Hubungan dan impak kriteria lembaga pengarah terhadap prestasi syarikat bagi syarikat tersenarai di Bursa Malaysia : sektor perdagangan dan perkhidmatan (IR)

Mohd Jumali Noorul Farha, Jusoh Mohd Abdullah, Syed Mohamad Syed Ismail,

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	H Social Sciences (General)
ISSN :	2289-9391
Main Author :	Mohd Jumali Noorul Farha, Jusoh Mohd Abdullah, Syed Mohamad Syed Ismail,
Title :	Hubungan dan impak kriteria lembaga pengarah terhadap prestasi syarikat bagi syarikat tersenarai di Bursa Malaysia : sektor perdagangan dan perkhidmatan (IR)

Place of Production :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
Year of Publication :	2017
PDF Full Text :	Login required to access this item.

Full Text :

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti hubungan dan impak di antara kriteria lembaga pengarah terhadap prestasi syarikat. Hipotesis kajian menjangkakan bahawa kriteria lembaga pengarah di dalam sesebuah organisasi dapat meningkatkan prestasi syarikat kerana lembaga pengarah dilihat sebagai salah satu bentuk mekanisma tadbir urus korporat yang terpenting dalam memantau dan menasihati pihak pengurusan untuk melindungi kepentingan pemegang saham. Di dalam kajian ini, analisis data panel telah digunakan. Prestasi syarikat telah diukur dengan menggunakan Pulangan Atas Aset (ROA) dan Tobin’s Q. Dengan menggunakan sebanyak 159 syarikat yang tersenarai dalam sektor perdagangan dan perkhidmatan dari tahun 2007 sehingga 2013, dapatan kajian mendapati bahawa saiz lembaga pengarah (BODSIZE) mempunyai hubungan signifikan dan positif terhadap ROA dan Tobin’s Q. Ini menunjukkan apabila BODSIZE meningkat, maka prestasi syarikat juga akan meningkat. Seterusnya, CEO dualiti dan lembaga pengarah bebas (PERBODIND) tidak mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan dengan ROA dan Tobin’s Q. Secara keseluruhannya, tadbir urus korporat yang baik adalah penting untuk meningkatkan prestasi syarikat. Implikasi kajian ini adalah ia dapat memberi kesan kepada pelbagai pihak dan di antaranya adalah pelabur, institusi kewangan, ahli akademik, syarikat korporat, dan kerajaan di dalam membuat pertimbangan, keputusan atau penambahbaikan terhadap tadbir urus korporat dan prestasi syarikat.

References

1. Azeez, A.A. (2015). Corporate governance and firm performance: evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Finance and Bank Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 180-189. 2. Balasubramanian, N., Black, B.S., & Khanna, V. (2010). Firm level corporate governance in Emerging Markets:A case study of India. 3. Belkhir, M. (2004). Board structure, ownership structure and firm performance: evidence from banking. Applied Financial Economics, 19(19), 1581-1593. 4. Bliss, M. A. (2011). Does CEO duality constrain board independence? Some evidence from audit pricing. Accounting & Finance, 51(2), 361-380. 5. Brickley, J.A., Coles, J.L., & Jarrell, G. (1997). Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board. Journal of Corporate Finance, 3, 189-220. 6. Dedman, E., & Lin, S. (2002). Shareholder wealth effects of CEO departures: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8, 81-104. 7. De Oliveira, G.E., Clemente, A., & Espejo, M.M.D.S.B. (2012). Composition of the board and firm value of Brazilian public companies. Brazilian Business Review, 9(3) 71-93. 8. Dharmadasa, P., Gamage, P., & Herath, S.K. (2014). Corporate governance, board characteristics and firm performance: evidence from Sri Lanka. South Asian Journal of Management, 21(1), 7. 9. Duc, H., & Tri, M.N. (2014). The impact of corporate governance on firm performance: empirical study in Vietnam. International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 6, No. 6; 2014. 10. Ebrahim, M.A.M., Abdullah, K.A.S., & Faudziah H.F. (2014). The effect of board of directors characteristics, Audit committee characteristics and executive committee characteristics on firm performance in Oman: an empirical study. Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 11; 2014. 11. Eeisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing corporate firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35-54. 12. Fauzi, F., & Locke, S. (2012). Board structure, ownership structure and firm performance: A study of New Zealand listed firm. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, 8(2), 43-67. 13. Fama, E.F., & Jensen, M.C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327 349. 14. Filatotchev, I. & Bishop, K. (2002). Board composition, share ownership and underpricing of UK IPO firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 941–955. 15. Fitriya, F., & Stuart L. (2012). Board structure, ownership structure and firm performance: A study of New Zealand listed-firms. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 8, No. 2, 43–67, 2012. 16. Forbes, D.P., & Milliken, F.J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding board of directors as strategic decision making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489-505. 17. Hambrick, D.C., Werder, A.V., & Zajac, E.J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381-385. 18. Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(4), 831–880. 19. Klein, A. (2002). Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 375-400. 20. Leung, S., Richardson, G., & Jaggi, B. (2014). Corporate board and board committee independence, firm performance, and family ownership concentration: An analysis based on Hong Kong firms. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 10(1), 16-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2013.11.002 21. Levrau, A., & Van den Berghe, L.A.A. (2007). Corporate governance and board effectiveness: beyond formalism. The Icfai Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(4), 58-85. 22. Masood Fooladi Chaghadari. (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. 2011 International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development. 23. Masood Fooladi & Zaleha Abdul Shukor. (2012). Board of Directors, Audit Quality and fir performance: Evidence from Malaysia. National Research & Innovation conference for Graduate Students in Social Sciences (GS-NRIC 2012). 24. Palanisamy, S. (2012). Corporate governance and company performance – A study with reference to manufacturing firms in India. Sponsored By NFCG Through CII Under Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 25. Pearce, J.A., & Zahra, S.A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 411-438. 26. Rahmat, M.M., Iskandar, T.M., & Saleh, N.M. (2009). Audit committee characteristics in financially distressed and non-distressed companies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 24(7), 624–638. 27. Shafie Mohamed Zabri, Kamilah Ahmad dan Khaw, K.W. (2016). Corporate governance practices and firm performance: evidence from top 100 public listed companies in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance 35 (2016) 287– 296. 28. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, Vol. LII No. 2. 29. Sulong, Z., & Fauzias, M.N. (2010). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm valuation in Malaysian listed firms: A panel data analysis. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 6(1), 1-18. 30. Ujunwa, A. (2012). Board characteristics and the financial performance of Nigerian quoted firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(5), 656-674. 31. Weisbach, M., (1988). Outside directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 431 60. 32. Yatim, P., Kent, P., & Clarkson, P. (2006). Governance structures, ethnicity, and audit fees of Malaysian listed firms. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(7), 757–782.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page