Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from India's Top Companies

By B. Jackling, Shireenjit K. Johl. 2009

972 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/be542e0b8f4d384e88f63c8cdf42074a53a23677

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

How boards’ internal and external social capital interact to affect firm performance (2016, background): “We chose listed companies for our study because the legal requirements on them to publish corporate governance and financial performance information ensured straightforward access to such data, but—in line with previous research (Beverley and Shireenjit, 2009; De Andrés et al., 2005; Fernández and A”
Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Role of Good Corporate Governance (2016, methodology): “LNASSET + D The dependent variable, FP, as used by other authors in their studies (Guest, 2009; Jackling and Johl, 2009; Crespí, 2010), is represented by: ROA (Return on Assets), equal to operating profit before depreciation and provisions divided by total assets; ROE (Return on equity), the…”
Analysis of Board Size and Firm Performance: Evidence from NSE Companies Using Panel Data Approach (2016, methodology): “Tobin’s Q has been used in a wide number of previous studies (Bhagat & Bolton, 2009; Guest, 2009; Jackling & Johl, 2009; Khanna & Palepu, 2000; Sarkar & Sarkar, 2000; Yermack, 1996).”
Firm ownership and board characteristics: Do they matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies? (2015, background): “Collectively, these changes aimed to promote the accountability and transparency of listed companies and protect minority shareholders (Jackling and Johl, 2009).”
Did Board Configuration Matter? The Case of US Subprime Lenders (2011, positive): “…between board busyness and subprime lending which adds to work done in this area, by supporting the notion that busy boards may not be the most effective boards when it comes to overseeing risky strategic initiatives (Fich & Shivdasani, 2006; Jackling & Johl, 2009; Jiraporn et al., 2009).”
Corporate boards and the performance of Asian firms: A meta-analysis (2012, background): “…MY JBFA Ho & Wong 2001 HK JIAAT Hu, Tam, & Tan 2009 CN APJM Huafang & Jianguo 2007 CN MAJ Huang, Tsou, Lin 2008 TW WP Ibrahim, Samad, & Amir 2008 MY WP Jackling & Johl 2009 IN CGIR Jaw & Lin 2009 TW IJHRM Jia, Lee, Moon, & Li 2009 CN WP Kao & Chen 2004 TW COC Kim 2005 KR CGIR Table 1 (continued).”
The Impact of Board Characteristics on the Financial Performance of Tanzanian Firms. (2018, methodology): “Previous studies argued that a board structure was to be determined endogenously (e.g. Bhagat and Black; 2002; Jackling and Johl, 2009; Ntim, 2015).”
Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity (2016, background): “…such as particular expertise, social 1 For example, Brickley et al. (1997), Luan and Tang (2007), Florackis and Ozkan (2009), Kim and Lim (2010), Jackling and Johl (2009), and Pombo and Gutiérrez (2011) report a positive relationship between the percentage of independent directors and firm…”
Corporate social responsibility, board of directors, and firm performance: an analysis of their relationships (2014, result): “Besides, while some authors have found a positive relation between board size and firm performance (Dalton et al. 1999; Jackling and Johl 2009), other empirical studies reflect that a large size may be negative (Dahya et al.”