The prime objective of this study is to investigate the legitimate role of corporate boards and corporate social responsibility on the performance of Malaysian listed companies during 2006–2017. Elements of corporate boards include board size, board independence and board diversity, whereas corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimensions constitute marketplace, environment, community and workplace. Both accounting-based (return on assets [ROA], return on equity [ROE]) and market-based (earnings per share [EPS]) performance measures have been employed for measuring performance. Pooled ordinary least squares method (OLS) and multiple regressions are used to estimate the dataset. Findings reveal larger board size and higher board independence positively affect firm performance and significantly legitimise the board role in firms. However, the presence of women on Malaysian corporate boards does not legitimate the performance due to their lower percentage on board, hence insignificantly affecting firm value. Additionally, out of four CSR dimensions, only marketplace is positively and significantly related to EPS and negatively and significantly related to ROA. Conversely, environment, community and workplace are insignificantly related to all performance measures, leaving firms in a questionable legitimate state. This study embraces support from agency theory, resource dependence theory, legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory. However, this research raises questionable insights for regulatory bodies and academicians in the form of corporate legitimacy.
AbdullahS. N.IsmailK. N. (2016). Women directors, family ownership and earnings management in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(4), 525–550.
2.
AhamedW. S. W.AlmsafirM. K.Al-SmadiA. W. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility lead to improve in firm financial performance? Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(3), 126–138.
3.
AhmedA.MubaraqS. (2015). The implications of the revised code of corporate governance on firm performance. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 5(3), 350–380.
4.
BarneaA.RubinA. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
5.
BhattP. R.BhattR. R. (2017). Corporate governance and firm performance in Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(5), 896–912.
6.
BurkeR. J. (1997). Women directors: Selection, acceptance and benefits of board membership. Corporate Governance, 5(3), 118–125.
7.
Cabrera-FernándezA. I.Martínez-JiménezR.Hernández-OrtizM. J. (2016). Women’s participation on boards of directors: A review of the literature. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 69–89.
8.
ChenH. L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 334–350.
9.
ErhardtN.WerbelJ.ShraderC. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance, 11(2), 102–111.
10.
FamaE. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.
11.
FarhanA.ObaidA. N.AzalanH. (2017). Corporate governance effect on firm’s performance: Evidence from the UAE. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 33(1), 66–80.
12.
FengM.WangX.KreuzeJ. G. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: Comparison analyses across industries and CSR categories. American Journal of Business, 32(3–4), 106–133.
GillA. (2008). Corporate governance as social responsibility: A research agenda. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26(2), 452–478.
15.
JamaliD.SafieddineA. M.RabbathM. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance, 16(5), 443–459.
16.
JensenM. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.
17.
JonesA. L.ThompsonC. H. (2012). The sustainability of corporate governance: Considerations for a model. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(3), 306–318.
18.
KielG. C.NicholsonG. J. (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 11(3), 189–205.
19.
KPMG. (2013). KPMG Malaysia fraud, bribery and corruption survey 2013. Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC).
20.
LinH.-Y.AminN. (2016). The relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Indonesia and Taiwan. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 5(3), 50–62.
21.
MakY.KusnadiY. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(3), 301–318.
22.
MakanyezaC.ChitambaraT. L.KakavaN. Z. (2017). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance? Empirical evidence from Harare, Zimbabwe. Journal of African Business, 19(2), 155–173.
23.
MCCG (2000). Malaysian code on corporate governance securities commission Malaysia. Finance Committee on Corporate Governance. Retrieved from http://www.sc.com.my
24.
MCCG (2007). Malaysian code on corporate governance securities commission Malaysia. Securities Commission Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.sc.com.my
25.
MCCG (2012). Malaysian code on corporate governance securities commission Malaysia. Securities Commission Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.sc.com.my
26.
MCCG (2017). Malaysian code on corporate governance securities commission Malaysia. Securities Commission Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.sc.com.my
27.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
28.
MishraR.KapilS. (2017). Effect of ownership structure and board structure on firm value: Evidence from India. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(4), 700–726.
29.
MuttakinM. B.SubramaniamN. (2015). Firm ownership and board characteristics: Do they matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies. Sustainability, Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 138–165.
30.
NyamongoE. M.TemesgenK. (2013). The effect of governance on performance of commercial banks in Kenya: A penal study. Corporate Governance, 13(3), 236–248.
31.
OfoedaI. (2017). Corporate governance and non-bank financial institutions profitability. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6), 854–875.
32.
Paredes-GazquezJ. D.Rodriguez-FernandezJ. M.Cuesta-GonzalezM. (2016). Measuring corporate social responsibility using composite indices: Mission impossible? The case of the electricity utility industry. Spanish Accounting Review, 19(1), 142–153.
33.
ParuoloP.SaisanaM.SaltelliA. (2013). Ratings and rankings: Voodoo or science. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 176(3), 609–634.
34.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. In BeachR. E. (Ed.), The external control of organizations (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
35.
PorterM.KramerM. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
36.
RosensteinS.WyattJ. G. (1990). Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 26(2), 175–191.
37.
ScottE. M.CocchiS.GemmellJ. C. (2014). Defining a fit for purpose statistically reliable sustainability indicator. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 5(3), 262–267.
38.
Securities Commission Malaysia. (2018). Updates on criminal prosecution during 2018. Retrieved from https://www.sc.com.my/post_archive/updates-on-criminal-prosecution-in-2018/
39.
SheikhN. A.KarimS. (2015). Effects of internal governance indicators on performance of commercial banks in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35(1), 77–90.
40.
SimionescuL. N.GherghinaS. C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: Empirical evidence from panel of the bucharest stock exchange listed companies. Management and Marketing, Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 9(4), 439–458.
41.
SolakogluM. N.DemirN. (2016). The role of firm characteristics on the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance. Management Decision, 54(6), 1407–1419.
42.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 57l–610.
43.
WilliamsR. J.FadilP. A.ArmstrongR. W. (2005). Top management team tenure and corporate illegal activity: The moderating influence of board size. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(4), 479–493.
44.
WuJ.WuZ. (2014). Integrated risk management and product innovation in China: The moderating role of board of directors. Technovation, 34(8), 466–476.
45.
YasserQ. R.MamunA. A.RodrigsM. (2017). Impact of board structure on firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11(2), 210–228.
46.
YusoffW. F. W.AdamuM. S. (2016). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from Malaysia. International Business Management, 10(4), 345–351.
47.
ZahraS. A.PearceJ. A. (1989). Board of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.
