Abstract
This article explores the board independence of listed companies in the US and China – an ongoing and important issue of corporate governance concerning the true independence of independent directors from management in both countries. It aims to identify what elements have an impact on board independence and examine how these influence the independence of independent directors. Four elements, independence from management; dependence on shareholders; access to information; and incentive to monitor, may have a substantial influence on board independence and align with the in-fact independence of independent directors. This article examines how and why these four elements have an impact on the effectiveness of the role of independent directors in monitoring top management and lead to independent directors failing to be truly independent of management. To support this argument, this article also investigates the efficiency and effectiveness of independent directors serving as a governance mechanism in terms of board independence in Chinese listed companies. The aim was therefore to scrutinise whether independent directors in Chinese listed companies are truly independent from management. Based on statistics calculated on data collected from CSMAR, there appears to be little evidence that independent directors serve as a governance mechanism in monitoring top management in Chinese listed companies, which thus shows that independent directors are not independent in China. The implications arising from this article are that solutions addressing the four elements that have an impact on board independence will enable independent directors to become truly independent.
References
Adams, R. B., and D. Ferreira. 2008a. “Do Directors Perform for Pay?” Journal of Accounting and Economics 46: 154–171.10.1016/j.jacceco.2008.06.002Suche in Google Scholar
Adams, R. B., and D. Ferreira. 2008b. “Regulatory Pressure and Bank Directors’ Incentive to Attend Board Meetings.” Working paper No. 203.10.2139/ssrn.936261Suche in Google Scholar
Allen, W. T. 1990. “Independent Directors in MBO Transaction: Are They Fact or Fantasy?” The Business Lawyer 45: 2055–2063.Suche in Google Scholar
Bainbridge, S. M. 1993. “Independent Directors and the ALI Corporate Governance Project.” The George Washington Law Review 61 (4): 1034–1083.Suche in Google Scholar
Barnard, C. I. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. A. 2003. “The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot.” The Business Lawyer 59: 43–66.10.2139/ssrn.426951Suche in Google Scholar
Bell, R. R. 1981. Words of Friendship. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Black, B. S. 1990. “Shareholder Passivity Reexamined.” Michigan Law Review 89 (3): 520–608.10.2307/1289384Suche in Google Scholar
Black, B. S. 1998. “Shareholder Activism and Corporate Governance in the United States.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law 3: 459–465.10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_352Suche in Google Scholar
Borowski, I. 1984. “Corporate Accountability: The Role of the Independent Director.” Journal of Corporation Law 9: 455–471.Suche in Google Scholar
Brehm, J. W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Oxford: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674029095Suche in Google Scholar
Business Roundtable. 2012. “Principles of Corporate Governance.”Suche in Google Scholar
Chou, H.-I., H. Li, and X. Yin. 2010. “The Effects of Financial Distress and Capital Structure on the Work Effort of Outside Directors.” Journal of Empirical Finance 17: 300–312.10.1016/j.jempfin.2009.12.005Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, P. B., and J. Q. Wilson. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6 (2): 129–166.10.2307/2390752Suche in Google Scholar
Coffee Jr., J. C. 1993. “The SEC and the Institutional Investor: A Half-Time Report.” Cardozo Law Review 15: 837–902.Suche in Google Scholar
Coles, J. W., and W. S. Hesterly. 2006. “Independence of the Chairman and Board Composition: Firm Choices and Shareholder Value.” Journal of Management 26 (2): 195–214.10.1177/014920630002600202Suche in Google Scholar
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Parish. 1875.Suche in Google Scholar
Davis, P. L. 1993. “Institutional Investors in the United Kingdom.” In Contemporary Issues in Corporate Governance, edited by D. Prentice and P. Holland, 69–96. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/oso/9780198258599.003.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Demb, A., and F.-F. Neubauer. 1992. “The Corporate Board: Confronting the Paradoxes.” Long Range Planning 25 (3): 9–20.10.1016/0024-6301(92)90364-8Suche in Google Scholar
Donnelly, R., and M. Mulcahy. 2008. “Board Structure, Ownership, and Voluntary Disclosure in Ireland.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 16 (5): 416–429.10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00692.xSuche in Google Scholar
Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. CTS Corp. 1987.Suche in Google Scholar
Estes, R. M. 1973. “Outside Directors: More Vulnerable than Ever.” Harvard Business Review 51 (1): 107–114.Suche in Google Scholar
Estes, R. M. 1976. “The Case for Counsel to Outside Directors.” Harvard Business Review 54 (4): 125–132.Suche in Google Scholar
Exchange Act Release No. 26,333. 1988.10.1016/0278-6915(88)90167-6Suche in Google Scholar
Fama, E. F. 1980. “Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Political Economy 88 (2): 288–307.10.1086/260866Suche in Google Scholar
Fama, E., and M. Jensen. 1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control.” The Journal of Law & Economics 26 (2): 301–325.10.1086/467037Suche in Google Scholar
Gilson, R. J., and R. Kraakman. 1991. “Reinventing the Outside Director: An Agenda for Institutional Investors.” Stanford Law Review 43 (4): 863–902.10.2307/1228922Suche in Google Scholar
Healy, P. M., and K. G. Palepu. 2001. “Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure, and the Capital Markets: A Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 405–440.10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0Suche in Google Scholar
Hermalin, B. E., and M. S. Weisbach. 1998. “Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO.” American Economic Review 88 (1): 96–118.Suche in Google Scholar
Hooghiemstra, R., and J. van Manen. 2004. “The Independence Paradox: (Im)Possibilities Facing Non-Executive Directors in The Netherlands.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 12 (3): 314–324.10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00372.xSuche in Google Scholar
Investment Company Act. 1940.Suche in Google Scholar
Karmel, R. S. 1984. “The Independent Corporate Board: A Means to Want End?” The George Washington Law Review 52: 534–556.Suche in Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D., and R. N. Stern. 1988. “Informational Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 51 (2): 123–140.10.2307/2786835Suche in Google Scholar
Lawler III, E. E. 1987. “Pay for Performance: A Motivational Analysis.” In Incentives, Cooperation, and Risk Sharing: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Employment Contracts. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Suche in Google Scholar
Lin, L. 1996. “The Effectiveness of Outside Directors as a Corporate Governance Mechanism: Theories and Evidence.” Northwestern University Law Review 90 (3): 898–976.Suche in Google Scholar
Lowenthal, J. 1990. “Every Man has his Price; in Some Cases, 13 Cents.” Spy, 80–84. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=Tu_Vp4DEqiQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA80.Suche in Google Scholar
Mace, M. L. 1971. Directors: Myth and Reality. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Manning, B. 1958. “The American Stockholder by J. A. Livingston.” Yale Law Journal 67 (8): 1477–1496.10.2307/794012Suche in Google Scholar
Mitchell, L. E. 2004. “Structural Holes, CEOs, and Informational Monopolies-The Missing Link in Corporate Governance.” Brooklyn Law Review 70: 1313–1368.10.2139/ssrn.467980Suche in Google Scholar
NASDAQ. 2013. “Corporate Governance Requirements.”Suche in Google Scholar
Norlin Corp. v. Rooney Pace, Inc. 1984.Suche in Google Scholar
Note. 2006. “Beyond ‘Independent’ Directors: A Functional Approach to Board Independence.” Harvard Law Review 119 (5):1553–1557.Suche in Google Scholar
NYSE. 2013. “Corporate Governance Requirements.”Suche in Google Scholar
Perry, T. 1999. “Incentive Compensation for Outside Directors and CEO turnover.” Paper presented at Tuck-JFE Contemporary Corporate Governance Conference.10.2139/ssrn.236033Suche in Google Scholar
Roberts, J., T. McNulty, and P. Stiles. 2005. “Beyond Agency Conceptions of the Work of Non-Executive Director: Creating Accountability in the Boardroom.” British Journal of Management 16 (1): 5–26.10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00444.xSuche in Google Scholar
Rodrigues, U. 2008. “The Fetishization of Independence.” The Journal of Corporation Law 33: 447–495.Suche in Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. A., and A. K. Buchholtz. 2007. “Investigating the Relationship Between Board Characteristics and Board Information.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (4): 576–584.10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00589.xSuche in Google Scholar
Sale, H. A. 2006. “Independent Directors as Securities Monitors.” The Business Lawyer 61 (4): 1375–1412.Suche in Google Scholar
SEC Rule 13d-5(b) (1). 1990.Suche in Google Scholar
Securities Exchange Act. 1934.Suche in Google Scholar
Sharpe, N. F. 2011. “The Cosmetic Independence of Corporate Board.” Seattle University Law Review 34: 1435–1456.Suche in Google Scholar
The ALI’s Project. 1984. “Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations”.Suche in Google Scholar
The Committee on Governmental Affairs of United States Senate. 2002. “The Role of the Board of Directors in Enron’s Collapse.” Report No. 107-70: 1–67.Suche in Google Scholar
The CSRC. 2001. “Guidance Opinion on the Establishment of an Independent Director System in Listed Companies.”Suche in Google Scholar
The CSRC & SETC. 2001. “Code of Corporate Governance for the Listed Companies.”Suche in Google Scholar
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the US Department of the Treasury (OCC). 2010. The Director’s Book, 1–20. Available at: http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/The- Directors-Book.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
The SEC. 1978. “Report of Investigation in the Matter of National Telephone Co. Inc., Relating Activities of the Independent Directors of National Telephone Co. Inc.” Exchange Act Release No. 34-14380.Suche in Google Scholar
The SEC. 2017. “Standard Instructions for Filing Forms under the Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975: Regulation S-K.”Suche in Google Scholar
Weingarten, M., S. Roth, and L. L. P. Zabel. 2012. “2012 Shareholder Activism Insight Report.”Suche in Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D. 1998. “Board Games: How CEOs Adapt to Increases in Structural Board Independence from Management.” Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (3): 511–537.10.2307/2393674Suche in Google Scholar
Wicklund, R. A. 1974. Freedom and Reactance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Suche in Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 1984. “Corporate Governance.” Yale Law Journal 93: 1197–1230.10.2307/796256Suche in Google Scholar
Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado. 1981.Suche in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Reassessing Accountability and Sophistication of Insured in Insurance Misrepresentation: Lessons and Implications for Taiwan
- The Effect of Compensation System on the Dispute Resolution of Securities False Statement in China: A Law and Economics Analysis
- Redesigning Indonesia Copyright Act to Accommodate Autonomous Intelligent System: Status Quo and Room for Improvement
- Board Independence of Listed Companies in the US and China
- Patent Pool and Deprivatization of Patents
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Reassessing Accountability and Sophistication of Insured in Insurance Misrepresentation: Lessons and Implications for Taiwan
- The Effect of Compensation System on the Dispute Resolution of Securities False Statement in China: A Law and Economics Analysis
- Redesigning Indonesia Copyright Act to Accommodate Autonomous Intelligent System: Status Quo and Room for Improvement
- Board Independence of Listed Companies in the US and China
- Patent Pool and Deprivatization of Patents