Comparison of corporate governance, strategy, control and performance evaluation systems before and after privatization

  1. Cuevas-Rodríguez, Gloria 1
  2. Guerrero-Villegas, Jaime 1
  3. Valle-Cabrera, Ramón 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Revista:
RIO: Revista Internacional de Organizaciones

ISSN: 1886-4171,  2013-570X

Año de publicación: 2016

Título del ejemplar: Open debates, current trends and challenges in corporate governance and corporate social responsibility

Número: 16

Páginas: 99-125

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17345/RIO16.99-125 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: RIO: Revista Internacional de Organizaciones

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The aim of this paper is compare corporate governance and firm strategy before and after privatization. The design of control and performance evaluation systems in the pre and post-privatization periods is compared so that it can be understood in relation to the changes observed at a high corporate level (corporate governance and firm strategy). We carry out various case studies on five privatized Spanish companies. The results support several conclusions. First, the variables that are traditionally related to greater board independence in monitoring do not undergo variation after privatization. Second, the interests of the firms’ new ownership have an impact on firm strategy after privatization. Finally, control and performance evaluation system designs clearly align with firm strategy after privatization.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilera, R. (2005). “Corporate governance and employment relations: Spain in the context of Western Europe”. In H.P. Gospel and A. Pendleton (eds.), Corporate governance and labour management: an international comparison, Oxford University Press, 197-225.
  • Baysinger, B. and Butler H. (1985). “Corporate governance and the Board of Directors: performance effects of changes in Board composition”. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1: 101-124.
  • Cabeza, L. and Gómez, S. (2007). “Governance and Performance of Spanish Privatised Companies”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 15 (4): 503-519.
  • Carpenter, M. A. and Westphal, J. D. (2001). “The strategic context of external ties: examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making”. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 639–60.
  • Coles, J. W.; McWilliams, V. B., and Sen, N. (2001). “An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance”. Journal of Management, 27 (1): 23-50.
  • Cragg, M. and Dyck, I. (2000). “Executive Pay and UK Privatization: The Demise of “One Country, Two Systems”. Journal of Business Research, 47: 3-18.
  • Cuervo, A. and Villalonga, B. (2000). “Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization”. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 581-590.
  • Cuevas, G.; Alvarez-Dardet, C. and Valle, R. (2007). “Incentives Management During Privatization: An Agency Perspective”. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (4): 536-560.
  • Dess, G. and Davis, P. (1984). “Porter’s Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance”. Academy of Management Journal, 27 (2): 467-488.
  • Donaldson, L. and Preston, L. (1995). “A Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications”. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 65-91.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57-74.
  • Fama, E. and Jensen, M. (1983). “Separation of Ownership and Control”. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301-325.
  • Fernández, C. and Arrondo, R. (2005). “Alternative Internal Controls as Substitutes of the Board of Directors”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 13 (6): 856-866.
  • Giancreco, A. and R. Peccei (2005). “The Nature and Antecedents of Middle Manager Resistance to Change: Evidence from an Italian Context”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (10): 1812-1829.
  • Heracleous, L. (2001). “What is the Impact of Corporate Governance on Organisational Performance?”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 9 (3): 165-173.
  • Hsu, H. (2010). “The relationship between board characteristics and financial performance: An empirical study of United States Initial Public Offerings”. International Journal of Management, 27 (2): 332-342.
  • Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). “Theory of the Company: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure”. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-60.
  • Kim, Y. (2007). “The Proportion and Social Capital of Outside Directors and Their Impact on Company Value: Evidence from Korea”. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15 (6): 1168-1176.
  • Michael, S. C. and Pearce, J. A., II. (2004). “Choosing Constraints as a Third Solution to Agency”. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (7): 1171-1197.
  • Nestor, S. (2005). “Falling Between the Cracks: Privatization and Corporate Governance in the European Telecom Industry”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 13 (2): 137-155.
  • Okpara, J., and Wynn, P. (2008). “The impact of ethical climate on job satisfaction, and commitment in Nigeria: Implications for management development”. Journal of Management Development, 27 (9): 935-950.
  • Romero, A.M. (2006). “Privatization and the Entrepreneurial Corporate Initiative”. 16th ACEDE National Congress, September, Valencia.
  • Rourke, F. (1984). Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown (3d ed.).
  • Rutherford, A. M. and Buchholtz, A. K. (2007). “Investigating the Relationship Between Board Characteristics and Board Information”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 15 (4): 576-584.
  • Schröder, P. (2003). “Insider Privatization and Restructuring Incentives”. Economics of Planning, 36: 333-49.
  • Scott, T, and P. Tiessen (1999). “Performance measurement and managerial teams”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24: 263-285.
  • Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1986). “Large Shareholders and Corporate Control”. Journal of Political Economy, 94 (3): 461-488.
  • Siegel, S. and Castellan, J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Tan, J.J. and Litschert, R.J. (1994). “Environment-Strategy Relationship and its Performance Implications: An Empirical study of the Chinese Electronics Industry”. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (1): 1-20.
  • Tosi, H. and Gomez-Mejia, L. (1989) “The De-coupling of CEO Pay and Performance: An Agency Theory Perspective”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 169-189.
  • Tosi, H. and Gomez-Mejía, L. (1994). “CEO compensation monitoring and company performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1002-1018.
  • Tribo, J. A.; Berrone, P. and Surroca, J. (2007). “Do the Type and Number of Block-holders Influence R&D Investments? New Evidence from Spain”. Corporate Governance: An international Review, 15 (5): 828-842.
  • White, RE. and Hammermesh, RG. (1981). “Toward a model of business unit performance: An integrative approach”. Academy of Management Review, 6: 213-223.
  • Whitley, R (1999). “Firms, institutions and management control: the comparative analysis of coordination and control systems”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24: 507-524.
  • Yarrow, G. (1986). “Privatization in theory and practice”. Economic Policy, 1 (2): 324-377.
  • Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (2nd ed.).
  • Yoshikawa, T. and Phan, P.H. (2005). “The effects of ownership and capital structure on board composition and strategic diversification in Japanese corporations”. Corporate Governance, 13 (2): 303-312.
  • Young, G.; Stedham, Y. and Beekun, R. (2000). “Boards of Directors and the Adoption of a CEO Performance Evaluation Process: Agency and Institutional-theory Perspectives”. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2): 277-295.
  • Zahra, S.A. and Hansen, C. (2000). “Privatization, Entrepreneurship and Global Competitiveness in the 21st century”. Competitiveness Review, 10 (1): 83-103.
  • Zahra, S.; Ireland, R.; Gutierrez, I. and Hitt, M. (2000). “Privatization and Entrepreneurial Transformation: Emerging Issues and a Future Research Agenda”. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 509-524.
  • Zahra, S. A.; Neubaum, D. O. and Huse, M. (2000). “Entrepreneurship in medium size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems”. Journal of Management, 26 (5): 947-976.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet