This article aims to investigate the impact of corporate governance through board size, female directors, family duality and director ownership on firm’s profitability in Bangladesh. It’s a quantitative study on 110 manufacturing firms listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange. Multivariate pooled Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regressions are applied on 512 sample-year observations from the year 2013 to 2017 to test the hypotheses in the study. On one side, the results reveal that larger board size and female directors on board are positively associated with firm’s profitability, which in turns helps to enhance firm’s profitability. On the other side, it is also found in the results that percentage of shares held by the directors and family duality are negatively related to firm’s profitability and thus reduces firm performance. The outcomes of this study advocate the policymakers to formulate a policy by addressing the percentage of shares held by the directors to be kept at a certain level.
AbbasA.NaqviH. A.MirzaH. H. (2013). Impact of large ownership on firm performance: A case of non financial listed companies of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(8), 1141–1152.
2.
AdamsR. B.FerreiraD. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.
3.
AhmedH.GaborA. (2012). An examination of the relationship of governance structure and performance: Evidence from banking companies in Bangladesh. Society and Economy, 34(4), 643–666.
4.
AlamM. R.AkhterF. (2017). Impact of corporate governance on performance of commercial banks in Bangladesh. The Cost and Management, 45(4), 2–9.
5.
Alonso-BonisS.Andres-AlonsoP. (2007). Ownership structure and performance in large Spanish companies: Empirical evidence in the context of an endogenous relation. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4(4), 206–216.
6.
AminS.JamilT. (2015). Capital structure and firm performance: Evidence from cement sector of Dhaka stock exchange limited. Journal of Finance and Banking, 13(1–2), 29–42.
7.
AroraA.SharmaC. (2016). Corporate governance and firm performance in developing countries: Evidence from India. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 16(2), 420–436.
8.
BlackB. S.BhagatS. (2002). The no-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27, 231–273.
9.
BohrenO.StromR. O. (2010). Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the board room. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37, 1281–1308.
10.
BrickleyJ. A.ColesJ. L.JarrellG. (1997). Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board. Journal of Corporate Finance, 3, 189–220.
11.
BuallayA.HamdinA.ZureigatQ. (2017). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Australian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 11(1), 78–98.
12.
CarterD. A.SimkinsB. J.SimpsonW. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.
13.
CostaM. D. (2015). Impact of CEO duality and board independence on FTSE Small Cap & Fledging company performance. World Review of Business Research, 5(1), 1–19.
14.
DaltonD. R.DailyC. M.EllstrandA. E.JohnsonJ. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–290.
15.
EisenbergT.SundgrenS.WellsM. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35–54.
16.
ErhardtN. L.WerbelJ. D.ShraderC. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 102–111.
17.
FamaE. F.JensenM. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.
18.
FrancoeurC.LabelleR.DesgagneB. S. (2008). Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management. Journal of Busines Ethics, 81(1), 83–95.
19.
GoyalV. K.ParkC. W. (2002). Board leadership structure and CEO turnover. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8, 49–66.
20.
GujaratiD. (2003). Basic econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
HillmanA. J.DalzielT. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.
22.
IsikO.SoykanM. E. (2013). Large shareholders and firm performance: Evidence from Turkey. European Scientific Journal, 9(25), 23–37.
23.
JensenM. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.
24.
KhanN.SiddiquaP. (2015). The impact of family ownership on firm value and corporate governance: Evidence from the financial sector of Bangladesh. Journal of Business Studies, 3, 83–101.
25.
KielG. C.NscholsonG. J. (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs constraining theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 11(3), 189–205.
26.
LiF. (2016). Endogeneity in CEO power: A survey and experiment. Investment Analysts Journal, 45, 149–162.
27.
MaceM. L. (1971). Directors: Myth and reality. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
28.
MeahM. R. (2019). The efficiency of corporate governance on capital structure: An empirical study from listed manufacturing firms in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 11(1), 13–23.
29.
MuttakinM. B.KhanA.SubramaniamN. (2012). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Academy of Taiwan Business Management Review, 8(2), 97–108.
30.
RahmanM. M.KhatunN. (2017). Quality of corporate governance: A review from the literature. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 4(1), 59–66.
31.
RahmanM. M.MeahM. R.ChaudhoryN. U. (2019). The impact of audit characteristics on firm performance: An empirical study from an emerging economy. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 6(1), 59–69.
32.
RahmanM. M.SaimaF. N. (2018). Efficiency of board composition on firm performance: Empirical evidence from listed manufacturing firms of Bangladesh. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(2), 53–61.
33.
RamdaniD.WitteloostuijnA. V. (2010). The impact of board independence and CEO duality on firm performance: A quantile regression analysis for Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 607–627.
34.
RanaM. M.HoqueM. S.SharmaI. (2017). Corporate governance and firm performance: A study on listed banks of Bangladesh. Journal for Studies in Management and Planning, 3(7), 1–14.
35.
RashidA.ZoysaA. D.LodhS.RudkinK. (2010). Board composition and firm performance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Australian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 4(1), 76–95.
36.
RoufM. A. (2011). The relationship between corporate governance and value of the firm in developing countries: Evidence from Bangladesh. The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 5(3), 237–244.
37.
RoufM. A. (2015). Capital structure and firm performance of listed non-financial companies in Bangladesh. The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 9(1), 25–32.
38.
RutledgeR. W.KarimK. E.LuS. (2016). The effect of board independence and CEO duality on firm performance: Evidence from the NASDAQ-100 index with controls for endogeneity. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 18(2), 49–71.
39.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.
40.
YermackD. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–211.
41.
ZabriS. M.AhmadK.WahK. K. (2016). Corporate governance practices and firm performance: Evidence from top 100 public listed companies in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 287–296.
