ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The Government-Linked Companies Transformation (GLCT) Programme was introduced in 2005 as the Malaysia Government efforts to improve the performance of government-linked companies (GLCs) under its control. One of the main policy thrusts in this framework is the need to upgrade the effectiveness of GLCs boards which led to the launching of the Green Book on April 2006. Focusing on the Green Book structuring high-performing board guidelines, this study tries to examine whether compliance to its recommended board characteristics of size, independence and remuneration has any effect on GLCs performance. Thus, GLCs financial performance for three years before (2004, 2005 and 2006) and three years after (2007, 2008 and 2009) the guidelines became mandatory effective on 1 January 2007 are analyzed and compared. The results show that the Green Book is a successful tool to increase board effectiveness in its monitoring function. However, compliance to board characteristics of size, independence and remuneration do not affect GLCs performance. Thus, it can be concluded that the influence of the Green Book as corporate governance factor is insufficient to explain the variations in GLCs performance.
Abdullah, S.N. (2004). Board Composition, CEO Duality and Performance among Malaysian Listed Companies. Corporate Governance, 4 (4): 47-61.
Adam, R. B., and Mehran, H. (2003). Is Corporate Governance Different for Bank Holding Companies? Economic Policy Review – Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 9 (1): 123–142.
Ahmad, R., Aliahmed, H.J. and Ab Razak, N.H., (2008). Government Ownership and Performance: An Analysis of Listed Companies in Malaysia. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1252072 downloaded on 2 March 2010 .
Barnhart, S. W. and Roseinstein, S. (1998). Board Composition, Managerial Ownership, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis. The Financial Review, 33: 1-16.
Bathula, H. (2008). Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence from New Zealand, PhD Thesis, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
Bhagat, S. and Black, B.S., (2001) The Non-Correlation between Board Independence and Long-Term Firm Performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27: 231-273.
Bozec, R. and Dia, M. (2007). Board Structure and Firm Technical Efficiency: Evidence from Canadian State-Owned Enterprises. European Journal of Operational Research, 177 (3): 1734-1750.
Cheng, S. (2008). Board Size and the Variability of Corporate Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (1): 157-176
Cole, J.L., Daniel, N.D. and Naveen, L. (2007). Boards: Does One Size Fit All?. Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (2): 329-356
Fama, E. and Jensen, M.C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–326.
Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2009). The Effectiveness of Corporate Governance: Board Structure and Business Technical Efficiency in Spain. Central European Journal of Operations Research, Physica Verlag, An Imprint of Springer-Verlag GmbH.
Guest. P.M. (2008). The Determinants of Board Size and Composition: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(1): 51–72
Hermalin, B and Weisbach, M. (2003). Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Policy Review, 9(1): 7–26.
Jensen, M. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3): 831-880.
Kiel, G.C. and Nicholson, G.J. (2003). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance, Corporate Governance, 11(3): 189–205.
Lin, Y. and Xiao, H. (2009). Research on the Correlation between Characteristics of Board System and Firm Performance in China: The Comparison between State and Non-State Listed Companies. Asian Social Science, 3(5): 93-100.
Mak, Y.T. and Kusnadi, Y. (2004). Size really matters: Further Evidence on the Negative Relationship between Board Size and Firm Value, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13 (3): 301-318.
Ministry of Finance (2007). Economic Report 2007/2008, Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Panasian, C., Prevost, A.K. and Bhabra, H.S., (2003). Board Composition and Firm Performance: The Case of the Dey Report and Publicly Listed Canadian Firms. Working Paper, Department of Finance, Montreal University.
Ramdani, D. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2009). Board Independence, CEO Duality and Firm Performance: A Quantile Regression Analysis for Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. Research Paper, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp.
Shakir, R. (2008). "Board size, executive directors and property firm performance in Malaysia." Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 14(1): 66-80.
Van Den Berghe, L. and De Ridder, L. (1999). International Standardisation of Good Corporate Governance Best Practice for the Board of Directors, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Yermack, D. (1996). Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40 (2): 185-211.
In-Text Citation: (Rahman & Razali, 2019)
To Cite this Article: Rahman, N. A., & Razali, M. W. M. (2019). Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Malaysia’s Government-Linked Companies (GLCS) Compliance to Green Book. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(1), 174–190.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode