Search results

Do women contribute to performance of companies on which they serve as board of directors? Many prior studies examine this issue, but no consensus is reached on the benefits of women taking on leadership positions. The present study considers this thorny issue from a slightly different perspective. Does the association between gender diversity and business performance vary across sectors and economic cycles?

The sample for this study was derived from the firms included in the S&P Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) 300 Index, and the study period of 2004–2016 allowed authors to consider the effects of different sectors as well as different economic cycles on the relationship between gender diversity of boards and business performance. The authors consider the Australian context, which is somewhat unique from the other Western countries, as quotas on boards of directors are not made mandatory and the corporate governance practices are principle-based rather than rule-based.

Employing panel data models, at the aggregate level, the authors find no evidence of board gender diversity impacting business performance. Consideration of sectoral differences and economic cycles in the empirical analyses yielded additional insights. In particular, gender diversity has a beneficial association with performance for businesses in the services and financial sectors after the changes to corporate governance guidelines relating to diversity in 2010. These economic benefits, however, are not evidenced in the resources sector.

These findings offer support for critical mass and resource dependence theories.

The findings of this study have implications for inclusion and diversity policies of businesses and the society. Specifically, the findings offer support for gender diversity of corporate boards of directors.

This study highlights that women bring their unique skills and experiences to create economic value in sectors where they traditionally have more experience and opportunities.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the level and structure of executive compensation of family and non-family businesses and if minority shareholders are expropriated by family businesses in the Australian context using excessive pay. Studies on compensation practices of family businesses are limited to the European and North American contexts. This study, for the first time, considers the Australian context, which is unique with its transparent compensation disclosures, and a principle-based corporate governance framework to examine the level of compensation as well as the association between pay and performance.

A set of family and matched non-family firms for the period 2004–2014 are examined in a panel data setting. Robust models are estimated to examine the association between compensation and a set of economic, governance and ownership factors.

This study finds evidence that family businesses in general pay lower levels of compensation than non-family businesses. An investigation of the role of economic factors on compensation of family and non-family businesses shows evidence that supports the optimal contracting theory. Further examination of governance factors on compensation levels and pay–performance sensitivities shows there is a limited role for managerial power approach in explaining the executive compensation practices of family businesses in Australia. These findings infer that family businesses, given their interest in non-financial goals, do not pay excessive compensation to their executives to expropriate minority shareholders.

These findings have implications for theory relating to executive compensation and human resource management in all types of businesses, including family firms. These findings offer support for the theory of optimal contracting. Empirical analysis shows no evidence of entrenchment effect or managerial power in family businesses in Australia. In terms of theory-building, there is role for socioemotional wealth model in addition to optimal contracting theory and managerial power approach.

The findings of this study also have implications for practice. Compensation practices may be designed in such a way that executives and firms pursue broader social goals such as the sustainable development goals or more generally non-financial objectives. Businesses may not necessarily use only financial outcomes when assessing appropriate level of pay of executives. Often, the financial outcomes may involve wealth transfers between different stakeholders and may not necessarily lead to improving the societal well-being. In terms of human resource management, the findings of this study emphasise the need for explicit consideration of socioemotional wealth of all family-related and non-related employees when designing recruitment, training, reward and recognition policies.

This study highlights the role non-financial factors play in executive pay setting processes in family businesses in a highly transparent and principle-based governance framework. Family businesses in Australia are not motivated by monetary considerations, and that their interest in non-financial objectives leads to less emphasis on the link between compensation and performance.

The purpose of this study is to examine factors influencing decisions to repurchase shares on-market in Australia. The present study also examines the role of board size, board independence and chief executive officer duality on the decision to repurchase shares on-market by Australian firms.

This study blends the traditional motivations of share repurchases with the influences of governance. The sample consists of all non-financial firms included in the Australian All Ordinaries Index (AOI) for the period 2004-2010. The repurchase sample consists of 104 repurchases undertaken by 62 firms. A probit panel model is used to analyse the decision to repurchase shares on the market. To account for unobserved heterogeneity, random effects panel models are also used.

Analyses of a sample of non-financial firms included in the AOI for the period 2004-2010 show that size is significantly positively correlated with the decision to repurchase shares, thus supporting the agency cost. Findings also support the undervaluation and signalling hypotheses. Similarly, there is evidence in support of the view that firms repurchase shares to reach their target optimal capital structure. The present study also finds a significant positive association between board independence and the decision to repurchase shares in Australia.

On-market share repurchases help firms to signal their future growth opportunities and resolve agency conflicts. Signals from repurchases also help markets discover the true fundamental values of firms. Governance plays an important role in improving the effectiveness of on-market share repurchases, as independent directors provide both monitoring and discipline which helps to ensure that firms have valid motivations in undertaking share repurchases.

These findings have implications for capital restructuring and governance policies. Principle-based governance frameworks that prevail in countries like Australia work as well as rule-based governance.

This study highlights the complementary roles that financial policies and corporate boards play in corporate governance. Independent boards ensure that firms pursue appropriate financial policies that help resolve agency conflicts and information asymmetry problems.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of corporate governance on the dividend payout decisions of Australian firms by considering two related objectives. First, it considers the role of corporate governance ratings (CGRs) on the decision to pay or not to pay dividends. Second, it considers the influence of CGRs on the average dividend payout level of Australian firms.

The sample consists of 413 non-financial firms included in the All Ordinaries Index for the period 2004-2009. A logit model is employed to analyse the decision to pay or omit dividends. Similarly, tobit method is employed to analyse the factors influencing the dividend payout level of Australian firms. To control for unobserved heterogeneity, this study employs random effects panel logit and panel tobit models.

This study finds that CGRs have a significant positive influence on the decision to pay dividends and on the average dividend payout level of Australian firms. Similarly, the present study finds support for signalling hypothesis as profitability has a significant positive influence and a loss dummy has a significant negative influence on the dividend payout decisions of Australian firms. The study also finds support for the life cycle hypothesis as growth opportunities have a significant negative impact on the average dividend payout level of Australian firms. This study finds no conclusive evidence of the existence of dividend tax clientele in Australia.

Dividends provide a complementary governance role consistent with the “outcomes model” of the agency cost theory as proposed by La Port et al. (2000).

The findings have implications for corporate governance policies. Principle-based governance mechanisms work as well as the rule-based governance mechanisms in an environment characterized by high levels of investor protection and well-developed stock markets. Companies that are well governed may limit the opportunities for managers to expropriate shareholders and thus governance may reduce the contracting costs associated with compensation policies.

This is the first study that examines the influence of governance on dividend policy using the CGRs developed by the WHK Horwath/University of Newcastle. Findings are robust and account for unobserved heterogeneity as random effects panel models are employed.

The overarching aim of this chapter is to explore the existing status of mentoring in accounting firms in India and Malaysia, to understand whether or not mentoring is gendered in these country contexts, and to investigate the impact of the size of the firm and country context on mentoring. The mentoring framework is used as a theoretical lens to understand the orientation of principals and partners towards the existing and future mentoring support and activities of micro-sized, small-sized, medium-sized, and family-owned accounting firms operating in both India and Malaysia. Data obtained from 40 in-depth interviews (n = 20 in India and n = 20 in Malaysia) are analyzed using qualitative data analysis software NVivo12. The findings obtained from the study indicate that mentoring support exists informally in accounting firms, mentoring support offered and mentoring activities undertaken are gendered, and the nature, extent and type of mentoring offered in accounting firms varies according to the size of the firm in both countries. The chapter presents important practical, theoretical and methodological implications of the study for avoiding gendered mentoring practices in accounting firms.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of board structure on dividend policy of Australian corporate firms. It also considers the traditional explanations of corporate dividend choice, such as agency cost theory, signalling hypothesis, the life cycle hypothesis along with tax-based explanations of dividend policy.

The final sample consists of 413 non-financial firms that are part of the All Ordinaries Index. The causal analysis was undertaken in three stages. In the first stage, the authors analyse the likelihood of paying dividends. And classify all firms as either dividend payers or non-payers. The authors then model this binary variable as a function of different sets of variables. In the second stage, the authors analyse the factors determining the magnitude of dividend payout by those firms that have paid a dividend. In contrast, stage three employs all firms – those which did not pay any dividend and those firms which paid a dividend.

For the study period 2004-2009, this study finds that board independence has a significant positive influence on the dividend payout of Australian firms. This finding is consistent with the “outcome” model of La Porta et al. (2000). This study also finds that size has a significant positive influence on the dividend payout of Australian firms thus providing support for the agency cost view of dividend policy. Similarly, this study also finds support for the signalling hypothesis and the life cycle theory given the significant positive influence of profitability and the significant negative influence of current losses and growth opportunities on the dividend policy of Australian firms.

The findings of the study are robust with to alternative measures of variables employed and are not influenced by the global financial crisis. However, this study did not consider the possible endogenous and multiple relationships between dividends, debt, profitability, cash holdings and governance structures given the limited study period considered.

This study finds that board independence has a significant positive influence on the dividend behaviour of Australian firms. This suggests that dividends and independent directors play complementary governance roles. While dividends provide the monitoring and disciplinary roles, independent directors act as catalysts for enhancing effective board functioning. These findings have implications for corporate governance policies and the payout policies.

Though the governance role of dividends has long been recognized in the literature (Easterbrook, 1984; Jensen, 1986), very few studies analyse the influence of board characteristics on the decision to pay dividends in Australia. Given the distinct Australian setting where the tax imputation system allows companies to pay franked dividends to domestic investors, this study provides evidence on the interaction of corporate and dividend policies. This study finds that dividend polices are influenced by percentage franking of dividends. This study also finds that board independence has a significant positive influence on the dividend policy of Australian firms.