Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate governance mechanism and comparative analysis of one-tier and two-tier board structures: evidence from ASEAN countries

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study investigates and compares the determinants of disclosure quality of one-tier and two-tier board structures in selected ASEAN countries. We measure the significance of different corporate governance mechanism of top 50 companies from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore from 2011 to 2015. The results of independent sample t test prove that the variances of the disclosure quality scores of one-tier and two-tier board structures are different. In order to avoid problems of omitted variable bias, unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity, we use the Tobit regression model with random effects. The results confirm that the disclosure quality has a dependence on board size, board expertise, board meetings, board diversity, the timeline for both one-tier and two-tier board structures. The female board members and free cash flows have sole dependence on the one-tier board, whereas board power and block holders have sole dependence on two-tier boards. The study also establishes the relationship between board independence with disclosure quality of board structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sources: www.worldbank.org and www.aseansec.org.

References

  • Adhikari, A., and A. Duru. 2006. Voluntary disclosure of free cash flow information. Accounting Horizons 20 (4): 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhtaruddin, M., and H. Haron. 2010. Board ownership, audit committees’ effectiveness and corporate voluntary disclosures. Asian Review of Accounting 18 (1): 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Attar, M.K. 2016. Corporate governance and financial statement disclosure quality in Jordanian Commercial Banks. International Journal of Economics and Finance 8 (10): 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becht, M., P. Bolton, and A. Röell. 2003. Corporate governance and control. Handbook of the Economics of Finance 1: 1–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar, W., and D. Zeghal. 2011. Board of directors’ independence and executive compensation disclosure transparency: Canadian evidence. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 12 (1): 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhasin, M. 2009. Corporate governance and transparency scenario: An empirical study of Asia. International Review of Business Research Papers 5 (6): 269–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, J.A., and J.L. Zimmerman. 2010. Corporate governance myths: comments on Armstrong, Guay, and Weber. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50 (2): 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R.J. 1993. Women on corporate boards of directors. Equal Opportunities International 12 (6): 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carslaw, C.A.P.N., and S.E. Kaplan. 1991. An examination of audit delay: Further evidence from New Zealand. Accounting and Business Research 22 (85): 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charitou, A., I. Georgiou, and A.C. Soteriou. 2017. Corporate governance, board composition, director expertise, and value: The case of quality excellence. Multinational Finance Journal 20 (3): 181–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.J.P., and B. Jaggi. 2000. Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 19 (4–5): 285–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S.D.S., and G. Pohl. 1997. Ownership and corporate governance: Evidence from the Czech Republic. Working Paper No. 1737: World Bank Publications.

  • Claessens, S., and J.P.H. Fan. 2002. Corporate governance in Asia: A survey. International Review of Finance 3 (2): 71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J.A., and R.N. Kanungo. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deumes, R., and W.R. Knechel. 2008. Economic incentives for voluntary reporting on internal risk management and control systems. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 (1): 35–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., and M.C. Jensen. 1983a. Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., and M.C. Jensen. 1983b. Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fathi, J. 2013. The determinants of the quality of financial information disclosed by French listed companies. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 4 (2): 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forker, J.J. 1992. Corporate governance and disclosure quality. Accounting and Business Research 22 (86): 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, C.A. 2003. Obstacles to good financial reporting. speech published on Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications, Sunday, Sep 21, 2003.

  • Guidara, A., H. Khlif, and A. Jarboui. 2014. Voluntary and timely disclosure and the cost of debt: South African evidence. Meditari Accountancy Research 22 (2): 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F.A., B. Srinidhi, and A.C. Ng. 2011. Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics 51 (3): 314–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., A.P. Nair, and R. Gogula. 2003. Corporate governance reporting by Indian companies: A content analysis study. The ICFAI Journal of Corporate Governance 2 (4): 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P.M., and K.G. Palepu. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1): 405–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddart, S. 1993. The effect of a large shareholder on corporate value. Management Science 39 (11): 1407–1421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review 76 (2): 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, H., A. Habib, and B. Hu. 2011. Ownership concentration, voluntary disclosures and information asymmetry in New Zealand. The British Accounting Review 43 (1): 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, K., and L.W. Senbet. 1998. Corporate governance and board effectiveness. Journal of Banking & Finance 22 (4): 371–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laksmana, I. 2008. Corporate board governance and voluntary disclosure of executive compensation practices. Contemporary Accounting Research 25 (4): 1147–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.W., and C.F. Lee. 2009. Cash holdings, corporate governance structure and firm valuation. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies 12 (03): 475–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B. 1992. Information disclosure strategy. California Management Review 34 (4): 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F.J., and L.L. Martins. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 21 (2): 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, S. 2006. Disclosure quality and its effect on litigation risk. Retrieved 10 May 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=956499.

  • Nosheen, Safia, and Supasith Chonglerttham. 2013. Impact of board leadership and audit quality on disclosure quality: Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 10 (4): 311–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J.A., and S.A. Zahra. 1991. The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal 12 (2): 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. 1972. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, Violina P. 1999. What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies 36 (7): 953–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein, S., and J.G. Wyatt. 1990. Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26 (2): 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W.P.S., and S. Tacheva. 2007. Nationality and gender diversity on Swiss corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (4): 546–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaha, K.K.H., and K. Hussainey. 2015. The impact of board and audit committee characteristics on voluntary disclosure: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 24: 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shehata, N.F. 2013. How could board diversity influence corporate disclosure. Corporate Board: Role, Duties & Composition 9 (3): 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B.F. 1977. The TI board: pioneering reforms. Directors and Boards 2: 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vafeas, N. 1999. Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics 53 (1): 113–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F.Z.Z., and J. Hoffmire. 2015. Financial reporting quality, free cash flow, and investment efficiency. Paper presented at the SHS Web of Conferences.

  • Wasley, C.E., and J.S. Wu. 2006. Why do managers voluntarily issue cash flow forecasts? Journal of Accounting Research 44 (2): 389–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H.H., F. Zhao, and X. Zhao. 2015. Hiding behind Writing: Communication in the Offering Process of Mortgage-Backed Securities. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 10 May 2018 from http://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/erim_content/documents/1125Zhang.pdf.

  • Zhuang, J., D. Edwards, D. Webb, and M.V. Capulong. 2000. Corporate governance and finance in East Asia. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

    Tahseen Mohsan Khan, Safia Nosheen & Naveed ul Haq

Authors
  1. Tahseen Mohsan Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Safia Nosheen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naveed ul Haq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahseen Mohsan Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I hereby confirm being correspondent author on behalf of all authors that we do not have any financial or personal relationship with a third party whose interests could be positively or negatively influenced by the article’s content.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, T.M., Nosheen, S. & ul Haq, N. Corporate governance mechanism and comparative analysis of one-tier and two-tier board structures: evidence from ASEAN countries. Int J Discl Gov 17, 61–72 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00075-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00075-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation