Corporate Governance Code on firm value, for a sample of companies listed in Romania, in 2011. Firm value was proxied both through accounting measures (such as return on assets, ROA and return on equity, ROE) and market measures (such as earnings per share, EPS), all being industry-adjusted. Based on the ‘Comply or Explain’ Statement issued by the BSE, there was conceived a questionnaire having the purpose to develop corporate governance ratings. Thus, we report the global corporate governance rating and a set of specific ratings as regards transparency and reporting, board and committees, shareholder rights, as well as corporate social and environmental responsibility. Therefore, by estimating several multivariate linear regression models, our results provide support for a positive and statistically significant relationship between the rating related to transparency and reporting and firm value, likewise between the rating related to corporate social and environmental responsibility and firm value, but only for industry-adjusted ROA. However, there was noticed the lack of any statistically significant relationship between corporate governance ratings and firm value, when industry-adjusted ROE and industry-adjusted EPS were employed.


Comply or explain Corporate governance ratings Firm value Multivariate linear regression models 



This work was cofinanced from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007–2013, project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/134197 “Performance and excellence in doctoral and postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domain”.


  1. Balasubramanian, N., Black, B. S., & Khanna, V. (2010). The relation between firm-level corporate governance and market value: A case study of India. Emerging Markets Review, 11(4), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauwhede, H. W. (2009). On the relation between corporate governance compliance and operating performance. Accounting and Business Research, 39(5), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Ferrell, A. (2009). What matters in corporate governance? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 783–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhagat, S., Bolton, B. J., & Romano, R. (2008). The promise and peril of corporate governance indices. Columbia Law Review, 108(8), 1803–1882.Google Scholar
  6. Black, B. S., Jang, H., & Kim, W. (2006). Does corporate governance affect firm value? Evidence from Korea. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 22(2), 366–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2006). Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(4), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franco, J. B., & Montálvan, S. M. (2010). Governance codes: Facts or fictions? A study of governance codes in Colombia. Estudios Gerenciales, 26(117), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman, S. J. (1981). The informational role of warranties and private disclosure about product quality. Journal of Law and Economics, 24(3), 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1980). Disclosure laws and takeover bids. The Journal of Finance, 35(2), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flows, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.Google Scholar
  17. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacNeil, I., & Li, X. (2006). “Comply or explain”: Market discipline and non-compliance with the combined code. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(5), 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McConnell, J. J., & Servaes, H. (1995). Equity ownership and the two faces of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 39(1), 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD (pdf). Accessed August 18, 2014, from
  22. Okuno-Fujiwara, M., Postlewaite, A., & Suzumura, K. (1990). Strategic information revelation. Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1999). Managerial ownership and the performance of firms: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance, 5(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tariq, Y. B., & Abbas, Z. (2013). Compliance and multidimensional firm performance: Evaluating the efficacy of rule-based code of corporate governance. Economic Modelling, 35, 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Triantis, G., & Daniels, R. (1995). The role of debt in interactive corporate governance. University of California Law Review, 83(4), 1073–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ştefan Cristian Gherghina
    • 1
  • Georgeta Vintilă
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of FinanceBucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations