Yıl: 2007 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 48 - 67 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz

Öz:
Kurumsal yönetim, şirketlerin yönetimini ve hissedarlar, yönetim kurulu, yöneticiler ve diğer menfaat sahipleri arasındaki ilişkileri düzenleyen ve şirket içinde yer alan tüm unsurları, özellikle de hissedarları korumaya çalışan yönetim kuralları bütünüdür. Kurumsal yönetim hissedarları korumak için ortaya çıkarılmış olmasına rağmen; uygulanmasıyla işletmenin değerini ve şirket performansını artırabileceği düşüncesinden hareketle, yazında, kurumsal yönetim ilkeleri ve bu doğrultuda yapılacak uygulamaların performansa etkisi üzerine yoğunlaşan araştırmalar yer almaktadır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu ilişkiyi konu eden 73 görgül araştırma, yönetim kurulu özellikleri, sahiplik yapısı, yönetim yapısı ve yöneticiler, denetim kurulu, hisse sahibi hakları ve şeffaflık başlıkları altında sınıflandırılarak incelenmiştir. İnceleme sonucunda kurumsal yönetimi genel anlamda uygulayan, ayrıca şeffaflık ve hisse sahibi hakları ilkelerini benimseyen şirketlerin performanslarının görece yüksek olduğu, diğer alt başlıklarda ise sonuçların birbiri ile çelişkili olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İletişim Kamu Yönetimi İşletme Finans

Corporate governance and firm performance: A theoretical analysis

Öz:
Corporate governance is a complete set of rules that organizes the governance and relationship among board of directors, shareholders, managers and stakeholders of firms and tries to protect all members, especially the shareholders, who are engaged in the firm. Corporate governance was formed to protect the shareholders but since it has been thought to affect firm value and firm performance positively, there has been researches conducted to see whether there is relationship between corporate governance and firm performance. This paper aims to compare 73 empirical studies which can be reached through electronic databases and conducted on relationship between corporate governance and firm performance under the classification of board of directors, ownership style, management style and managers, audit, shareholder rights and transparency. The firms which practice corporate governance as a whole, the codes of transparency and shareholder rights seem to have higher performance; the results of other codes seem to be in contradiction with each other.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İletişim Kamu Yönetimi İşletme Finans
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
0
0
0
  • Agrawal, A., ve Chadha S., 2005. Corporate governance and accounting scandals. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 371 -406.
  • Aksu, M. ve Kösedağ, A., 2005. İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası Şirketlerinin Şeffaflık ve Kamuyu Bilgilendirme Bakımından Derecelendirilmesi, 7nci Muhasebe Denetimi Sempozyumu, Nisan 2005,archive.ismmmo.org.tr/docs/sempozyum/07Sempozyum/ISMMM O06.doc
  • Alchian A.,A., Demsetz, H., 1972. Production; Information Costs, and Economic Organization The American Economic Review, 62, 5. 777-795.
  • Anderson, R., Mansi S. ve Reeb D., 2004. Board characteristics, accounting report integrity, and the cost of debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37 , September. 315-342.
  • Ararat, M., 2006. Yönetişim ve Şirket Değeri İlişkisi Üzerine Ne Biliyoruz?, Kurumsal Yönetim Konferansı, 9 Mayıs 2006, İstanbul.
  • Ararat, M. ve Uğur, M. , 2003. Corporate governance in Turkey: an overview and some policy recommendations, Corporate Governance, Vol. 3 No. 1:58-75.
  • Ashbaugh, H., Lafond R., ve Mayhew B., 2003. Do non-audit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence, Accounting Review 78 , July. 611 -639.
  • Baek, J., Kang, J., ve Park, K.S., 2002. Corporate Governance and Firm Value: Evidence from the Korean Financial Crisis., SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=348401
  • Barro, J.R. ve Barro, R.J., 1990. Pay, Performance, and Turnover of Bank CEOs, Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, 8, 4. 448-81.
  • Bhagat, S., ve Black B.S., 2000. Board independence and long-term firm performance, Working paper, University of Colorado.
  • Bhagat, S. ve Black B.S., 2002. The Non-Correlation Between Board Independence and Long-Term Firm Performance, Journal of Corporation Law, 27, 231-273.
  • Bhathala, C. ve Rao R.P., 1995. The Determinants of Board Composition: An Agency Theory Perspective,Managerialand Decision Economics, 16, 59-69.
  • Black, B., 2001. The Corporate Governance Behavior and Market Value of Russian Firms, Emerging Markets Review, 2, 89-108.
  • Black, B., Jang, H. ve Kim, W., 2002. Does Corporate Governance Affect Firm Value?, 8th Mitsui Life Symposium on Global Financial Markets,2002. www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/workshop- papers/black-jang-kim-stanford.pdf
  • Blackwell, D., Brickley J., ve Weisbach M., 1994. Accounting Information and Internal Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Texas Banks, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17, 331 -58.
  • Borokhovich, K.A., Parrino, R.P. ve Trapani, T., 1996, Outside directors and CEO Selection, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 3. 337-355.
  • Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. ve Guedhami, O., 2003. Postprivatization Corporate Governance: The Role of Ownership Structure and Investor Protection, FEEM Working Paper, 37, http://ssrn.com/abstract=406461
  • Bozec, R., 2005. Board of Directors, Market Discipline and Firm Performance, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Nov/dec 2005: 1921-1960.
  • Börsch-Supan, A. ve Köke, J., 2002. An Appiled Econometricians' View of Emprical Corporate Governance Studies, German Economic Review 3, 3: 295-326.
  • Brickley, J.A. ve Van Horn, R.L., 2000. Incentives in Nonprofit Organizations: Evidence from Hospitals. Simon School of Business Working Paper No. FR 00-02. http://ssrn.com/abstract=209178
  • Brown, L. D. ve Caylor, M. L., 2004. Corporate Governance and Firm Performance, SSRN, Social Science Research Network, http://ssrn.com/abstract=586423
  • Buck, T., 2003. Corporate Governance, Path Dependence And Neo- Institutionalism, Business History And Modern Germany, www.nottingham.ac.uk/businesshistory/discpapervii.pdf
  • Byrnes, N., Henry, D., Thornton, E. ve Dwyer, P., 2003. Reform: Who's making the grade: A performance review for CEOs, boards, analysts, and others. Business Week, 2003, September 22. 80-83.
  • Daily, C.M. ve Dalton, D.R., 1997. Separate, But Not Independent: Board Leadership Structure in Large Corporations, Corporate Governance, Volume 5, Number 3, July 1997, pp. 126-136, 11)
  • Dalton D. R., Daily C. M., Johnson J. L., Ellstrand A. E., 1999. Number of Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 6., Dec, 1999. pp. 674-686.
  • De Jong, A., Gispert C., Kabir R. ve Renneboog L., 2005. The impact of corporate governance on firm performance and growth potential: an analysis of three different European governance regimes, The life cycle of corporate governance , I. Filatotchev and M. Wright , Eds.. Edward Elgar, 233-252
  • Demesetz H. ve Villalonga, B. 2001. Ownership structure and corporate performance, Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 209-233.
  • Dowen, R.J., 1995. Board of director quality and firm performance, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 2, 1. 123-33.
  • Drobetz, W., Schillhofer A. ve Zimmermann H., 2003. Corporate Governance and Expected Stock Returns: The Base of Germany, Working paper, University of Basel.
  • Drobetz, W., 2002. The Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance.www.wwz.unibas.ch/cofi/publications/papers/2003/07- 03.pdf
  • Durnev, A. ve Kim, E. H., 2002. To Steal or Not to Steal: Firm Attributes, Legal Environment, and Valuation, SSRN, Social Science Research Network, http://ssrn.com/abstract318719
  • Dwivwedi, N. ve Jain, A.K., 2005. Corporate Governance and Performance of Indian Firms: The Effcet of Board Size and Ownership, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, September 2005: 161 -172.
  • Easterbrook, F.H., 1997. International Corporate Differences: Market or Law?, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9, 4. 23-29.
  • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., ve Wells M., 1998. Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms, Journal of Financial Economics, 48. 35-54.
  • Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-74.
  • Ellingson, D. ve Hetland, A., 1998. Board Composition and the Use of Accounting Measures: The Effect of the Relationship Between CEO Compensation and Firm Performance, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
  • Fairchild, L., Li, J., 2005. Director quality and firm performance, The Financial Review 40, Eastern Fianace Association: 257-279.
  • Fama, E.F., 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, 2. 288-307.
  • Fama E.F. ve Jensen M.C., 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. XXVI, June 1983.
  • Ferris, S.P., Jagannathan, M. ve Pritchard, A.C., 2003. Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments, Journal of Finance, 58, 1087-1111.
  • Fosberg, R., 1989. Outside directors and managerial monitoring, Akron Business and Economic Review, 20 , Summer. 24-32.
  • Gedajlovic, E.R. ve Shapiro, D.M., 1998. Management and ownership effects: Evidence from five countries. Strategic Management Journal, 19:6, 533-553.
  • Goilden, B.R. ve Zajac, E.J., 2001. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination x Power = Strategic change, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1087-1117.
  • Gompers, P.A., Ishii, J.L. ve Metrick, A., 2003. "Corporate Governance and Equity Prices", Quarterly Journal of Economics.
  • Goodstein, J., Gautam K. ve Boeker W., 1994. The Effects of Board Size and Diversity On Strategic Change, Strategic Management Journal, 15,3.241-250.
  • Gürbüz, A.O., 2005. Kurumsal Yönetim:Ülkemizdeki Düzeyine İlişkin Değerlendirmeler, 7'nci Muhasebe Denetimi Sempozyumu, Nisan 2005, archive.ismmmo.org.tr/docs/sempozyum/07Sempozyum/02- OSMAN%20GÜRBÜZ.doc
  • Gürbüz, A.O. ve Ergincan, Y., 2004. Kurumsal Yönetim: Türkiye'deki Durumu ve Geliştirilmesine Yönelik Öneriler, Literatür Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
  • Heracleous, L., 2001. What Is the Impact of Corporate Governance on Organizational Performance?, Corporate Governance: An international Review, National University of Singapore 9, 3. 165-173.
  • Hermalin B.E. ve Weisbach M.S., 1998. Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO, The American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 1., Mar., 1998. pp. 96-118.
  • Hiraki, T., Inoue, H., Ito, A., Kuroki, F. ve Masuda H., 2003. Corporate governance and firm value in Japan: Evidence from 1985 to 1998, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 11,3. 239-265.
  • Jensen, M.C., 1993. The modern industrial revolution Exit and the failure of internal control systems, Journal of Finance, 48, 3, 831-880.
  • John, K. ve Senbet L.W., 1998. Corporate Governance and Board Effectiveness, Journal of Banking and Finance, 22, 371-403.
  • Kaplan, S.N., 1994. Top executives, turnover and firm performance in Germany, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 10, 1. 142-159.
  • Kinney, W., Palmrose, Z. ve S. Scholz., 2004. Auditor independence, non-audit services, and restatements: Was the U.S. government right?, Journal of Accounting Research, 42 , June. 561-588.
  • Klapper, L.K. ve Love I., 2002. Corporate Governance, Investor Protection, and performance in Emerging Markets,The World Bank Development Research Group Finance, April 2002.
  • Klein, A., 1998. Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure, Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 275-299.
  • Kosnik, R.D., 1987. Greenmail: A Study Of Board Performance In Corporate Governance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,163-185.
  • Kula, V., 2005. The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey, Corporate Governance, Volume 13 Number 2 March 2005: 265-276.
  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. ve Vishny, R., 2002. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 57, No. 3.: 1147-1170.
  • Larcker, D. ve Richardson S., 2004. Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices, and corporate governance, Journal of Accounting Research, 42 , June. 625-658.
  • Li, J., 1994. Ownership structure and board composition: A multi-country test of agency theory predictions, Managerial and Decision Economics, 15, 359-368.
  • Liang, N. ve Li J,, 1999. Board Structure and Firm Performance: New Evidence from China's Private Firms, Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, 7-10 August, Chicago.
  • Lins, K.V. ve Warnock, F.E., 2004. Corporate Governance and the Shareholder Base, www.ecgi.org/wp.
  • Lipton, M. ve Lorsch, J., 1992. A Modest Proposal for improved Corporate Governance, Business Lawyer, 48, 1, 59-77.
  • Mak, Y.T. ve Roush, M.L., 2000. Factors Affecting the Characteristics of Boards of Directors: An Empirical Study of New Zealand Initial Public Offering Firms, Journal of Business Research, 47, 147-159.
  • Mayer, M. ve Whittington, R., 1999. Euro-e'lites: top British, French and German managers in the 1980s and 1990s, European Management Journal, 17, 403-7.
  • Mehran, H., 1995. Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership, and Firm Performance, Journal of Financial Economics, 38, 2, 163-184.
  • Millstein, I. ve MacAvoy P., 1998. Active Board of Directors and Performance of the Large Publicly Traded Corporation, Columbia Law Review, 98, 1283-1321.
  • Mitton, T., 2002. A cross firm analysis of the impact of corporate governance on the east asian financial crisis, Journal of Financial Economics, 64.
  • Murphy, A. ve Topyan, K., 2005. Corporate Governance: A Critical Survey of Key Concepts, Issues, and Recent Reforms in the US, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, June 2005: 75-89.
  • Nam, S. ve Nam. I.C., 2004. Corporate Governance In Asia, Asian Development Bank Institute, October 2004.
  • OECD , OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, 2004.
  • Özen, Ş., 2002. Bağlam, Aktör, Söylem ve Kurumsal Değişim: Türkiye'de Toplam Kalite Yönetiminin Yatılma Süreci, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2,1.
  • Pearce, J.A. ve Zahra, S.A., 1992. Board compensation from a strategic contingency perspective, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 411 -438.
  • Prevost, A. K., Rao, R.P. ve Hossain, M., 2002. Board Composition in New Zealand: An Agency Perspective, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 29, 731 -760.
  • Rediker, K.J. ve Seth, A., 1995. Board of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mec nanisms, Strategic Management Journal, 16,2.85-99.
  • Renneboog, L., 2000. Ownership, Managerial Control and the Governance of Companies Listed on the Brussels Stock Exchange, Journal of Banking & Finance, 24.
  • Rose, C., 2005. The Composition of Semi-Two-Tier Corporate Boards and Firm Performance, Corporate Governence-An International Review, Vol. 13, No. 5, 691-701.
  • Rosenstein, S. ve Wyatt J.G., 1990. Outside Directors, Board Independence, and Shareholder Wealth., Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 2. 175-191.
  • Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu (SPK), 2003. Kurumsal Yönetim İlkeleri, Temmuz 2003.
  • Shleifer A. ve Vishny, W., 1997. A Survey Of Corporate Governance, Journal of Finance, 52, 2. 737-783.
  • Shleifer, A. ve Wolfenson, D., 2002. Investor protection and equity markets, Journal of Financial Economics, 66, 3-27.
  • Tchouraev, K., 2004. Impacts of corporate governance issues on values of Turkish companies, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul, 2004.
  • Thomsen, S., ve Pedersen, T., 2000. Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European companies, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 689-705.
  • Ting, H., 2006. When Does Corporate Governance Add Value? The Business Review, Summer 2006; 5, 2: 196-203.
  • Tosi, Jr.H.L. ve Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 1994. CEO Compensation Monitoring and Firm Performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4: 1002-1016.
  • TÜSİAD,2002a.Kurumsal Yönetim Semineri, İMKB-2002,http://www.tusiad.org/haberler/seminer/kurumsal.pdf
  • TÜSİAD, 2002b. Kurumsal Yönetim En İyi Uygulama Kodu: Yönetim Kurulunun Yapısı ve İşleyişi, Yayın No. TÜSİAD-T/2002-12/336, Aralık 2002.
  • Ülgen, H. ve Mirze, S.K., 2004. İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim, Literatür Yayınları.
  • Van den Berghe, L., ve Levrau, A., 2003. Measuring the Quality of Corporate Governance: In Search of a tailmore Approach?, Journal of General Management, Vol. 28, Spring 2003: 71 -86.
  • Van Ees, H. ve Postma, T., 2002. An Equilibrium Interpretation of the Relationship between Board Size and Corporate Performance. Paper presented at EURAM. April 9, Stockholm.
  • Weil, Gotshal ve Manges LLP, 2002 (in consultation with the EASD and ECGN). Comparative Study Of Corporate Governance Codes Relevant to the European Union And Its Member States,EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Internal Market Directorate General, January 2002.
  • Weisbach, M. S., 1988. Outside Directors and CEO Turnover, Journal of Financial Economics, 20,431-460.
  • Williamson, O., 1984. Corporate governance. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1197- 1230.
  • Williamson, O., 1985. Employee ownership and internal governance: A perspective, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 6, 243-245.
  • Xu, X. ve Wang, Y., 1997. Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Performance, Policy Research Working Paper, No:1794, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
  • Yamak, S., 2006. Changing institutional environment and business elites in Turkey, Society and Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, 2006: 206-219.
  • Yermack, D., 1996. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors, Journal of Financial Economics 40,185-211.
  • Zheka, V., 2005. Corporate Governance, Ownership Structure and Technical Efficiency: the Case of Ukraine, Journal of Managerial and Decision Economics, 26, 7. 451-460.
  • Zheka, V., 2006. Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Ukraine,Centre For Economic Reform And Transformation, Discussion Paper 2006/05, http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/cert
APA Meydan C, Basım H (2007). Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. , 48 - 67.
Chicago Meydan Cem Harun,Basım H. Nejat Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. (2007): 48 - 67.
MLA Meydan Cem Harun,Basım H. Nejat Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. , 2007, ss.48 - 67.
AMA Meydan C,Basım H Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. . 2007; 48 - 67.
Vancouver Meydan C,Basım H Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. . 2007; 48 - 67.
IEEE Meydan C,Basım H "Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz." , ss.48 - 67, 2007.
ISNAD Meydan, Cem Harun - Basım, H. Nejat. "Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz". (2007), 48-67.
APA Meydan C, Basım H (2007). Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 48 - 67.
Chicago Meydan Cem Harun,Basım H. Nejat Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi 6, no.2 (2007): 48 - 67.
MLA Meydan Cem Harun,Basım H. Nejat Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.6, no.2, 2007, ss.48 - 67.
AMA Meydan C,Basım H Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007; 6(2): 48 - 67.
Vancouver Meydan C,Basım H Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007; 6(2): 48 - 67.
IEEE Meydan C,Basım H "Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz." Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 6, ss.48 - 67, 2007.
ISNAD Meydan, Cem Harun - Basım, H. Nejat. "Kurumsal yönetim-şirket performansı ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir analiz". Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi 6/2 (2007), 48-67.