ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Codes of good governance
This study, based on agency theory, focuses on the measurement of corporate governance in the Spanish corporate sector. Its aim is to develop, evaluate and validate a specific corporate governance index that overcomes the limitations of previous research, which relies on aggregated and unvalidated measures. The research questions are: How can corporate governance in Spain be adequately measured? And how well does the proposed index represent the relevant aspects of corporate governance? These questions lead to the sub-question of the validity of the sub-indices that make up the index in relation to specific aspects of corporate governance. The study analyses a sample of 130 Spanish listed companies with 1,039 observations corresponding to the period from 2007 to 2018. An aggregate corporate governance index is constructed, composed of four sub-indices: compliance with good governance codes, ownership characteristics, board characteristics and transparency of accounting information. The results show that both the overall index and the sub-indices are positively related to firm value. Methods such as Cronbach's alpha coefficient for internal consistency and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for index structure are used to validate the index. In addition, panel data analysis using the GMM method is employed, incorporating a novel measure of firm value that takes into account the replacement cost of assets. This study fills a gap in the literature by constructing and validating a specific index for Spain, while addressing econometric issues such as endogeneity and unobservable heterogeneity. In practical terms, the index can support the implementation of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which promotes the adoption of good governance codes. Finally, it is suggested that future research should focus on creating and validating robust indices to assess the quality of corporate governance in other contexts, thereby promoting best practices globally.
Keywords:
Corporate governance index
Construct validity
Boards of directors
Ownership structure
Financial reportingFirm value
JEL classification:
G18
G30
G34
G39
K22
K29
Indice de gobierno corporativo
Códigos de buen gobierno
RESUMEN
Este estudio, basado en la teoría de la agencia, se centra en la medición del gobierno corporativo en el sector corporativo español. Su objetivo es desarrollar, evaluar y validar un índice específico de gobierno corporativo que supere las limitaciones de investigaciones previas, las cuales se basan en medidas agregadas y no validadas. Las preguntas de investigación son: ¿cómo medir adecuadamente el gobierno corporativo en España?, y ¿cuán bien representa el índice propuesto los aspectos relevantes del gobierno corporativo? De estas preguntas se deriva una sub-pregunta sobre la validez de los subíndices que componen el índice en relación con los aspectos específicos del gobierno corporativo. El estudio analiza una muestra de 130 empresas españolas cotizadas con 1.039 observaciones correspondientes al período 2007-2018. Se construye un índice agregado de gobierno corporativo, compuesto por cuatro subíndices: cumplimiento con códigos de buen gobierno, características de la propiedad, características de los consejos directivos y transparencia de la información contable. Los resultados muestran que tanto el índice general como los subíndices están positivamente relacionados con el valor de la empresa. Para validar el índice, se utilizan métodos como el coeficiente de Cronbach a para la consistencia interna y el análisis de componentes principales (PCA) para la estructura del índice. También se emplea el análisis de datos de panel GMM, incorporando una medida novedosa del valor de la empresa que considera el coste de reposición de los activos. Este estudio llena un vacío en la literatura al crear y validar un índice específico para España, abordando además problemas econométricos como la endogeneidad y la heterogeneidad inobservable. A nivel práctico, el índice puede apoyar la implementación de la Agenda de Desarrollo Sostenible 2030 de las Naciones Unidas, que promueve la adopción de códigos de buen gobierno. Finalmente, se sugiere que futuras investigaciones se enfoquen en la creación y validación de índices robustos para evaluar la calidad del gobierno corporativo en otros contextos, promoviendo así las mejores prácticas a nivel global.
Códigos JEL:
G18
G30
G34
G39
K22
K29
Palabras clave:
Validez del constructo
Consejo directivo
Estructura de propiedad
Informes financieros
Valor de la empresa
1. Introduction
It is now almost fifty years since the term corporate governance was first used. The growing interest in understanding how corporate governance works and how it is measured is reflected in the large number of studies published in recent decades (Chen et al., 2007; Nsour & Al-Rjoub, 2022). However, we still know little about corporate governance and even less aboutits relationship with other business areas such as gender diversity, corporate environmental impact, human rights and corporate social responsibility (Ahrens et al., 2011; Ouni et al., 2020; Zheng & Kouwenberg, 2019). And measures of corporate governance are not consistent across the world. Many academic works, such as Drobetz et al. (2004) and Black et al. (2006), have aimed to construct indices to measure corporate governance, but have not tested their validity. Nerantzidis (2016) sheds light on the need to construct an index that is valid and reliable. This need is also in line with the finding of Andreu-Pinillos et al. (2020), in the case of Spain, that not all items included in corporate governance and sustainability indices are homogeneous and interchangeable.
As noted, there are many shortcomings in the literature on the construction of a corporate governance index - including uncertainty about how to measure the construct of corporate governance, lack of comparability, lack of uniformity, lack of comprehensiveness and, most importantly, lack of construct validity - that cast doubt on the reliability of such indices and the findings derived from them (Bhagal et al., 2008). This lack of validity makes current indices highly imperfect instruments for deciding how to vote on corporate proxies and for assessing the relationship between such indices and company value. Therefore, any causal relationship between governance indices and firm value found in the literature may be highly biased because the proxy for the effectiveness of the governance system may not actually measure the underlying governance characteristics (Chen et al., 2007). Indeed, we argue that the literature has not properly assessed the relationship between governance and firm value because its construct of corporate governance lacks validity.
Hence, our main motivation is to rectify these weaknesses by using a proxy of corporate governance that measures the underlying concept of governance and not other corporate dynamics. Therefore, our aim is to construct a comprehensive index of corporate governance as a driver of firm value in the Spanish corporate sector and to test its validity. The main research questions are: How can we properly measure the construct of corporate governance for the Spanish corporate sector? How well does our suggested corporate governance index represent the reality of corporate governance in general? And how well do its subindices represent the specific aspects of governance? These last two questions are related to the construct-validity process.
Our study contributes to the literature in four ways. First, it offers a validated index of corporate governance for Spain. The literature uses proxies that do not necessarily measure attributes of corporate governance and their relation to firm value. For instance, Aggarwal et al. (2009) develop a firm-level corporate governance index that enables crosscountry comparisons. However, since the authors remain silent regarding the validity of their index, it is hard to tell whether their metric of corporate governance actually measures firm-level corporate governance attributes, as pointed out by Bhagal et al. (2008).
Second, our study generates concerns about what existing measures of corporate governance really measure and how. For instance, Gompers et al. (2003) use twenty-four corporate governance provisions as proxies for the balance of power between shareholders and managers. The authors recognize that most of the provisions are proxies of corporate governance. However, they also argue that there are some ambiguous cases and suggest that there might be certain elements in their index that account for not governance but something else. Indeed, Bebchuk et al. (2008) assess the relative importance of Gompers et al. (2003)'s twenty-four provisions and find that eighteen of them are uncorrelated with firm valuation and abnormal returns. This suggests that Gompers et al. (2003) index is less a proxy of corporate governance than a proxy of other corporate aspects. Our study mitigates such flaws in the literature.
A third contribution is that our index, unlike classical corporate governance indices such as the G-index (Gompers et al., 2003), the E index (Bebchuk et al., 2008), and the O index (Straska & Waller, 2014), relies on an appropriate econometric approach to deal with endogeneity issues and heterogeneity problems that have not been properly treated in the empirical literature. Similarly, our study improves the existing estimations by using more suitable proxies of firm value that consider the replacement cost of assets vis-a-vis the traditional Tobin's Q, and it uses various metrics of the components of our suggested index's subindices. None of these studies properly address endogeneity issues caused by both the causality of the relationship and omitted variables, which might bias their findings (Karpoff et al., 2017), nor do they use the superior, replacement-cost-based proxy of firm value (Saona, 2014). Such problems might indicate that statistically significant relationships between their indices and firm value may be the result of correlation with an omitted variable that is the true predictor of firm value (Black et al., 2017).
Fourth, corporate governance has been on the political agenda of national and supranational institutions, such as the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which, among other things, establishes a framework for corporations seeking to implement good corporate governance practices, and our suggested index provides an appropriate measurement of the construct of governance. Consequently, this study helps the literature to advance this new agenda by legitimating future research on corporate governance using our validated Spanish corporate governance index.
Although there are multiple definitions of corporate governance (Claessens & Yurtoglu, 2013), all of them view it as the way in which suppliers of funds to corporations ensure they will get a return on their investment (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). Corporate governance involves a set of conditions that support stakeholders' interests, preventing the agency problems arising from the separation of ownership and control. Hence, corporate governance is seen as the system by which companies are efficiently managed and controlled. As stated by Jensen (1993), corporate governance concerns four areas: capital markets, the legal-political-regulatory system, product and factor markets, and internal systems.
Along the same lines, Ocasio & Joseph (2005) describe the evolution of the concept of corporate governance from the "70s to the end of the twentieth century and explain how it has been associated with the preservation and promotion of shareholder value. They suggest that the term corporate governance has become popular in the corporate sector because of growing shareholder understanding of issues concerning institutional investors' roles in takeover defenses, board structure, and executive compensation. Moreover, corporate governance has come to be widely recognized in the corporate conscience as the set of mechanisms designed to ensure that suppliers of financing receive a satisfactory risk-adjusted return on their investments as defined by Shleifer & Vishny (1997).
As observed above, corporate governance has gained momentum elsewhere in its association with different corporate dimensions, such as firm value and performance (Claessens & Yurtoglu, 2013; Denis & McConnell, 2003; Nasrallah & El Khoury, 2022; Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). But measures of corporate governance are still lacking. Stakeholders have started to demand governance ratings (Sherman, 2004) to avoid undesirable outcomes (Daines et al., 2010). This new trend has led to efforts at measuring governance quality (Aguilera Ruth & Desender Kurt, 2012), both by academics (Cheung et al., 2011; Cheung et al., 2007; La Porta et al., 1998; Tsipouri 8: Xanthakis, 2004) and by commercial agencies such as Governance Metrics International, Risk Metrics/ Institutional Shareholder Service, Credit Lyonnais Securities, and Standard & Poor's.
Since corporate governance, being unobservable and abstract, cannot be precisely measured (Black et al., 2017), the empirical literature commonly relies on indices of firm-level proxy variables (Sami et al., 2011). However, as stated by Nerantzidis (2016), the indices are imperfect and sometimes do not measure what they are supposed to measure. The reasons for such imperfection include spurious correlations, incomplete knowledge about the governance phenomenon under study, the subjectivity of researchers' judgments as applied to the estimations, and the limitations of direct observation (Black et al., 2020).
The idea of measuring corporate governance quality through indices is relatively new, and several approaches have been developed thus far (Black et al., 2017; Daines et al., 2010; Kocmanová & Simberová, 2014; Leech & Manjón, 2002; Renders et al., 2010). This study takes a comprehensive approach to it.
Using agency theory, our study follows the approach of Black et al. (2017) and applies a construct-validity process in the index construction. The data used for the construction of our index correspond to several years of microlevel data, which allows for the creation of panel structures. Hence, we use comparable constructs that proxy for similar underlying corporate governance attributes. We take a top-down approach in which we first identify several governance attributes, based mostly on (i) empirical evidence on the Spanish market and (ii) ad hoc variables suggested by corporate governance theories and our criteria (variables such as features of boards of directors, codes of good governance, financial transparency, and ownership structure). With these elements, we build proxies for general attributes of governance and then use them to create a governance index for Spanish capital markets, which we name the Spanish Corporate Governance Index (S-CGI).
We choose these ad hoc variables for the following reasons. First, codes of good governance are chosen because a company's governance needs to be aligned with the external regulatory framework (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009). Second, boards of directors are an essential aspect of internal corporate governance since their fiduciary role is to protect shareholders' rights (Booth et al., 2002). Third, concerning ownership structure, we believe that one of the major governance characteristics of companies operating in civil-law countries, such as Spanish companies, is their concentrated and pyramidal ownership structure (de Miguel et al., 2004). This is a natural consequence of relatively weak external governance systems. Finally, we include financial transparency because the literature on Spanish firms has increasingly considered earnings management and the quality of the financial reporting in recent years (Prior et al., 2019). This growth is a symptom of concerns in academia regarding the need to consider financial transparency in corporate governance studies given the prevalence of corporate scandals and misreported financial information. Hence, we follow the recommendations of Black et al. (2020), who propose applying their approach to construct validity to country level governance indices, and we show that the Spanish corporate sector offers the characteristics needed to conduct the empirical analysis.
Following Black et al. (2017) road map for assessing validity, we apply Cronbach (1951) a, the most popular instrument for testing the reliability of measurement instruments (Ararat et al., 2017; Bozec & Bozec, 2012; Nerantzidis, 2016). If the elements used to construct a subindex collectively measure the same attribute of governance, then the elements will be positively correlated, yielding a relatively high Cronbach's a. However, if the various elements measure different attributes, the estimated Cronbach's а for the subindex will not be high (Chen et al., 2007; Hoekstra et al., 2019).
The second approach used to test construct validity is principal component analysis (PCA). Since we account for many variables that measure the same corporate governance attribute, we create clusters. The major benefits of this technique are that, first, the factors created are not correlated and, second, the factors incorporate a large amount of the variability of the individual variables used to estimate the factors (Kim & Mueller, 1978). The methodology also incorporates the validation process of the created corporate governance index in which it is later used to explain firm value. Our study goes one step beyond other publications by testing firm value with a suitable measure for validation. The superior, novel firm-value variable we use is derived from Tobin's Q but factored by the reposition cost of assets.
The study continues as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on corporate governance indices. Section 3 describes our methodology. We validate our proposed corporate governance index in Section 4. Finally, we conclude in Section 5.
2. Literature review
Agency theory is the fundamental basis for many academic studies of corporate governance (Bathala et al., 1994; Berger & Bonaccorsi di Patti, 2006; Block, 2012; Cuevas-Rodríguez et al., 2012; Eisenhardt, 1989; Garbade & Silber, 1982; Jensen, 1994; Jiraporn et al., 2008). It concerns the conflicts of interest in companies due to disparities in parties" incentives (Berle & Means, 1932; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Vitolla et al., 2020). These conflicts of interest call for mechanisms to protect shareholders against managers, and these mechanisms give rise to corporate governance (Aguilera Ruth & Desender Kurt, 2012; Ararat et al., 2020; Filatotchev et al., 2013; Mayer, 1998).
As noted, there are multiple definitions of corporate governance, but in the classical definition (Brown et al., 2011; Kumari & Pattanayak, 2014; Mayer, 1998; Williamson, 1988) it is the set of systems that ensure companies are managed in the interest of all stakeholders.
Multiple approaches and measures have been used to construct governance indices. For instance, Gompers et al. (2003) develop a broad index (G-index) based on twentyfour variables tracked by the Investor Responsibility Research Center for approximately 1,500 US firms with equal weighting. The index is negatively correlated with firm value (meas- ured using Tobin's Q). Bebchuk 8: Cohen (2005) construct an entrenchment index based on six factors selected from twenty-three governance factors developed by the research center. Brown 8: Caylor (2009), using a broader index based on the governance provisions mandated by the three major US stock exchanges, find that corporate governance is positively correlated with operating performance, market valuation, and dividend payout for a large sample of US firms.
Black et al. (2006) construct a corporate governance index for 515 Korean companies using a survey conducted by the Korea Stock Exchange. They find a positive correlation between corporate governance practices and market valuation as measured by Tobin's Q and market-to-book ratio. Similar results have been documented by Beiner et al. (2006) in Europe, Ahmadjian (2012) in Japan, and Klapper & Love (2004) in twenty-five emerging markets. Following Aman 8: Nguyen (2008), Brown & Caylor (2009) construct a governance index based on several attributes associated with good corporate governance such as board composition, ownership structure, and disclosure policy. Though all these works build corporate governance indices, none develop the construct-validity process, which is essential to ensure that the indices actually measure governance attributes and no other features correlated with governance.
Unlike Gompers et al. (2003) index, which measures firms' resistance to external-control mechanisms (such as takeovers), our index emphasizes the quality of firms" internal controls. In that sense, our index is closer to that of Aman & Nguyen (2008), Brown & Caylor (2009), Black et al. (2010), and Black et al. (2017). We consider a few internal, firm-level aspects of governance that have not been studied before. In the following sections, we review each variable and justify their inclusion in our index.
Despite a general consensus on the importance of corporate governance, the findings of the vast majority of existing governance studies are mixed, raising major concerns as to whether the governance constructs that are often employed are valid proxies for the complex and unobservable concept of governance that they intend to measure (Black et al., 2017). Indeed, Larcker et al., (2007, р. 964) argue that the measurement error that may be introduced from using a single governance mechanism (for example, board size) as a proxy "will almost certainly cause the regression coefficients to be inconsistent." They suggest that using multiple indicators can avoid that measurement error.
Other researchers seek to address the measurement-error issue by constructing governance indices that contain multiple measures. According to Elmagrhi et al. (2020), there are three major problems with such indices. First, as there is no theoretical basis for selecting governance provisions, such indices are often naively constructed (Brown & Caylor, 2009), thereby resulting in similar measurement errors (Black et al., 2017; Larcker et al., 2007).
Second, it is not only practically impossible to include all relevant governance provisions but likely that not all included provisions will be relevant; therefore, measurement problems such as omitted-variable bias are likely to persist in such governance indices (Black et al., 2017; Denes et al., 2017; Larcker et al., 2007) !. Consequently, a small but growing number of researchers have recently employed statistical approaches in developing more reliable governance indices, such as Black et al. (2017), Karpoff et al. (2017), and Larcker et al. (2007). Larcker et al. (2007), for example, employ PCA to develop an alternative disclosure index containing fourteen key components out of thirty-nine governance provisions for US firms, and they demonstrate that it is more reliable and better specified compared with previous ones, such as the G-disclosure index (Gompers et al., 2003). We also employ the PCA to develop an alternative corporate governance disclosure index for Spanish firms.
Third, despite increasing anecdotal evidence suggesting that corporate executives below the CEO level, such as CFOs, receive pay packages as large as those of CEOs, existing studies have mainly investigated the determinants of CEO pay (for example, Core et al. (1999); Dong & Ozkan (2008); Adams & Ferreira (2009); Fahlenbrach (2009); Guest (2009); Brick et al. (2006)); so, relatively little is known about the impact of firm-level corporate governance on the pay packages of other executives. All these studies show that the construction of corporate governance indices is still being debated (see, for instance, Benvenuto et al. (2021), Mishra et al. (2021), López-Quesada et al. (2018), Nerantzidis (2016), Kocmanova & Simberová (2014), Kaufmann et al. (2011), and Chen et al. (2007), among others).
Empirically, Benvenuto et al. (2021) investigate the impact of a corporate governance index on financial performance-more specifically, return on assets, general liquidity, capital adequacy, and size of company in the banking sector. Similarly, Mishra et al. (2021) study the empirical relationship between corporate governance, on one side, and market-based performance measures of firms (such as Tobin's Q) and accounting-based performance measures (such as return on assets), on the other. López-Quesada et al. (2018), using a corporate governance index, find that good corporate governance increases a measure of firms' financial performance-namely, comprehensive income. Table 1 summarizes the most important studies focused on corporate governance indices.
This study intends to overcome the major limitations of index construction highlighted above and conducts a subsequent test of validity by incorporating multidimensional internal characteristics of corporate governance in a single institutional context. Hence, the governance index developed in subsequent sections includes four dimensions corresponding to the degree to which a corporation complies with codes of good governance, features of boards of directors, ownershipstructure features, and transparency in financial reporting. After constructing the corporate governance index, we validate the construct by applying multiple suitable measures of firm value.
The hypotheses we test are as follows:
Н1: The components of the subindices of corporate governance considered in this study capture internal coherence as metric of corporate governance.
H2: The components of the comprehensive index of corporate governance considered in this study capture internal coherence as metrics of corporate governance.
H3: In the construction-validity process, the subindices of corporate governance explain firm value.
H4: т the construction-validity process, the comprehensive Spanish corporate governance index explains firm value.
3. Methodology
3.1. Comprehensive corporate governance index and its construct validity
3.1.1. Cronbach's a
The subindices of our corporate governance index for Spanish firms (S-CGI) are degree of compliance with Spanish codes of good governance (IndexCGG), the features of boards of directors (IndexBOARD), ownership-structure features (IndexOWN), and transparency of financial reporting (IndexEQY. Every subindex is divided into several subcomponents. Since it is not easy to determine which components are relevant for each subindex, we use Cronbach (1951) a to measure the scaled inter-subindex correlation-in other words, the internal consistency of the scale. The major advantages of a are that it represents the average of all possible split halves for a set of items and that it can be used for dummies and, as in this study, for continuous scored variables'. The coefficient runs from 0 to 1-from no consistency in the measurement to perfect internal consistency. According to Black et al. (2017), if the components of every element of an index contribute to a measure of the same general aspect of governance, then a is expected to be reasonably high, meaning that the components are highly correlated. Conversely, if the components capture distinct elements of corporate governance, а should be moderate or low.
The rule of thumb in psychology is that a coefficient value above 0.7 is strong. A value above 0.6 is usually considered acceptable, and values below that threshold indicate relatively poor reliability in the measurement". The coefficient is estimated as _ kr - (1+(k-1)7)
where k represents the number of components in each subindex of S-CGI and 7 is the mean intercomponent correlation. The coefficient a is highly sensitive to the number of components included in the corporate governance subindex, and there is a positive, nonlinear relationship between the number of components and the reliability. The important assumptions in calculating a are, first, that it features intrinsic unidimensionality, meaning that the components of the subindices are single dimensions of corporate governance, and second, that the error terms of the components are uncorrelated.
3.1.2. Principal component analysis
In addition to Cronbach (1951) a, we also adopt PCA to validate the construct of the corporate governance index. PCA is a statistical technique aiming to create a condensed number of index variables from a larger set of measured variables (Aydin et al., 2019), which in our case are the components of the subindices in S-CGI. It does this using a weightedaverage linear combination of the set of input variables. The created index variables are referred to as factors. The point of PCA is to determine the optimal number of components, the optimal choice of measured variables for each component, and the optimal weights of the measures (Khongmalai et al., 2010).
One of the major advantages of this technique is that the information in each data set corresponds to the data set's total variation (Dray, 2008). The goal of PCA is to identify directions (or principal factors) in which the variation in the data is maximal (Florackis & Palotás, 2010). In other words, PCA reduces the dimensionality of a multivariate data set to two or three uncorrelated principal factors that can be identified with minimal loss of information.
3.1.3. Additive indices
We use additive indices to sum the normalized subindices. The general guidelines provided by Mazziotta & Pareto (2013) for constructing composite indices suggest using an additive index if the components of a composite index are substitutable-that is, if a deficit in one component may be compensated by a surplus in another. For instance, low gender diversity on a board of directors might be offset with a high proportion of independent, external board members, and vice versa. In such situations, a compensatory approach can be found that involves the use of additive methods, such as the arithmetic mean, as in this study, Ammann et al. (2011), and Ammann et al. (2013). This technique is common (see, for instance, Gompers et al. (2003), Bebchuk & Cohen (2005), Brown & Caylor (2006), and more recently Ararat et al. (2017) and Black et al. (2017)).
3.1.4. Panel-data approach for regression analysis
The last step in the construct-validation process is to assess the power of S-CGI as an input variable to explain firm value as an output variable. To do so, we use panel-data regression analysis. Given that the Spanish companies we study are observed during several years, we can form panel microstructures, or combinations of cross-sectional information (on individual firms) with time-series information. Paneldata analysis allows us to tackle the individual-heterogeneity issues typically observed in the corporate governance literature (Gormley 8: Matsa, 2014). Indeed, Gormley 8: Matsa (2014) state that controlling for unobserved heterogeneity is fundamental in empirical finance research because asset prices and most corporate policies depend on factors that are unobservable to the econometrician but must be considered in the analysis. Constant and unobservable heterogeneity refers to factors that are invariant over time (differences in firms" economic environments, internal long-term corporate strategies, managerial styles, attitudes toward risk, and internal policies, to name a few). If these factors are correlated with the variables of interest, and if the individual and unobservable effect is not properly treated, the results can lead to biased estimations of parameters (Gormley 8: Matsa, 2014).
In addition to the unobservable-heterogeneity problem, there is the endogeneity (or simultaneity) problem, which is quite common in corporate governance, finance, and accounting studies (Gippel et al., 2015; Roberts & Whited, 2013; Wintoki et al., 2012). This problem occurs when the direction of causality is unclear between internal corporate governance systems and proxies for firm value (Wintoki et al., 2012). In other words, simultaneity bias occurs when the dependent variable and one or more of the independent variables are determined in equilibrium so that it can plausibly be argued either that the independent variables cause the dependent one or that the dependent variable causes the independent variables. Consequently, when the endogeneity issue is ignored, the results are at the very least incomplete.
We follow Saona et al. (2020) in applying the two-stage generalized-method-of-moments system estimator (GMMSE), which overcomes both the unobservable-heterogeneity and endogeneity problems by using as instruments lagged right-hand-side variables (Alonso-Borrego & Arellano, 1999). We also employ the unobservable fixed-effects (FE) method as a robustness check of the major findings.
3.2. Construction of variables
We use firm value as the dependent variable for checking construct validity. In most of the empirical literature, Tobin's Q is used as a proxy for firm value, which is a common outcome variable in governance studies (Chung & Pruitt, 1994; Lindenberg & Ross, 1981; Lozano et al., 2016; Setia-Atmaja, 2009; Smirlock et al., 1984). Tobin's Q can be used to measure the value added to a firm by corporate governance because investors ascribe higher value to assets as corporate governance practices improve (Black et al., 2017).
The theoretical definition of Tobin's Q is the ratio of the market value of a firm to the replacement cost of its assets. Although often criticized, its simplified version-the ratio of the market value to the book value of total assets-is widely accepted in the literature (Adam & Goyal, 2008; Smirlock et al., 1984) °. One of the firm-value literature's major flaws regarding validity is that measuring firm value with Tobin's О produces inaccuracy, bias, and variability. Thus, although the measure boasts simplicity of computation, it has major disadvantages. As recently suggested by Barlett & Partnoy (2020), Tobin's Q has been one of the most important concepts for examining how various regulatory and corporate governance provisions affect firm value and therefore economic welfare. As originally conceived, Tobin's О, named for the economist James Tobin, was an important variable in macroeconomic theory; it was defined as the market value of a firm's assets divided by their replacement value. Within macroeconomics, it was originally viewed as a means to understand corporate investment policy. To mitigate the risk of misspecification of such a critical variable in the model specification of the construct-validity process, we follow an approach based on Perfect & Wiles (1994), Pindado et al., (2010), and Saona (2014) in which the Tobin's Q proxy is computed based on the reposition cost of total assets in addition to the popular market-to-book-based ratios.
Hence, our first measure of firm value (Q1) is defined as Q1 = (MkCptz;, + TD;,) /K;;, where MkCptz;, is a firm's market capitalization (computed as the product of the yearend closing price per share and the number of shares outstanding for firm i). TD, is total liabilities in year Е. Kj, is the replacement value of the firm's assets, which is estimated in Perfect & Wiles (1994) as Kir = RNP;, + RINV;, + (TA;, - BNP, - BINV,,), where RNP;, is the replacement cost of net property, plant, and equipment (net fixed assets); RINV,, is the replacement value of inventory; TA;, is total assets; BNP;, is the book value of net property, plant, and equipment; and BINV,, is the book value of inventory.
RNP, = RNP; [142 |O, for t > to, Where to is the first year of observations for a given company in this study, while RNP;, = BNP... Meanwhile, &, is the growth of capital-goods prices in year t as defined by the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator. In other words, , = RealCDP: 100, where NomGDP, is nominal GDP and Real GDP, is real GDB both reported by the National Institute of Statistics of Spain. 6;, is the real depreciation rate, defined as 6;; = zyp- , where it Dep;, is annual book depreciation.
Г, is new investment in property, plant, and equipment and is defined as I,, = BNP;, -BNP;,_; + Dep;,.
RINV, = BİN Ve | pró, |: where WPI, is the wholesale price index reported by the National Institute of Statistics of Spain. This estimation for the replacement value of inventory assumes that the inventory-accounting method is average cost. In this method, the value of inventory reported at time t is approximately equal to the average of the prices att-landt.
The second measure of firm value (Q2) is based on enterprise value (EV;,) according to Ludziñska (2017), which is the sum of market capitalization (MkCptz;;), total debt (ТР), preferred stock (PrefStock;), and minority interest (MinInt;,) minus cash and short-term investments (CashEquiv;,). Enterprise value is scaled by the replacement value of the firm's assets (K;,), following Perfect & Wiles (1994). Therefore, Q2 = EV, /K;,. The third measure of firm value (Q3) is market capitalization (MkCptz;,) plus total debt (TD;,), all over the book value of total assets, based upon Goyal et al. (2002), Maury & Pajuste (2005), and Saona & San Martín (2018): ОЗ = (MkCptz;, + TD;,) / TA;,. The fourth measure of firm value (Q4) is the quotient between enterprise value and book value of total assets (Ludzinska, 2017): Q4 = EV; /TA;,. Hence, the econometric model takes the following form:
Que = Bo + P1SCGL, 1 + BX, HU +e +e, (2)
The output variable Q;, is any of the alternative measures of firm value defined above. In constructing the dependent variable, market capitalization is in the nominator, which might lead to large variation of the variable. Hence, to minimize the impact of outliers and to normalize the distribution of the covariates, we also use as a dependent variable in model (2) the natural logarithmic transformation of the various metrics of firm value defined above. Consequently, in these cases, $; and f3, must be interpreted as partial elasticities: the percentage change in firm value caused by a unit change in any of the right-hand-side variables included in equation (2). Additionally, SCGI;, corresponds to either SCGI or any of its subindices (namely, features of the board of directors, ownership-structure features, degree of compliance with codes of good governance, and transparency in financial reporting).
Additionally, to prevent misspecification problems, we enter in the model the vector Xip which incorporates exogenous firm-level control covariates typically used in the literature (Kocmanová & Simberová, 2014). This vector includes ROA;,, a measure of profitability computed as net income over total assets (Singh & Gaur, 2009); leverage (Lev;,), defined as total debt as a share of total assets (Harris & Raviv, 1990; Saona & Vallelado, 2012); and the firm's capital expenditure (CAPEX;,), which represents the sum of purchases of fixed assets, acquisitions of intangible assets, and softwaredevelopment costs (Rosenblatt & Jucker, 1979) 7. Firm size (Size;,) is also used as a control variable and is defined as the logarithmic transformation of the firm's total assets (Beck et al., 2008; Dennis 8: Sharpe, 2005). Additionally, dummy variables that identify the industry sector are introduced in the analysis. Finally, u;, €,, and &;; represent the individual fixed effect, the time-series fixed effect, and the stochastic error, respectively.
To mitigate potential biases resulting from outliers, variables are winsorized at the 1% level in the lower and upper tails when appropriate as in previous studies (Jara et al., 2019; Mellado & Saona, 2020).
The subindices of S-CGI are defined based on the following covariates.
Degree of compliance with codes of good governance (IndexCGG): As we explained earlier, codes of good governance play an essential role in aligning a company's governance with the external regulatory framework (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009). Following the main arguments of Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra (2004), the degree of compliance with these codes is measured by answers to thirty-one questions regarding Spanish firms' compliance with codes of good governance. The answers are provided in four points on a Likert scale. The questions are listed in the Appendix. We use PCA and the additive-indices technique as alternative approaches to create a subindex from these thirty-one components. Afterward, the subindex is normalized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation equal to 1.
Assidi (2020), Renders & Gaeremynck (2012), and Outa & Waweru (2016), among other authors, have found a positive relationship between corporate governance compliance and firm value in institutional contexts such as France, Indonesia, and Kenya. Consequently, we expect that Spanish companies with high compliance with the Spanish SCGI;, will experience greater firm value.
Features of board of directors (IndexBOARD): We consider it fundamental to include board-of-directors characteristics because of their importance in control and supervision (Saona et al., 2020). These characteristics play a key role in reducing agency costs and in improving the effectiveness of corporate governance (Frias-Aceituno et al., 2013). According to the empirical literature-see, for instance, Baysinger & Butler (1985), Forbes & Milliken (1999), Klein (2002), de Cabo et al., (2012), Kumar 8% Zattoni (2014), FernándezGago et al., (2016), Birindelli et al., (2018), Arzubiaga et al., (2018), and Lidia & Patricia (2018)-the most influential board variables are percentage of the firm's capital represented by directors' stock options, percentage of directors on the boards of other companies, percentage of independent directors on the audit committee, percentage of independent directors on the executive committee, percentage of independent directors on the nomination committee, whether the board secretary monitors the good-governance recommendations, whether an executive committee exists, whether directors receive external advice, percentage of the firm's owners (weighted by capital) attending the firm's general meetings, percentage of independent directors, percentage of total directors on the audit committee, percentage of total directors on the executive committee, percentage of total directors on the nomination committee, restrictions on the exercise of voting rights, whether the secretary is a board member, whether there is separation of powers between the board chair and the chief executive, whether there are specific requirements for being board chair, whether there is a supermajority voting rule, whether there is a policy of tenure for independent directors, whether there is a policy regarding time to prepare a board meeting, and number of female board members.
Researchers have found various relationships between these features and firm value. For instance, PuchetaMartínez et al., (2018) report that female institutional directors increase firm value, with an inverse-U-shaped relationship at the threshold of 11.72% of female members in the board of Spanish companies. Vitolla et al. (2020) find a positive relationship between the size, independence, diversity, and activity of a board with integrated reporting quality. Fernández-Gago et al. (2016) find positive relationships between, on the one side, small boards, boards with many women, and boards with more independent members and, on the other side, firm value. Kao et al., (2019) show an increase in the value of Taiwanese firms with a high proportion of independent directors, a smaller board size, a two-tier board system, and no CEO duality. Fich & Shivdasani (2005) find a positive relationship between stock-option plans and firm value.
From our analysis we can see that the characteristics of the board play a fundamental role as a corporate governance mechanism; consequently, improvements in them will in7By crease the value of firms.
Ownership-structure features (IndexOWN): Spain belongs to the group of civil-law countries which are characterized by concentrated ownership structures in its companies. Different ownership-structure attributes provide different incentives to control a firm's management (Ang et al., 2000; Jensen 8: Meckling, 1976; Morck et al., 1988; Shleifer & Vishny, 1986), and consequently affect the corporate governance of the firm. Firms' ownership structure, viewed as a governance device, is also measured by several variables. We measure the institutional nature of the majority shareholder with a dummy variable (Azofra et al., 2003). Additionally, following the existing literature (Bozec 8: Bozec, 2007; Lefort & Urzúa, 2008; Saona 8% San Martín, 2016; Saona et al., 2018; Setia-Atmaja, 2009), we use ownership concentration, measured alternatively as the percentage of capital held by the majority shareholder, the ownership held by the ten largest shareholders, the ownership held in accordance with Article 4 of the Spanish Securities Market Law, and the percentage of capital owned by other significant shareholders®. All these variables are normalized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Ruiz-Mallorqui & Santana-Martin (2011) find that when the dominant institutional investor is a banking institution, this increases the value of unlisted Spanish firms. Comparable findings are reached by de Miguel et al. (2004). Saona et al., (2019) find that more concentrated ownership structures, as found in Spain, and the presence of institutional investors act as corporate governance drivers that prevent earnings mismanagement.
Transparency in financial reporting (IndexEQ): We include the quality of financial information in our corporate governance index because, first, corporate governance and readability reports are highly correlated as recently reported by Melon-Izco et al. (2021) and Arcas-Pellicer et al. (2022) for Spanish companies and government agencies and, second, earnings management is a critical issue for Spanish firms (Saona et al., 2020). This metric is an already-defined, scaled variable that tracks earnings quality as developed by StarMine. This metric is comparable to those described in previous empirical studies such as Obeng et al. (2020), Beyer et al. (2019), and Gaio & Raposo (2011). Earnings quality is based on a percentile ranking from O to 100 of stocks based on sustainability of earnings, with 100 representing the most sustainable. StarMine defines earnings quality as the degree to which past earnings are reliable and likely to persist. High-quality earnings accurately reflect a company's current and past operating performance, indicate future operating performance, and reliably measure company value, regardless of the level of earnings. Meanwhile, according to StarMine, companies with poor earnings quality are not necessarily engaging in earnings manipulation; in most cases, low earnings quality reflects a likelihood of deteriorating fundamentals and reflects low reporting transparency because of weak internal-governance tools. Furthermore, earnings quality can be measurably high. This is the case for companies that have very persistent earnings and strengthening fundamentals and are likely to outperform their benchmarks in the future, assuming earnings faithfully represent the effect of good corporate governance on the firm's economic performance. This also is the case for companies whose earnings have high informational content or high transparency.
Gaio & Raposo (2011) find a positive and significant relationship between earnings quality and firm value across firms in thirty-eight countries. This relationship is stronger in countries with big investment opportunities and low investor protection. More recently, Pavlopoulos et al. (2019) and Obeng et al. (2020) confirm the relationship.
The earnings-quality algorithm developed by StarMine is broken down into accruals, cash flow, and operating efficiency. Accordingly, earnings can be broken down into accruals and cash flow. Accruals are measured as changes in operating assets and liabilities from four quarters ago to the most recent quarter. The measure includes changes in both current and noncurrent operating assets and liabilities. Finally, accruals are scaled by average assets. The operating-cash-flow component of earnings is defined as the sum of net cash flow from operations and cash flow from investment. Cash flow is relatively free of estimation error and therefore is more reliable than accruals. It is measured as annualized free cash flow scaled by average assets. StarMine computes free cash flow as the cash generated (used) by operations after subtracting capital expenditures, which are investments made in the business to support operations. Finally, the operatingefficiency measure of earnings quality is based on return on assets. Return on assets is decomposed into a profit-margin subcomponent and an asset-turnover subcomponent, similarly to a DuPont analysis. StarMine evaluates asset turnover and profit margin against sector benchmarks because of the structurally different ways in which companies in various industries produce similar levels of return on assets. Profit margin is measured using the annualized operating profit margin as a percentage of annualized sales while total-asset-turnover ratio is calculated as annualized sales over average net operating assets. Change in asset turnover measures the annualized asset turnover for the most recent quarter minus the annualized asset turnover from four quarters ago. Based on these three measures, StarMine creates a ranking of all stocks in the country. This ranking, an overall measure of earnings quality, corresponds to our first metric of earnings quality (EQ1). Our alternative metrics of earnings quality correspond to accruals (EQ2), cash flow (EQ3), and operating efficiency (EQ4) as defined above. This composite index is normalized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Finally, these four subindices are equally weighted to generate S-CGI." Subsequently, S-CGI is normalized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.
3.3. Source of information
Our study is conducted with information on a sample of 130 listed Spanish companies with a total of 1,039 firm-year observations. This gives us an average of almost 8 continuous observations per company in our micropanel data. According to Baltagi (2013), a minimum of 4 continuous observations per individual (for example, a company) is a sine qua non condition to run an efficient panel-data estimation, even if it is unbalanced as in this study. The financial information, the information concerning the ownership-structure features, and the data regarding the quality of financial reporting were obtained from Thomson Reuters REFINITIV EIKON from 2007 to 2018. Given their regulated status and different financial reporting system, financial institutions were ex8Notice cluded from the sample. The advantage of Thomson Reuters REFINITIV EIKON is that it contains homogenized data and enables comparison and analysis of data on companies in different industrial sectors. Board-feature variables and the degree of compliance with codes of good governance were obtained from the Annual Report on Corporate Governance published by the Spanish Stock Exchange Commission (Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores). Table 2 describes how the variables were constructed.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Univariate analysis
4.1.1. Descriptive statistics
We proceed to explain the general characteristics of the variables we used to build our index. Table 3 shows the four alternative measures of firm value, the subindices of S-CGI, and the control variables. Three of our four measures of firm value exhibit mean values slightly greater than one, indicating favorable market sentiment regarding firms' performance. This is confirmed by a t test. For the first three measures, the null hypothesis was rejected, suggesting that the average firm value is greater than one. Recall that the first two measures (Q1 and Q2) are based on the replacement cost of total assets, Q3 is a function of the ratio of market value to book value of total assets, and Q4 compares enterprise value with the book value of total assets. Their distributions, however, are far from normal, as observed in their skewness and kurtosis, which are zero and three, respectively, for a normally distributed variable. This is not surprising, because market capitalization, which tends to be skewed toward the lower tail, is incorporated in the firm-value metrics. Hence, to mitigate the risk of biased results, we also eventually use the logarithmic transformations of all four proxies for firm value in the regression estimates.
Regarding the degree of compliance with codes of good governance, the coefficient of IndexCGG indicates that its average is 0.844, suggesting relatively high compliance among Spanish firms. Kubicek et al. (2016) analyze the degree to which the national governance codes of the twentyseven European countries conform to European Union requirements; they find universal compliance, with Spain incorporating the most EU recommendations (seventeen out of eighteen) in its corporate governance code. The normalized transformation of this subindex-with mean equal to 0 and standard deviation equal to 1-is also reported in the table (IndexCGG_N). Indeed, if we look at the distribution of IndexCGG, we observe that in the first percentile depicted in the table (p5), the mean for the variable is 0.688, where its range goes from 0 to 1.
The mean values of the board-features subindex (IndexBOARD) and ownership-structure index (IndexOWN) are 0.340 and 0.356, respectively. The financial-reporting subindex (IndexEQ) shows a mean We observe that the average Spanish corporation exhibits a return on assets (ROA) of about 1.40% and a debt ratio (Lev) of 32.8%. The ROA variable is used as a measure of profitability and indicates that 1.40% of total annual sales become after-tax income. This finding is comparable to Saona et al. (2020). Regarding the debt-ratio variable (Lev), the findings indicate that about one-third of the company's total assets are financed with debt. Note, however, that a few observations correspond to all-equity firms, as might be expected given the general trend toward zero-debt capital structure reported by Saona et al., (2020). The firms in the sample exhibit an average capital investment (CAPEX) of about 4.0% of total assets, indicating an increase in the amount of the average firm's physical and intangible assets during the period of analysis.
To gain a sense of the evolution of each variable throughout the analyzed period, we constructed Table 4 and Figure 1. Although the four proxies for firm value were composed based on comparable elements, their values differ across time. One clear pattern emerges in 2008, 2011, and 2018: the four metrics exhibit low values relative to the other years. The aftermath of the worldwide financial recession (200814), as reflected in 2008 and 2011, explains the values in those years; and by 2018 Spain had reached precrisis economic performance, but the upward trend would not endure. The comparatively low values of our proxies for firm value in 2011 and 2018 are a result of normal economic cycles, as also observed in other European economies. Figure 1 displays the evolution of SCGI and its four subindices.
Table 5 exhibits the pairwise Pearson correlation matrix. Observe that there are no high correlations among the independent variables except for the proxies that measure firm value, as expected. The correlation between SCGI and its subindices (IndexCGG, IndexBOARD, IndexOWN, and IndexEQ) is positive and statistically significant (p-value < 0.001) in all cases, as expected.
4.1.2. Cronbach's a
Our indices of corporate governance measure an underlying attribute that is unobservable and cannot be defined with precision. Hence, in this section we consider the validity of our alternative indices of corporate governance. Following the literature, for this purpose we use Cronbach's a, which measures the correlation among the components of an index and the degree to which they measure the same underlying construct, whatever that construct may be (Cronbach, 1951).
Table 6 discloses Cronbach's-a values and their corresponding average interitem correlations. This indicator measures to what extent the individual elements of a multielement construct go in the same direction (Ararat et al., 2017). Cronbach's a is borrowed from the psychological literature, in which different elements of a multielement construct are chosen to capture different aspects of the underlying object (Black et al., 2017; Khongmalai et al., 2010). As noted above, a values higher than 0.7 indicate closely related concepts measuring essentially the same construct, while values around 0.6 are said to be acceptable. Table 6 shows each subindex and its elements, for which the mean, minimum, and maximum values are reported. The covariates for the codecompliance subindex (IndexCGG) and financial-reporting subindex (Тпаех ЕО) show, respectively, values of 0.844 and 0.735 for Cronbach's a, indicating a strong internal consistency of the elements that constitute these two subindices. IndexCGG comprises thirty-one covariates, while IndexEQ consists of four. The Cronbach's a for the board-features subindex (IndexBOARD) and ownership-structure subindex (IndexOWN) reach 0.662 and 0.561, respectively. Even though the scores are not as strong as with the other two covariates, they are acceptable and show greater consistency than previous studies. For instance, in assessing the effect of corporate governance systems on firm value for a sample of Turkish firms, Ararat et al. (2017) generate an index of ownership structure comprising six covariates and arrive at a Cronbach's a of only 0.40, with an interelement correlation of just 0.10. Some have argued that ownership metrics are a flawed proxy for corporate governance because of the conflict between two hypotheses: alignment of interest, and potential wealth expropriation by entrenched majority shareholders. The conflict may drive a nonlinear relationship between firm value and proxies for governance systems based on ownership concentration (Claessens et al., 2002; de Miguel et al., 2005; Saona et al., 2020). Therefore, although Cronbach's a is relatively low for IndexOWN compared with that for the other subindices, the a and the average interitem correlation are much higher than those found in previous empirical studies (Ararat et al., 2017), a fact that does not invalidate our findings.
Indeed, when we look at average interitem correlation in Table 6 for the different subindices, the highest scores are reached for earnings quality (IndexEQ) at 0.4091 and ownership structure (IndexOWN) at 0.2424. The lowest are observed for code compliance (IndexCGG), at 0.149, and board features (IndexBOARD), at 0.0817. The first two have the most items in the scale, and as the number of elements that form the construct increases, a increases. Black et al. (2017) highlight the importance of having intermediate average interitem correlations-as with our constructs- as high values indicate the lack of a relationship among the elements within the construct and low values mean no coherence among them. In summary, these estimates show internal coherence in the elements that form the four different constructs, and consequently, they can be used as independent covariates in our estimation models of firm value. Hence, these findings support our first two research hypotheses, suggesting that the subindices are reasonable constructs of corporate governance.
4.1.3. Principal component analysis
PCA helps us develop S-CGI, as it allows us to reduce the number of variables in every subindex to reach the optimal number of variables. The eigenvectors created based on the correlation matrix between the variables that form each subindex are chosen when their eigenvalues are higher than one. The major advantage of this technique is that the factors are not correlated and they capture a large portion of the variability of the corresponding components (Saona & Muro, 2018).
Table 7 displays the number of factors generated for the variables in our four subindices". In Panel A, we see that seven factors" eigen values exceed one, set as the standard discrimination value as indicated in (Kim 8: Mueller, 1978; Nerantzidis, 2016). These seven factors record about 56.80% of the variability of the thirty-one alternative variables used to measure the degree of compliance with codes of good governance (IndexCGG). Similarly, Table 7, Panel B indicates that eight factors are selected, as they account for 66.20% of the variability of the twenty-one covariates used to measure IndexBOARD. Panel C discloses the two factors selected to account for about 88.00% of the variability of the five variables used to measure IndexOWN. Finally, the last panel discloses the quality of financial reporting, and two factors account for 86.60% of the variability of the four covariates used to measure IndexEQ.
In all panels of Table 7, we estimate a likelihood-ratio test of independence against the saturated model for each estimation method. Because we are factor-analyzing a correlation matrix, independence implies sphericity. Passing this test is a desirable condition for factor analysis to be meaningful. This means that the likelihood-ratio test for differences between the estimated and actual covariance matrixes is expected to be insignificant. Nevertheless, this almost never happens in large samples, as in our case, in which we have more than one thousand observations.
Subsequently, in addition to using the subindices, all these factors are used in estimating the different regression outputs and in their robustness checks.
4.2. Multivariate analysis
To validate S-CGI we use micropanel-data regression analysis, which allows us to tackle individual-heterogeneity issues and potential simultaneity (endogeneity) problems. Specifically, we use the two-stage GMM-SE to run equation (3). The efficiency of this method depends on the assumptions that the independent variables are valid instruments and that the error term does not show serial correlation (Saona et al., 2019). We use the Fisher-type test (F test) to confirm that the independent variables are jointly significant. We also use second-order-correlation tests-AR (2) - normally distributed under the null hypothesis that there is no serial correlation of the stochastic error. The GMM estimators are consistent because although the AR(1) reveals firstorder autocorrelation, the AR(2) test rules out second-order autocorrelation. The Sargan contrast is developed to test the overidentifying restrictions and consequently to prove that the instruments are valid. This test is distributed as a chisquared under the null hypothesis that the instruments are valid.
The output variables considered in Table 8 are all our various measures of firm value and their corresponding log transformations. We do this to mitigate biased-estimation problems resulting from erroneous measures. We observe a positive and statistically significant effect of the four subindices on the different measures of firm value. For instance, an increase of one standard deviation in IndexCGG_N increases Q1 by about 0.111 (p-value = 0.011) as shown in model 1. This implies that compliance with codes of good governance is positively associated with firm value. Our results are in line with the findings of Utrero-González & Callado-Muñoz (2016), who test whether Spanish markets react positively to news about compliance with codes of governance. Similar findings are observed in seven of the eight models listed in Table 8.
Regarding the board-features subindex (IndexBOARD N), we also observe in five models reported in Table 8 a positive and statistically significant relationship with the various proxies for firm value. However, caution is warranted since in model 3 the relationship is negative and significant. Nevertheless, the economic impact of the subindex is lower than that in model 1, with a coefficient equal to 0.205 (p-value = 0.016). Model 1 in Table 8 indicates, for instance, that an increase of one standard deviation in IndexBOARD N is associated with an increment of 0.205 in Q1. Alternatively, such an increase in IndexBOARD N is associated with a 15.6% (p-value = 0.009) increase in the Q1 (measured with its log transformation) as tabulated in model 5. Models 2, 6, 7, and 8 can be considered as providing additional support for this finding.
Additionally, ownership-structure features (IndexOWN_N) have a positive and statistically significant impact on firm-value measures, ceteris paribus, as shown by models 3 through 8. Indeed, a one-standard deviation increase in the ownership-concentration subindex triggers an increase in Q3 of 0.035 (as shown in model 3 with p-value = 0.008), which corresponds to an increase of 4.20% in the firm-value variable's log transformation (as exhibited in model 7). Models 3 to 8 also exhibit a positive and statistically significant impact of changes in IndexOWN N on the dependent variables. These findings are valuable, as not many studies have used our reposition-cost-based measure of firm value (LnQ1) as a proxy". Table 8 also reports as dependent variables the logarithmic transformations of our four metrics of firm value (LnQ1, LnQ2, LnQ3, and LnQ4) to mitigate the problems arising because they are not normally distributed (Demsetz & Villalonga, 2001) 3. These findings are supported by previous empirical studies, particularly in emerging economies, where governance tools are mostly endogenous to the corporations whose ownership-structure features play a critical role in monitoring managerial behavior (Chu et al., 2015; Lassoued et al., 2017).
Furthermore, we find some evidence that transparency of financial reporting exerts a positive impact on firm valuation. Indeed, model 8 of Table 8 shows that a one-standard deviation increase in the financial-transparency subindex (Index EQ N) is associated with a 1.4% (p-value = 0.004) increase in Q4 (using LnQ4 as the dependent variable). This finding is in line with Gaio & Raposo (2011), who, adopting an international perspective, find that firms with higher earnings quality are valued higher in stock markets, this relationship being stronger for firms with greater investment opportunities and more external financial needs. Models 2, 3, and 4 also support the positive relationship between the financialtransparency subindex and firm value. The other models do not return statistically significant coefficients. Therefore, we observe consistent evidence that supports our third research hypothesis that the subindices of corporate governance explain firm value in the Spanish corporate sector.
Regarding the control variables, firm size (Size) exhibits a negative and statistically significant impact on firm value, suggesting that bigger companies are creating less value than small ones. The life cycle of firms is associated with changes in corporate governance quality (Filatotchev et al., 2006). According to this theory, we should expect mature and big firms to have better corporate governance systems and create more value, but it seems that young and small Spanish corporations are the ones creating value. Nevertheless, and as supported by the literature, firm profitability (ROA), capital expenditure (CAPEX), and financial leverage (Lev) exhibit a positive impact on the different measures of firm value.
The last task of our empirical analysis is to assess the validity of S-CGI as a determinant of firm value. This task is accomplished in Table 9. As observed, the eight models exhibit a positive and statistically significant impact of S-CGI on all our metrics of firm value. This implies that improvements in corporate governance are indeed positively associated with firm value as stated in our fourth research hypothesis. Our results are consistent when using the normalized transformation of SCGI, although, to save space, we do not report the latter results. According to Jensen (1986, 1993) freecash-flow hypothesis, corporate governance mechanisms are employed to reduce agency conflicts between shareholders and managers. Additionally, signaling theory states that investors rely on the information provided by a company, which plays a fundamental role in reducing information asymmetry and agency conflicts (Harun et al., 2020). Consequently, improvements in firm disclosure and better governance systems increase firm value. These results are in line with the corporate governance literature. For instance, for a sample of firms in sixteen European countries, Lozano et al. (2016) find a strong and positive relation between firm-level corporate governance and firm valuation by using alternative corporate governance indices. Similarly, Chhaochharia & Laeven (2009), using a sample that includes a large cross section of countries, find that markets reward companies that are prepared to adopt corporate governance practices beyond those required by their own countries' regulations.
Following Ararat et al. (2017), Figure 2 shows a histogram of SCGI, which ranges from zero to one and exhibits a normal distribution. Figure 2 also shows a scatterplot of LnQ1 as well as SCGI_N and the corresponding regression line. The slope of the coefficient is a positive and significant 0.1145.
5. Conclusions
Corporate governance is at the top of the agenda for corporations worldwide. Its association with corporate dimensions such as firm value and performance has been proven. However, the question of how to measure corporate governance has not been answered in a standardized way across countries. Therefore, the goal of this paper has been to build a robust and aggregated corporate governance index for the Spanish corporate sector and subsequently test its validity as a predictor of firm value.
We assessed the validity of an aggregate corporate governance index (SCGI) and its subindices, which measure several governance attributes of the Spanish market. These subindices cover compliance with codes of good governance (IndexCGG), features of boards of directors (IndexBOARD), ownership-structure features (IndexOWN), and transparency of financial reporting (IndexEQ). We then used Cronbach's a to test the reliability of our measurement instruments. PCA helped us develop our additive index and allowed us to reduce the number of covariates in every subindex to reach the optimal number of variables.
One of the firm-value literature's major flaws regarding validity is its use of the general measure of firm value based on Tobin's Q, which, although simple to compute, produces inaccuracy, bias, and variability. Our study is the first to attempt to mitigate estimation biases caused by imprecise definition of the output variable. In particular, we use a superior metric of Tobin's Q in which it is computed as the value of a firm's assets divided by a proxy for their replacement value.
Our study contributes to the extensive literature on corporate governance and suggests other possible, more precise approaches to measuring a firm's value based on the reposition costs of total assets. When the ratio of market value to book value is used as a proxy for Tobin's Q, aggregated book values omit important assets, such as a sizable percentage of intangible assets, leading to biases in the estimation of firm value. This study is the first that attempts to eliminate this classical measurement error.
We found that the four corporate governance subindices are positively associated with the various measures of firm value. The proposed aggregate corporate governance index also exhibits a positive association with firm value. Thus, corporate value and governance cannot be dissociated. Higher societal welfare can be achieved through sound governance mechanisms. And even more important, our aggregated index of corporate governance can be used to mitigate biases in the relationship between governance and firm value as a consequence of including in the corporate governance proxy elements that are different from governance.
We encourage regulators and policy makers to design legal structures with corresponding enforcement mechanisms that help protect the interests of shareholders and promote more transparent disclosure of financial reports. Financial markets evaluate very positively companies' compliance with good governance codes as well as transparency in financial reporting. Although Spanish firms have a relatively high level of compliance with the codes, there is room for improvement. Moreover, transparency in financial reporting is far from sustainable values (1.00), with an average of 0.511 for the sample during the period of analysis. Therefore, we suggest that policy makers complement internal corporate policies with regulations that help reconcile the interests of board members and shareholders. Similarly, researchers have discovered that the fiduciary role of boards of directors promotes firm value. National and supranational organizations should develop and promote regulations associated with the governance and management of companies. Moreover, improving transparency in companies' financial reporting is key not only for having a healthy financial system but also as a firm-value-creation mechanism that can contribute to national wealth generation. These improvements in corporate governance call for a multi-stakeholder approach, in which all participants engage in best practices in their respective fields.
This study has some limitations, which may correspond to avenues for future research. Direct observation is limited, for one thing, and knowledge about governance is incomplete because our judgments applied in the estimations are subjective. Corporate governance systems are not perfect, and more research is necessary to reduce agency conflicts. For instance, Garcia-Sanchez et al. (2021) find CEO power critical as a corporate governance determinant that limits the propensity of companies to adopt information transparency. Our index could be further developed with new determinants such as CEO power.
Although our index is current, a vivid political and social debate regarding corporate social responsibility and sustainability is ongoing. An even more comprehensive corporate governance index might include such components as integrated reporting, which represents the cutting edge of today's corporate reporting systems (Vitolla et al., 2020). Future research should use our robust and validated index to measure corporate governance and spur the development of good governance practices in other countries. Our index could be ported to different institutional contexts to shed light on crosscountry divergences and similarities and to derive more effective corporate governance practices.
Funding
Paolo Saona gratefully acknowledges the research funding received from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, ref. PID2020114797GB-100), the Saint Louis University - Madrid Campus Internal Research Grant, Universidad Pontificia Comillas Internal Research Grants PP2022_11 and PP2024 3, and the 2023 Research Grant from the European Academy of Management (EURAM).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Article history:
Received 5 August 2022
Accepted 1 July 2023
Available online 02 January 2025
For example, Gompers et al. (2003) influential governance-disclosure index (G-index), which equally weights twenty-four US shareholder-rights provisions, shows that firms with poor governance have lower operating profits, market valuation, and stock returns compared with their bettergoverned counterparts. However, subsequent researchers, such as Cremers & Nair (2005), Bebchuk & Hamdani (2009), and Karpoff et al. (2017), have demonstrated that only six (in the entrenchment index, or E-index), eighteen (in the other index, or O-index), and twelve (in the deterrent index, or D-index) of the twenty-four governance items, respectively, are relevant. Their findings not only contradict the findings of Gompers et al. (2003) but are mutually contradictory. In addition, these indices generally cover US firms and feature no alternative indices for other countries. A few commercial agencies, such as Governance Metric International, Institute of Shareholder Service, Credit Lyonnais Securities, and Standard & Poor's, construct commercial indices for sale, but the indices are often copyrighted and rarely freely available. Nevertheless, as stated by Bozec & Bozec (2012, p. 85), "These ratings are often too subjective and, therefore, might lead to an incorrect assessment of a firm's governance quality."
2Mazziotta & Pareto (2013) provide a thorough description of methods for constructing composite indices. They focus on finding the most suitable method depending on the indicators' substitutability or nonsubstitutability, whether the aggregation is simple or complex, whether the comparisons are relative or absolute, and whether the weights of indicators are subjective or objective.
3An alternative approach would be to use Kuder & Richardson (1937) reliability coefficient, but this is exclusively used for items that score dichotomously, which is not necessarily the case here.
"Note that a is not a measure of homogeneity or unidimensionality.
5See Lance et al. (2006) on commonly cited guidelines for the cutoff of the coefficient.
Further discussion of the construction of Tobin's Q can be found in Perfect & Wiles (1994), Chung & Pruitt (1994), and Lindenberg & Ross (1981).
construction, in the REFINITIV EIKON Thomson Reuters data set, negative values of CAPEX represent additions of capital, while positive values represent decreases in physical and intangible capital.
that board members' ownership of the capital of the company is included not in this subindex but in the board index as the percentage of the firm's capital held as directors' stock options.
9Black et al. (2017) and Chhaochharia & Laeven (2009) emphasize that weighting the elements equally is common in building an index. Doing so reduces subjectivity arising from assigning varying weights to the components.
10'To save space, we only report the factors with eigenvalues greater than one.
TWe also calculated Q2, Q3, and Q4 in the regressions, but to save space we do not include them here. They are available to the reader upon request.
12We can see in the descriptive statistics (see Table 3) that the four measures of firm value have skewness and kurtosis different from zero and three, respectively, indicating the existence of heavy tails.
References
Adam, T., & Goyal, V. К. (2008). The investment opportunity set and its proxy variables. The Journal of Financial Research, 31(1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756803.2008.00231.x
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007
Aggarwal, R., Erel, I, Stulz, R., & Williamson, В. (2009). Differences in Governance Practices between U. S. and Foreign Firms: Measurement, Causes, and Consequences. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3131-3169. https: //doi.org/10.2307/40247657
Aguilera Ruth, М, & Desender Kurt, A. (2012). Challenges in the Measuring of Comparative Corporate Governance: A Review of the Main Indices. In L. W. Catherine, J. K. David, & D. B. Donald (Eds.), West Meets East: Building Theoretical Bridges (Vol. 8, pp. 289-322). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Aguilera, В. М, 8: Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Codes of good governance worldwide: what is the trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3), 417-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840604040669
Aguilera, В. V, & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of Good Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678683.2009.00737.x
Ahmadjian, C. L. (2012). Corporate Governance Convergence in Japan. In A. A. Rasheed & T. Yoshikawa (Eds.), The Convergence of Corporate Governance: Promise and Prospects (pp. 117-136). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Ahrens, T., Filatotchev, I, & Thomsen, $. (2011). The research frontier in corporate governance. Journal of Management 8% Governance, 15(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10997-009-9115-8
Alonso-Borrego, C., & Arellano, М. (1999). Symmetrically Normalized Instrumental-Variable Estimation Using Panel Data. Journal of Business 8: Economic Statistics, 17(1), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1999. 10524795
Aman, H., & Nguyen, P (2008). Do stock prices reflect the corporate governance quality of Japanese firms? Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 22(4), 647662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2008.05.001
Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: International evidence. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(1), 36-55. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2010.10.003
Ammann, M., Oesch, D., & Schmid, M. M. (2013). Product Market Competition, Corporate Governance, and Firm Value: Evidence from the EU Area. European Financial Management, 19(3), 452-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-036X.2010.00605.x
Andreu-Pinillos, A., Fernández-Fernández, J.-L, 8 Fernández-Mateo, J. (2020). El gobierno corporativo en los índices de sostenibilidad: un estudio de caso español. Revista De Comunicación, 19(2), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC19.2-2020-A1
Ang, J. S., Cole, R. A., & Lin, J. W. (2000). Agency costs and ownership structure. The Journal of Finance, 55(1), 81-106. http://www.jstor.org/stable/222551
Ararat, M., Black, B. S., & Yurtoglu, B. B. (2017). The effect of corporate governance on firm value and profitability: Time-series evidence from Turkey. Emerging Markets Review, 30, 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar. 2016.10.001
Ararat, M., Claessens, S., 8: Yurtoglu, B. B. (2020). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A selective review and an agenda for future research. Emerging Markets Review, 100767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020. 100767
Arcas-Pellicer, М. J., Pina, М, & Torres, L. (2022). Corporate Governance and Reliability of Financial Reporting in Central Government Agencies. Revista de ContabilidadSpanish Accounting Review, 25(1), 76-88. https://doi. org/10.6018/rcsar.401651
Arzubiaga, U., Iturralde, T., Maseda, A., & Kotlar, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in family SMEs: The moderating effects of family, women, and strategic involvement in the board of directors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 217-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0473-4
Assidi, S. (2020). The effect of voluntary disclosures and corporate governance on firm value: a study of listed firms in France. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 17(2), 168-179. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41310-020-00090-1
Aydin, B., Kaplan, M., Atilgan, H., & Gürel, 5. (2019). A Preliminary Study to Evaluate the Reproducibility of Factor Analysis Results: The Case of Educational Research Journals in Turkey. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 10(1), 1-11.
Azofra, М, Castrillo, L., & del Mar Delgado, М. (2003). Ownership Concentration, Debt Financing and the Investment Opportunity Set as Determinants of Accounting Discretion: Empirical Evidence From Spain. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 32(115), 215-255. https://doi. org/10.1080/02102412.2003.10779480
Balasubramanian, N., Black, B., 8: Khanna, V. (2010). The relation between firm-level corporate governance and market value: A case study of India. Emerging Markets Review, 11(4), 319-340. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar. 2010.05.001
Baltagi, B. H. (2013). Econometric analysis of panel data (5th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Barlett, R., & Partnoy, E (2020). The Misuse of Tobints q. Vanderbilt Law Review, 73(2), 353-424.
Bathala, C. T., Moon, K. P, & Rao, R. P (1994). Managerial Ownership, Debt Policy, and the Impact of Institutional Holdings: An Agency Perspective. Financial Management, 23(3), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3665620
Baysinger, B. D., & Butler, H. N. (1985). Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 1(1), 101-124. http: //www.jstor. org/stable/764908
Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., & Ferrell, A. (2008). What Matters in Corporate Governance? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 783-827. https: //doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhn099
Bebchuk, L. A., & Cohen, A. (2005). The costs of entrenched boards. Journal of Financial Economics, 78(2), 409-433. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.006
Bebchuk, L. A., 8: Hamdani, A. (2009). The elusive quest for global governance standards. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157(5), 1263-1317. https://doi.org/10. 2307/40380267
Beck, T., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Laeven, L., & Levine, В. (2008). Finance, firm size, and growth. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 40(7), 1379-1405. https: //doi.org/10.1111/ j.1538-4616.2008.00164.x
Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M., & Zimmermann, H. (2006). An Integrated Framework of Corporate Governance and Firm Valuation. European Financial Management, 12(2), 249-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13547798.2006.00318.x
Benvenuto, M., Avram, R. L., Avram, A., & Viola, C. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Corporate Governance Index on Financial Performance in the Romanian and Italian Banking Systems. Sustainability, 13(10), 5535. https://www. mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5535
Berger, A. N., & Bonaccorsi di Patti, E. (2006). Capital structure and firm performance: A new approach to testing agency theory and an application to the banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(4), 1065-1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2005.05.015
Berle, A. A., & Means, С. С. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York, NY: McMillan.
Beyer, A., Guttman, 1., & Marinovic, I. (2019). Earnings Management and Earnings Quality: Theory and Evidence. The Accounting Review, 94(4), 77-101. https://doi.org/ 10.2308/accr-52282
Bhagal, S., Bolton, B., & Romano, R. (2008). The promise and peril of corporate governance indices. Columbia Law Review, 108(8), 1803-1882. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000262008100001
Birindelli, G., Dell'Atti, S., Iannuzzi, A. P, & Savioli, M. (2018). Composition and Activity of the Board of Directors: Impact on ESG Performance in the Banking System. Sustainability, 10(12), 4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10124699
Black, B., de Carvalho, A. G., & Gorga, E. (2010). Corporate governance in Brazil. Emerging Markets Review, 11(1), 2138. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2009.09.004
Black, B., de Carvalho, A. G., & Gorga, E. (2012). What matters and for which firms for corporate governance in emerging markets? Evidence from Brazil (and other BRIK countries). Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(4), 934-952. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2011.10.001
Black, B., de Carvalho, A. G., Khanna, М, Kim, W., & Yurtoglu, B. (2017). Corporate governance indices and construct validity. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 25(6), 397-410. https: //doi.org/10.1111/corg.12215
Black, B., de Carvalho, A. G., Khanna, М, Kim, W., & Yurtoglu, B. (2020). Which Aspects of Corporate Governance Do and Do Not Matter in Emerging Markets. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 5(1), 137-177. https: //doi.org/ 10.1561/108.00000043
Black, B., Jang, H., & Kim, W. (2006). Predicting firms' corporate governance choices: Evidence from Korea. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 660-691. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2005.08.001
Block, J. H. (2012). R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 248-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent. 2010.09.003
Booth, J., Cornett, M., & Tehranian, H. (2002). Boards of directors, ownership, and regulation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, 1973-1996.
Bozec, R., & Bozec, Y. (2012). The Use of Governance Indexes in the GovernancePerformance Relationship Literature: International Evidence. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de UAdministration, 29(1), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cjas.201
Bozec, Y., & Bozec, R. (2007). Ownership concentration and corporate governance practices: substitution or expropriation effects? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de VAdministration, 24(3), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.23
Brick, I. E., Palmon, O., & Wald, J. K. (2006). CEO compensation, director compensation, and firm performance: Evidence of cronyism? Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcorpfin.2005.08.005
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2006). Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(4), 409-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaccpubpol.2006.05.005
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2009). Corporate governance and firm operating performance. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 32(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11156-007-0082-3
Brown, P, Beekes, W., & Verhoeven, P (2011). Corporate governance, accounting and finance: À review. Accounting & Finance, 51(1), 96-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467629X.2010.00385.x
Chen, A., Kao, L., Tsao, M., 8% Wu, C. (2007). Building a Corporate Governance Index from the Perspectives of Ownership and Leadership for Firms in Taiwan. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00572.x
Cheung, Y.-L., Connelly, J. T., Jiang, P, & Limpaphayom, P (2011). Does Corporate Governance Predict Future Performance? Evidence from Hong Kong. Financial Management, 40(1), 159-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755053X.2010.01138.x
Cheung, Y.-L., Thomas Connelly, J., Limpaphayom, P, 8% Zhou, L. (2007). Do Investors Really Value Corporate Governance? Evidence from the Hong Kong Market. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 18(2), 86-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-646X.2007.01009.x
Chhaochharia, М, & Laeven, L. (2009). Corporate governance norms and practices. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 18(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfi.2008.10.001
Chu, X., Liu, Q., & Tian, С. С. (2015). Does controlownership divergence impair market liquidity in an emerging market? Evidence from China. Accounting & Finance, 55(3), 881-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12073
Chung, К. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A Simple Approximation of Tobin's q. Financial Management, 23(3), 70-74. https: //doi.org/10.2307/3665623
Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Joseph P H. Fan, & Larry H. P Lang. (2002). Disentangling the Incentive and Entrenchment Effects of Large Shareholdings. The Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2741-2771. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3094542
Claessens, S., & Yurtoglu, B. B. (2013). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A survey. Emerging Markets Review, 15(0), 1-33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ememar.2012.03.002
Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. E (1999). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(3), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/50304405X(98)00058-0
Cremers, K. J. M., & Nair, V. B. (2005). Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices. The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2859-2894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005. 00819.x
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cuevas-Rodriguez, G., Gômez-Mejia, L. R., & Wiseman, R. M. (2012). Has Agency Theory Run its Course?: Making the Theory more Flexible to Inform the Management of Reward Systems. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(6), 526-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg. 12004
Daines, R. M., Gow, I. D., & Larcker, D. E (2010). Rating the ratings: How good are commercial governance ratings? Journal of Financial Economics, 98(3), 439-461. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.06.005
de Cabo, R. M., Gimeno, R., & Nieto, M. J. (2012). Gender Diversity on European Banks' Boards of Directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-011-1112-6
de Miguel, A., Pindado, J., & de la Torre, С. (2004). Ownership structure and firm value: New evidence from Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1199-1207. https: //doi.org/10.1002/smj.430
de Miguel, A., Pindado, J., & de la Torre, C. (2005). How do entrenchment and expropriation phenomena affect control mechanisms? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(4), 505-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8683.2005.00445.x
Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. (2001). Ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(3), 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/509291199(01)00020-7
Denes, M. R., Karpoff, J. M., & McWilliams, V. B. (2017). Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research. Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 405-424. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.03.005
Denis, D. K., & McConnell, J. J. (2003). International Corporate Governance. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 4126762
Dennis, S. A., & Sharpe, I. G. (2005). Firm size dependence in the determinants of bank term loan maturity. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(1-2), 31-64. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.0306-686X.2005.00587.x
Dong, M., & Ozkan, A. (2008). Institutional investors and director pay: An empirical study of UK companies. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 18(1), 16-29. https: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2007.06.001
Dray, S. (2008). On the number of principal components: A test of dimensionality based on measurements of similarity between matrices. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(4), 2228-2237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. csda.2007.07.015
Drobetz, W., Schillhofer, A., & Zimmermann, H. (2004). Corporate Governance and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from Germany. European Financial Management, 10(2), 267-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798. 2004.00250.x
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191
Elmagrhi, M. H., Ntim, С. G., Wang, Y., Abdou, H. A., & Zalata, A. M. (2020). Corporate Governance Disclosure Index-Executive Pay Nexus: The Moderating Effect of Governance Mechanisms. European Management Review, 17(1), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12329
Fahlenbrach, В. (2009). Founder-CEOs, Investment Decisions, and Stock Market Performance. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(2), 439-466. www.jstor.org/stable/40505931
Fernändez-Gago, R., Cabeza-Garcia, L., & Nieto, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, board of directors, and firm performance: an analysis of their relationships. Review of Managerial Science, 10(1), 85-104. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11846-014-0141-9
Fich, Eliezer M., & Shivdasani, A. (2005). The Impact of StockOption Compensation for Outside Directors on Firm Value. The Journal of Business, 78(6), 2229-2254. https: //doi.org/10.1086/497048
Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G., & Nakajima, С. (2013). Corporate governance and national institutions: A review and emerging research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(4), 965-986. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10490-012-9293-9
Filatotchev, I., Toms, S., & Wright, M. (2006). The firm's strategic dynamics and corporate governance lifecycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2(4), 256-279. https://doi.org/10.1108/17439130610705481
Florackis, C., & Palotäs, K. (2010). Corporate Governance and Performance: New Evidence Using Nonlinear Principal Component Analysis. Available at SSRN: https:// ssrn.com/abstract=1712068
Forbes, D. P, & Milliken, E J. (1999). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision-Making Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489-505. https://doi.org/10. 2307/259138
Frias-Aceituno, J. V, Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2013). The Role of the Board in the Dissemination of Integrated Corporate Social Reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1294
Gaio, C., & Raposo, C. (2011). Earnings quality and firm valuation: international evidence. Accounting & Finance, 51(2), 467-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X. 2010.00362.x
Garbade, K. D., & Silber, W. L. (1982). Best Execution in Securities Markets: An Application of Signaling and Agency Theory. The Journal of Finance, 37(2), 493-504. https: //doi.org/10.2307/2327354
Garcia-Sanchez, I. M., Raimo, N., & Vitolla, Е (2021). CEO power and integrated reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(4), 908-942. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar11-2019-0604
Gippel, J., Smith, T, 8% Zhu, Y. (2015). Endogeneity in Accounting and Finance Research: Natural Experiments as a State-of-the-Art Solution. Abacus, 51(2), 143-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12048
Gompers, P, Ishii, J., 8: Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate Governance and Equity Prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107-156. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 00335530360535162
Gormley, T. A., 8% Matsa, D. A. (2014). Common Errors: How to (and Not to) Control for Unobserved Heterogeneity. Review of Financial Studies, 27(2), 617-661. https: //doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hht047
Goyal, М K., Lehn, K., & Racic, S. (2002). Growth opportunities and corporate debt policy: the case of US defence industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 64(1), 35-59. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(02)00070-3
Guest, Р М. (2009). The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK. The European Journal of Finance, 15(4), 385-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13518470802466121
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (1990). Capital Structure and the Informational Role of Debt. The Journal of Finance, 45(2), 321-349. https: //doi.org/10.2307/2328660
Harun, М. S., Hussainey, K., Mohd Kharuddin, К. A., & Farooque, O. A. (2020). CSR Disclosure, Corporate Governance and Firm Value: a study on GCC Islamic Banks. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 28(4), 607-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJAIM-08-2019-0103
Hoekstra, R., Vugteveen, J., Warrens, M. J., & Kruyen, P M. (2019). An empirical analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(4), 351-364. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13645579.2018.1547523
Jara, M., López, E, San Martín, P, Saona, P, & Tenderini, G. (2019). Chilean pension fund managers and corporate governance: The impact on corporate debt. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48, 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.02.012
Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1818789
Jensen, M. C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
Jensen, M. C. (1994). Self-interest, altruism, incentives, and agency theory. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 7(2), 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17456622.1994.tb00404.x
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jiraporn, P, Miller, С. A., Yoon, $. S., & Kim, Y. S. (2008). Is earnings management opportunistic or beneficial? An agency theory perspective. International Review of Financial Analysis, 17(3), 622-634. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. irfa.2006.10.005
Kao, M.-E, Hodgkinson, L., & Jaafar, A. (2019). Owner- ship structure, board of directors and firm performance: evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 19(1), 189-216. https: //doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2018-0144
Karpoff, J. M., Schonlau, R. J., & Wehrly, E. W. (2017). Do Takeover Defense Indices Measure Takeover Deterrence? The Review of Financial Studies, 30(7), 2359-2412. https: //doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhx025
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., 8: Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal of the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1876404511200046
Khongmalai, O., Tang, J. C. S., & Siengthai, S. (2010). Empirical evidence of corporate governance in Thai stateowned enterprises. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 10(5), 617-634. https://doi. org/10.1108/14720701011085580
Kim, J.-O., 8: Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to Factor Analysis: What it is and how to do it. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage University.
Klapper, L. E, 8% Love, I. (2004). Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(5), 703-728. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(03)00046-4
Klein, A. (2002). Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 375-400. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0165-4101(02)00059-9
Kocmanová, A., & Simberová, 1. (2014). Determination of environmental, social and corporate governance indicators: Framework in the measurement of sustainable performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(5), 1017-1033. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699. 2013.791637
Kubitek, A., Stamfestová, P, & Strouhal, J. (2016). CrossCountry Analysis of Corporate Governance Codes in the European Union. Economics & Sociology, 9(2), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071- 789X.2016/9-2/22
Kuder, G. E, & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
Kumar, P, & Zattoni, A. (2014). Corporate Governance, Board of Directors, and the Firm: A Maturing Field. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(5), 365366. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12082
Kumari, P, & Pattanayak, J. K. (2014). Impact of Corporate Governance on Level of Earnings Management and Overall Firm Performance: A Review. International Journal of Financial Management, 4(1), 82-95.
Porta, R. L., LopezdeSilanes, E, Shleifer, A., & vishny, robert w. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of Political Ecoпоту, 106(6), 1113-1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 250042
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1094428105284919
Larcker, D. E, Richardson, $. A., & Tuna, I. г. (2007). Corporate Governance, Accounting Outcomes, and Organizational Performance. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 9631008. https: //doi.org/10.2308/accr.2007.82.4.963
Lassoued, N., Ben Rejeb Attia, M., & Sassi, H. (2017). Earnings management and ownership structure in emerging market. Managerial Finance, 43(10), 1117-1136. https: //doi.org/10.1108/MF-11-2015-0312
Leech, D., 8%: Manjón, M. C. (2002). Corporate Governance in Spain (with an Application of the Power Indices Approach). European Journal of Law and Economics, 13(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013680820398
Lefort, E, & Urzúa, E (2008). Board independence, firm performance and ownership concentration: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 615-622. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.036
Lidia, H., & Patricia, G. (2018). Women on boards of directors in Latin America: building a model. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 31 (1), 43-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-04-2017-0112
Lindenberg, E. B., & Ross, S. A. (1981). Tobin's q Ratio and Industrial Organization. The Journal of Business, 54(1), 1-32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352631
López-Quesada, E., Camacho-Miñano, M.-d.-M., & Idowu, S. O. (2018). Corporate governance practices and comprehensive income. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 18(3), 462-477. https: //doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2017-0011
Lozano, М. B., Martinez, B., & Pindado, J. (2016). Corporate governance, ownership and firm value: Drivers of ownership as a good corporate governance mechanism. International Business Review, 25(6), 1333-1343. https: //doi.org/10.1016/].ibusrev.2016.04.005
Ludzinska, К. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Enterprise Value on the Capital Market. Problemy Zarzadzania-Management Issues, 15(1), 207-220. https: //doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.66.13
Maury, B., & Pajuste, A. (2005). Multiple large shareholders and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1813-1834. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004. 07.002
Mayer, C. (1998). Financial Systems and Corporate Governance: A Review of the International Evidence. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 154(1), 144- 165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40752051
Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2013). Methods for Constructing Composite Indices: One for All of All for One? Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, LXVII(2), 6780.
Mellado, C., & Saona, P (2020). Real earnings management and corporate governance: a study of Latin America. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraivanja, 33(1), 2229-2268. https: //doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1691930
Melon-Izco, A., Ruiz-Cabestre, E J., & Ruiz-Olalla, C. (2021). Readabilty in management reports: extension and good governance practices. REVISTA DE CONTABILIDADSPANISH ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 24(1), 19-30. https: //doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.363171
Mishra, A., Jain, S., & Manogna, R. L. (2021). Does corporate governance characteristics influence firm performance in India? Empirical evidence using dynamic panel data analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18, 71-82. https: //doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-000987 7
R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, В. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(0), 293-315. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(88)90048-7
Nasrallah, N., 8: El Khoury, R. (2022). Is corporate governance a good predictor of SMEs financial performance? Evidence from developing countries (the case of Lebanon). Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(1), 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021. 1874213
Nerantzidis, M. (2016). A multi-methodology on building a corporate governance index from the perspectives of academics and practitioners for firms in Greece. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 16(2), 295-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-082015-0107
Nsour, M. E, & Al-Rjoub, S. A. M. (2022). Building a corporate governance index (JCGI) for an emerging market: case of Jordan. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 19(2), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41310-021-00139-9
Obeng, V. A., Ahmed, K., & Miglani, S. (2020). Integrated reporting and earnings quality: The moderating effect of agency costs. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 60, 21. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101285
Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2005). Cultural adaptation and institutional change: The evolution of vocabularies of corporate governance, 1972-2003. Poetics, 33(3), 163-178. https: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2005.10.001
Ouni, Z., Ben Mansour, J., & Arfaoui, $. (2020). Board /Executive Gender Diversity and Firm Financial Performance in Canada: The Mediating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Orientation. Sustainability, 12(20), 8386. Retrieved from https://www. mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8386
Outa, E. R., & Waweru, N. M. (2016). Corporate governance guidelines compliance and firm financial performance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(8/9), 891-914. https: //doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2015-1291
Pavlopoulos, A., Magnis, C., & Tatridis, G. E. (2019). Integrated reporting: An accounting disclosure tool for high quality financial reporting. Research in International Business and Finance, 49, 13-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ribaf.2019.02.007
Perfect, S., & Wiles, K. (1994). Alternative constructions of Tobin's Q: An empirical comparison. Journal of Empirical Finance, 1(3-4), 313-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0927-5398(94)90007-8
Pindado, J., Queiroz de, М, & De La Torre, С. (2010). How do firms characteristics influence the relationship betwee R&D and firm value? Financial Management, 757-782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2010.01091.x
Prior, D., Tortosa-Ausina, E., García-Alcober, M. P, & Illueca, M. (2019). Profit efficiency and earnings quality: Evidence from the Spanish banking industry. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 51(2), 153-174. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11123-019-00553-w
Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., Bel-Oms, I., & Olcina-Sempere, G. (2018). Female Institutional Directors on Boards and Firm Value. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(2), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3265-9
Renders, A., 8% Gaeremynck, A. (2012). Corporate Governance, Principal-Principal Agency Conflicts, and Firm Value in European Listed Companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(2), 125-143. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00900.x
Renders, A., Gaeremynck, A., & Sercu, P (2010). CorporateGovernance Ratings and Company Performance: A CrossEuropean Study. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678683.2010.00791.x
Roberts, M. R., & Whited, T. M. (2013). Endogeneity in Empirical Corporate Finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance (Vol. Volume 2, Part A, pp. 493-572): London, UK: Elsevier.
Rosenblatt, М. J., & Jucker, J. V (1979). Capital Expenditure Decision/Making: Some Tools and Trends. Interfaces, 9(2), 63-69. Retrieved from http: //www.jstor.org/ stable/25059725
Ruiz-Mallorqui, М. М, & Santana-Martín, D. J. (2011). Dominant institutional owners and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(1), 118-129. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.07.020
Sami, H., Wang, J., & Zhou, H. (2011). Corporate governance and operating performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 20(2), 106-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intaccaudtax.2011.06.005
Saona, P (2014). Internal corporate governance mechanisms as drivers of firm value: panel data evidence for Chilean firms. Review of Managerial Science, 8(4), 575-604. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11846-013-0115-3
Saona, P, & Muro, L. (2018). Firm- and country-level attributes as determinants of earnings management: An analysis for Latin American firms. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(12), 2736-2764. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1540496X.2017.1410127
Saona, P, Muro, L., 8: Alvarado, M. (2020). How do the ownership structure and board of directors' features impact earnings management? The Spanish case. Journal of International Financial Management 8% Accounting, 31(1), 98-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12114
Saona, P, Muro, L., San Martín, P, & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Board of director's gender diversity and its impact on earnings management: An empirical analysis for select European firms. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(4), 634-663. https://doi.org/10. 3846/tede.2019.9381
Saona, P, Muro, L., San Martín, P, 8% Cid, C. (2020). IberoAmerican corporate ownership and boards of directors: Implementation and impact on firm value in Chile and Spain. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraivanja, 33(1), 2138-2170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019. 1694558
Saona, P, & San Martín, P (2016). Country level governance variables and ownership concentration as determinants of firm value in Latin America. International Review of Law and Economics, 47(1), 84-95. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.irle.2016.06.004
Saona, P, & San Martin, P (2018). Determinants of firm value in Latin America: An analysis of firm attributes and institutional factors. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 65-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0213-0
Saona, P, San Martin, P, & Jara, M. (2018). Group affiliation and ownership concentration as determinants of capital structure decisions: Contextualizing the facts for an emerging economy. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(14), 3312-3329. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1540496X.2017.1392850
Saona, P, & Vallelado, E. (2012). Firms' capital structure under Akerlof's separating equilibrium. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 41 (156), 471-495. https://doi. org/10.1080/02102412.2012.10779732
Saona, P, Vallelado, E., & San Martín, P (2020). Debt, or not debt, that is the question: A Shakespearean question to a corporate decision. Journal of Business Research, 115(1), 378-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/;. jbusres.2019.09.061
Setia-Atmaja, L. Y. (2009). Governance mechanisms and firm value: The impact of ownership concentration and dividends. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(6), 694-709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678683.2009.00768.x
Sherman, H. (2004). Corporate Governance Ratings. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(1), 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00337.x
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), 461-488. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833044
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329497
Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. (2009). Business Group Affiliation, Firm Governance, and Firm Performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8683.2009.00750.x
Smirlock, M., Gilligan, T., 8: Marshall, W. (1984). Tobin's q and the Structure-Performance Relationship. The American Economic Review, 74(5), 1051-1060. https://doi. org/10.2307/561
Straska, M., & Waller, H. G. (2014). Antitakeover Provisions and Shareholder Wealth: A Survey of the Literature. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(4), 933956. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43303975
Tsipouri, L., & Xanthakis, M. (2004). Can Corporate Governance be Rated? Ideas based on the Greek experience. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(1), 1628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00340.x
Utrero-González, N., & J. Callado-Muñoz, E. (2016). Do investors react to corporate governance news? An empirical analysis for the Spanish market. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bra. 2015.04.002
Vitolla, E, Raimo, N., & Rubino, M. (2020). Board characteristics and integrated reporting quality: an agency theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 1152-1163. https: //doi.org/10.1002/csr.1879
Williamson, O. E. (1988). Corporate Finance and Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 567-591. https://doi.org/10.2307/2328184
Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581606. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005
Zheng, C., & Kouwenberg, R. (2019). A Bibliometric Review of Global Research on Corporate Governance and Board Attributes. Sustainability, 11(12), 3428. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su11123428
APPENDIX
This appendix shows the questions regarding the level of compliance with codes of good governance by Spanish firms.
Bylaw restrictions
Listed companies from the same group
Corporate interest
Committee size
Ratio of proprietary to independent directors
Functions of chair
Regular evaluation
Director information
Audit-committee skills and experience
Audit-committee oversight of internal-audit function
Head of internal-audit reporting to audit committee
Audit-committee functions
Any employee or manager able to call audit-committee meeting
Members of the appointment and retribution committee
Nomination-committee functions
Remuneration-committee functions
Remuneration committee consulted on matters concerning executive directors and senior officers
Annual accounts presented without qualifications
Opposition to proposals contrary to the corporate interest
Explanation for director removals before end of mandate
Directors unattendance
Public information on directors
Control policy and risk management
Orientation program of new directors
Selection, appointment, and reelection of directors
Remuneration linked to earnings
Technical caution in variable remuneration
Monitoring of compliance with corporate governance rules, internal codes of conduct, and corporate-socialresponsibility policy
Composition of supervisory and control committees
Previous information on proposals from the general meetings
No proposal to remove independent directors before expiry of their tenure
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Este estudio, basado en la teoría de la agencia, se centra en la medición del gobierno corporativo en el sector corporativo español. Su objetivo es desarrollar, evaluar y validar un índice específico de gobierno corporativo que supere las limitaciones de investigaciones previas, las cuales se basan en medidas agregadas y no validadas. Las preguntas de investigación son: ¿cómo medir adecuadamente el gobierno corporativo en España?, y ¿cuán bien representa el índice propuesto los aspectos relevantes del gobierno corporativo? De estas preguntas se deriva una sub-pregunta sobre la validez de los subíndices que componen el índice en relación con los aspectos específicos del gobierno corporativo. El estudio analiza una muestra de 130 empresas españolas cotizadas con 1.039 observaciones correspondientes al período 2007-2018. Se construye un índice agregado de gobierno corporativo, compuesto por cuatro subíndices: cumplimiento con códigos de buen gobierno, características de la propiedad, características de los consejos directivos y transparencia de la información contable. Los resultados muestran que tanto el índice general como los subíndices están positivamente relacionados con el valor de la empresa. Para validar el índice, se utilizan métodos como el coeficiente de Cronbach a para la consistencia interna y el análisis de componentes principales (PCA) para la estructura del índice. También se emplea el análisis de datos de panel GMM, incorporando una medida novedosa del valor de la empresa que considera el coste de reposición de los activos. Este estudio llena un vacío en la literatura al crear y validar un índice específico para España, abordando además problemas econométricos como la endogeneidad y la heterogeneidad inobservable. A nivel práctico, el índice puede apoyar la implementación de la Agenda de Desarrollo Sostenible 2030 de las Naciones Unidas, que promueve la adopción de códigos de buen gobierno. Finalmente, se sugiere que futuras investigaciones se enfoquen en la creación y validación de índices robustos para evaluar la calidad del gobierno corporativo en otros contextos, promoviendo así las mejores prácticas a nivel global.