Corporate Governance Attributes and Firm’s Value

  • Noirom Dony
  • Corina JosephEmail author
  • Bernadette Josephine James
Part of the Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application book series (AFSGFTA)


Contemporary corporate scandals and the East Asian financial crisis, other than the latest worldwide economic recession, are the consequence of incompetent corporate governance structures. This is contributed by lack of sound corporate governance due to separation of ownership and control that causes agency problems in the firms. In agency theory, the managers are expected to engage in their own pursuit instead of the shareholders’ interest. This happens as shareholders are usually dispersed, therefore affecting adversely the capabilities to monitor and control managers’ actions. It has been broadly recommended that corporate governance attributes develop suitable systems in the manner of firm’s achievement and transparency. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the firm value following the introduction of Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance 2012 recommendations and to analyse the relationship between corporate governance attributes and firm value using the agency theory. The corporate governance attributes examined were: board size, outside directors, CEO duality and managerial ownership. The samples were taken from the top 100 public listed firms on Bursa Malaysia based on their market capitalization. The findings reveal that the CEO duality and managerial ownership are significantly associated with the firm value. The findings may help policy makers to formulate future effective code of best practice for firm’s value enhancement.


Corporate governance Agency theory Firm value MCCG 2012 


  1. Abdul Rahman R, Mohamed Ali FH (2006) Board, audit committee, culture and earnings management: Malaysian evidence. Manag Auditing J 21(7):783–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdullah SN (2004) Board composition, CEO duality and performance among Malaysian listed companies. Corp Gov 4(4):47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abels PB, Martelli JT (2013) CEO duality: how many hats are too many? Corp Gov 13(2):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abor J, Biekpe N (2007) Corporate governance, ownership structure and performance of SMEs in Ghana: implications for financing opportunities. Corp Gov 7(3):288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal A, Knoeber CR (1996) Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. J Financ Quant Anal 31(3):22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alnasser S (2012) What has changed? The development of corporate governance in Malaysia. J Risk Finance 13(3):269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alvarez J, Svejenova S (2005) Sharing executive power: roles and relationships at the top. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Amran NA, Ahmad AC (2009) Family business, board dynamics and firm value: evidence from Malaysia. J Financ Rep Acc 7(1):53–74Google Scholar
  9. Amran NA, Che Ahmad A (2011) Board mechanisms and Malaysian family companies’ performance. Asian J Acc Gov 26:15–26Google Scholar
  10. Amran A, Devi SS (2008) The impact of government and foreign affiliate influence on corporate social reporting: the case of Malaysia. Manag Auditing J 23(4):386–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Amran A, Haniffa R (2011) Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a developing country. Bus Strategy Environ 20:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Asiri BK, Hameed SA (2014) Financial ratios and firm’s value in the bahrain bourse. 5(7):1–10Google Scholar
  13. Baliga BR, Moyer RC, Rao RS (1996) CEO duality and firm performance: what’s the fuss? Strateg Manage J 17(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berkovitch E, Narayanan MP (1993) Motives for takeovers: an empirical investigation. J Financ Quant Anal (September):347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manage J 42(5):488–506Google Scholar
  16. Chen CJ, Yu CMG (2011) Managerial ownership, diversification, and firm performance: evidence from an emerging market. Int Bus Rev 21(2012):518–534Google Scholar
  17. Chen Z, Cheung Y-L, Stouraitis A, Wong AWS (2005) Ownership concentration, firm performance, and dividend policy in Hong Kong. Pacific-Basin Finance J 13(4):431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coles JL, Daniel ND, Naveen L (2008) Boards: does one size fit all? J Financ Econ 87(2):329–356Google Scholar
  19. Daily CM, Dalton DR (1997) ‘CEO and board chair roles held jointly or separately: much ado about nothing?’. Acad Manage Exec 11(3):11–20Google Scholar
  20. Dehaene A, Vyust VD, Oogle H (2001) Corporate performance and board structure in Belgian companies. Long Range Plan 34(2001):383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ehikioya BI (2009) Corporate governance structure and firm performance in developing economies: evidence from Nigeria. Corp Gov 9(3):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eng LL, Mak YT (2003) Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. J Acc Public Policy 22(4):325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26(2):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finkelstein S, D’Aveni RA (1994) CEO duality as a double-edged sword: how boards of directors’ balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Acad Manage J 37(5):1079–1108Google Scholar
  26. Gan K, Saleh Z, Abessi M, Huang CC (2013) Intellectual capital disclosure in the context of corporate governance. Int J Learn Intellect Capital 10(1):52–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gompers P, Ishii J, Metrick A (2003) Corporate governance and equity prices. Q J Econ 118(1):107–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodstein J, Gautam K, Boeker W (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strateg Manage J 15(Mar 1993):241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haniffa R, Hudaib M (2006) Corporate governance structure and performance of Malaysian listed companies. J Bus Finance Acc 33(7–8):1034–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heracleous L (2001) What is the impact of corporate governance on organisational performance? Corp Gov: Int Rev 9(3):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu Y, Zhou X (2008) The performance effect of managerial ownership: evidence from China. J Bank Finance 32(10):2099–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huang YS, Wang CJ (2014) Corporate governance and risk-taking of Chinese firms: the role of board size. Int Rev Econ Finance 37(2015):96–113Google Scholar
  33. Jelinek K, Stuerke PS (2009) The nonlinear relation between agency costs and managerial equity ownership: evidence of decreasing benefits of increasing ownership. Int J Manage Finance 5(2):156–178Google Scholar
  34. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen MC, Ruback RS (1983) The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. J Financ Econ 11(1/4):5–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim H, Lim C (2010) Diversity, outside directors and firm valuation: Korean evidence. J Bus Res 63(3):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leng ACA (2004) The impact of corporate governance practices on firms’ financial performance: evidence from Malaysian companies. Asean Econ Bull 21(3):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipton M, Lorsch J (1992) A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Bus Lawyer 48(1):59–77Google Scholar
  39. Mak YT, Kusnadi Y (2005) Size really matters: further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific Basin Finance J 13(3):301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malikova O, Brabec Z (2012) The influence of a different accounting system on informative value of selected financial ratios. Technol EconGoogle Scholar
  41. Marimuthu M, Kolandaisamy I (2009) Ethnic and gender diversity in boards of directors and their relevance to financial performance of Malaysian companies. J Sustain Dev 2:139–148Google Scholar
  42. Mohd Ghazali NA (2010) Ownership structure, corporate governance and corporate performance in Malaysia. Int J Commer Manag 20(2):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mohd Ghazali NA, Weetman P (2006) Perpetuating traditional influences: voluntary disclosure in Malaysia following the economic crisis. J Int Acc Auditing Taxation 15(2):226–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nanni AJ, Dixon JR, Vollmann TE (1992) Integrated performance measurement: management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. J Manage Acc Res 4:1–19Google Scholar
  45. Pierce J, Zahra S (1992) Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. J Manage Stud 29:411–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rashid AA, Ibrahim MK, Othman R, See KF (2012) IC disclosures in IPO prospectuses: evidence from Malaysia. J Intellect Capital 13(1):57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sanda AU, Garba T, Mikailu AS (2008) Board independence and firm financial performance: evidence from Nigeria. Working paper, Usmano Danfodiyo UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Siagian F, Siregar SV, Rahadian Y (2013) Corporate governance, reporting quality, and firm value: evidence from Indonesia. J Acc Emerg Econ 3(1):4–20Google Scholar
  49. Smith M (2007) Environmental disclosure and performance reporting in Malaysia. Asian Rev Acc 15(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilt CA (1994) The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure. Acc Auditing Accountability J 7(4):47–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valenti MA, Luce R, Mayfield C (2011) The effects of firm performance on corporate governance. Manage Res Rev 34(3):266–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1986) Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Acad Manag Rev 11(4):801–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weisbach MS (1988) Outside directors and CEO turnover. J Financ Econ 20:431–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yammeesri J, Herath SK (2010) Board characteristics and corporate value: evidence from Thailand. Corp Gov 10(3):279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang T, Zhao S (2014) CEO duality and firm performance: evidence from an exogenous shock to the competitive environment. J Bank Finance 49(2014):534–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yermack D (1996) Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40(2):185–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noirom Dony
    • 1
  • Corina Joseph
    • 2
    Email author
  • Bernadette Josephine James
    • 3
  1. 1.Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Sabah BranchPenampangMalaysia
  2. 2.Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sarawak BranchKota SamarahanMalaysia
  3. 3.Inti College SabahPutatanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations