Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı

Year 2024, SBF Dergisi Erken Görünüm, 1 - 19

Elif Savaşkan

https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1145157

Abstract

Günümüzde yoğun rekabet ortamında şirketlerin uzun vadede faaliyetlerinin sürdürülebilirliği, başarılı olmaları ve şirket değerini maksimize edebilmeleri yönetim kurulu üyeleri açısından esas amaçtır. Şirketlerin kurumsal yönetim anlayışını benimsemesi daha yüksek bir şirket performansına ve refah seviyesine ulaşabilmesini ifade etmektedir. Gerçekleştirilen bu çalışma, BİST 100 endeksinde olan şirketlerin yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü ve bağımsız yönetim kurulu üye sayısını şirket performansı açısından değerlendirmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın modelinde bağımlı değişken olarak ifade edilen finansal performans ölçütleri olan karlılık oranlarından faydalanılmıştır. BİST 100 endeksinde olan şirketlerin 2010-2021 yıllarına ait verileri ile Pearson korelasyon ve regresyon analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucuna göre, yönetim kurulu üye yapısının şirket performansına yönelik ilişkisinde aktif karlılık oranı (ROA) ile negatif yönlü ve anlamlı bir ilişkisi; özsermaye karlılığı (ROE) ile ise herhangi bir anlamlı ilişki olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılırken, yönetim kurulu üye yapısının şirket performansına yönelik etkisinde aktif karlılık oranı (ROA) üzerinde negatif yönlü ve anlamlı bir etkisi olduğu; özsermaye karlılığı (ROE) üzerinde ise bir etkisi olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

BİST 100 KURUMSAL YÖNETİM KARLILIK ORANLARI YÖNETİM KURULU ÜYE SAYISI BAĞIMSIZ YÖNETİM KURULU ÜYE SAYISI

References

  • 6102 sayılı Yeni Türk Ticaret Kanunu, madde 359.
  • Adams, R.B. ve Mehran, H. (2005). “Corporate Performance, Board Structure and its Determinants in the Banking Industry”, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Anderson, R.C.ve Reeb, D.M. (2004). “Board Composition: Balancing Family Influence in S&P Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 209-237.
  • Ararat, M., Aksu, M. ve Çetin, A.T. (2010). Impact of board diversity on boards's monitoring intensity and firm performance: Evidence from the Istanbul stock exchange. 17th Annual Conference of The Multinational Finance Society, New Jersey: Multinational Finance Society, 1-33.
  • Ararat, M., Orbay, H. ve Yurtoğlu, B. (2010). “The Effects Of Board Independence In Controlled Firms: Evidence from Turkey”, Working Paper.
  • Arslan, Ö., M.B. Karan ve C. Ekşi (2010). Board structure and corporate performance. Managing Global Transitions. 8(1), 3-22.
  • Aygün, M., S. İç ve C. Sayın (2011). Yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünü belirleyen faktörler ve yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü ile firma performansı arasındaki ilişki: türk sermaye piyasası üzerine bir inceleme. Gaziantep Üniversitesin Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 10(1), 77-92.
  • Bahng, J.S. (2002). Nonlinear Effects of Insider Ownership on Corporate Value: Korean Evidence. Working Paper Series. (Erişim Adresi: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=438362) (Erişim Tarihi:05.04.2022).
  • Baraz, B. (2004). Yönetim kurullarının kurumsal yönetişim açısından kritik önemi: Eskişehir’de bir araştırma. 3.Ulusal Bilgi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Kongresi Bildirileri, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 763-771.
  • Barnhart, S. W. ve Roseinstein, S., (1998). “Board Composition, Managerial Ownership, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis”, The Financial Review, 33, 1-16.
  • Bauer, R., Günster, N. ve Otten, R. (2003). Empirical evidence on corporate governance in Europe. Journal of Asset Management, 1-24.
  • Bauer, R., Frijns, B., Otten, R. and Tourani-Rad, A. (2008). The Impact of Corporate Governance on Corporate Performance: Evidence from Japan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16(3), 236-251.
  • Baysinger, B.D. ve H.N. Butler. (1985). Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 1.1, 101-124.
  • Ben, P.J. (2014). “Corporate Governance Index and Firm Performance”. Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, 9(3), 33–44.
  • Bino, A. ve Tomar, S. (2012). Corporate governance and bank performance: Evidence from Jordanian banking industry. Journal of Business Administration, 8 (2), 353-372.
  • Black, B. Jang, H. ve Kim, W. (2003). Does corporate governance predict firms' market values?
  • Boone, A.L., Field, L.C., Karpoff, J.M. ve Raheja, C.G. (2007). “The determinants of corporate board size and composition: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 66– 101.
  • Borsa İstanbul BİST (2022). (Erişim Adresi: www.borsaistanbul.com) (Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2022).
  • Charles, P.O. (2001). Corporate Governance and National Development. OECD Technical Papers.180, 1-47.
  • Chen, C.J.P. ve Jaggi, B. (2000). Association between independent nonexecutive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, 285-310.
  • Cheng, S. (2006). Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics (JFE). (Erişim Adresi: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009241) (Erişim Tarihi:05.04.2022).
  • Cheng, S. (2008). Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 157-176.
  • Claessens, B. ve Yurtoglu, B. (2013). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A survey. Emerging Markets Review, 15, 1–33.
  • Carver, J. ve Oliver C. (2002). Corporate boards that create value: governing company peformance from the boardroom. Jossey-Bass, First Edition, USA.
  • Coleman, A.K. ve N. Biekpe (2007). The relationship between board size, board composition, ceo duality and firm performance: Experience from Ghana. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4, 114-122.
  • Dalton, D.R., Daily C.M., Ellstrand A.E. ve Johnson J.L. (1998), “Meta- Analytic Reviews of Board Composition, Leadership Structure, And Financial Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269-290.
  • Doğan, M. ve Yıldız, F. (2013). The Impact of the board of directors’ size on the bank’s performance: Evidence from Turkey. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(6), 130- 140. Dwivedi, N. ve Jain, A.K. (2005). Corporate governance and performance of ındian firms: The effect of board size and ownership. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17, 161-172.
  • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S. ve Wells, M. T. (1998), “Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms” Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35-54.
  • Ekşi, C. (2009). “Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliği ve Şirket Performansı: Türk Firmaları için Bulgular. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Ertuğrul, M. ve Hedge, S. (2009). “Corporate Governance Ratings and Firm Performance”. Financial Management, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Spring, 2009), pp. 139- 160.
  • Farinha, J. (2003). “Dividend Policy, Corporate Governance and the Managerial Entrenchement Hypothesis: An Emprical Analysis”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(9) & (10), Nov./Dec: 1173-1209.
  • Forbes, D.P. ve F.J. Milliken. (1999). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors As Strategic Decision-Making Groups. Academy of Management Review. 24(3), 489-505.
  • Gaudin, J.P. (1998). “Modern Governance, Yesterday and Today: Some Clarifications to be Gained from French Government Policies”, International Social Science Journal, 155, 47- 57.
  • Guest. P.M. (2008), “The determinants of board size and composition: Evidence from the UK”, Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 51–72.
  • Güdük, A. (2012). Relationship between the corporate board structure and performance: A research on the Turkish banking industry. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Gürbüz, A.O., Aybars, A. ve Kutlu, O. (2010). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance with a Perspective on Institutional Ownership: Empirical Evidence from Turkey”. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 8, 21-38.
  • Hermalin, B.E. ve Weisbach, M.S. (2003). “Boards of Directors as an Endogenously- Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Evidence” (with Benjamin E. Hermalin), Economic Policy Review, Vol. 9, Nr 1 (April 2003), pp.7-26.
  • Işık, Y. ve Saygılı, S. (2006). Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi Performans İlişkisi ve Gelime Perspektifi, Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi. Ankara: SPK Yayınları.
  • Jensen, M.C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.
  • Kara, E., Acar Erdur, D. ve Karabıyık, L. (2015). “Effects of Corporate Governance Level on The Financial Performance of Companies: A Research on BIST Corporate Governance Index (XKURY)”. Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 15(2), pp. 265-274.
  • Kamuyu Aydınlatma Platformu KAP (2022). (Erişim Adresi:www.kapo.org.tr) (Erişim Tarihi:03.03.2022).
  • Kılıç, M. (2014), “Yönetim Kurulu Yapısının İşletme Performansına Etkisi: Türkiye’de Bir Uygulama”, Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, Cilt: 16, say: 3, Ankara, ss. 33 – 56.
  • Koçel, T. (2003). İşletme yöneticiliği, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
  • Kula, V. (2005). “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 265-276.
  • Löffler, E. (2003). Governance and Government Networking With External Stakeholders. Tony Bovaird and Elke Löffler (Ed.) Public Management and Governance, London: Routledge.
  • Mak, Y.T. ve Li, Y. (2001). “Determinants of corporate ownership and board structure: evidence from Singapore”. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 235-256.
  • Mehran, H., Morrison, A. and Shapiro, J., (2012). Corporate Governance and Banks: What Have We Learned from the Financial Crisis? Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 502.
  • Millstein, I. M., Albert, M., Canbury, S. A., Denham, R. D., Feddersen, D. ve Tateisi, N. (1998). Corporate Governance: Improving Competitiveness and Access to Capital in Global Markets. A Report to The OECD By Business Sector Advisory Group on Corporate Governance. OECD Publishing, France, pp.18-25.
  • Morck, R.K. (2007). A history of corporate governance around the world: Family business groups to professional managers. A national bureau of economic research conference report, 1.b. Chicago: The university of Chicago Press, 4.
  • OECD. (2004). “Principles of Corporate Governance”. Report.
  • OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • Oktaviani, E., Karyawati, G. ve Arsyad, N. (2014). Factors Affecting Financial Statement Fraud: Fraud Triangle Approach. 3rd Economics dan Business Research Festival, pp.1939-1955.
  • Oman, C.P. (2001). Corporate Governance and National Development. Paris, OECD Publishing.
  • Oso, L. ve Semiu, B. (2012). The Concept and Practice of Corporate Governance in Nigeria:The Need for Public Relations and Effective Corporate Communication. Journal of Communication, 3(1), 1-16.
  • Owala, A.C. (2010). Corporate governance and stock returns:evıdence from the S&P 500. Master’s Thesis. VAASA.
  • Pathan, S. ve Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking and Finance, 37 (5), 1573-1589.
  • Pearce, J.A. ve Zahra, S.A. (1992). Board Composition From a Strategic Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Studies. 29(4), 411-438.
  • Rachdi, H. ve Ben Ameur, I.G. (2011). Board characteristics, performance and risk taking behaviour in Tunisian banks. International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (6), 88-97.
  • Ranti, U.O. (2011). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance of Banks: A Study of Listed Banks in Nigeria. (Erişim Adresi:https://www.academia.edu/29350735) (Erişim Tarihi:27.04.2022).
  • Romano, G., Ferretti, P. ve Rigolini, A. (2012). Corporate Governance and Performance in Italian Banking Groups. International Conference Corporate Governance and Regulation: Outlining New Horizons for Theory and Practice, 1-35.
  • Rowe, W., Shi, W. ve Wang, C. (2011). Board governance and performance of Chinese banks. Banks and Bank Systems, 6 (1), 26-40.
  • Salleha, S.M. ve Othmanbk, R. (2016). Board of Director’s Attributes as Deterrence to Corporate Fraud. Procedia Economics and Finance. 35:82-91. Sarıaslan, H. ve Erol, C. (2008). Finansal yönetim kavramlar, kurumlar ve ilkeler. Ankara:Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Savaşkan, E. (2020). Yönetim Kurulunda Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliğine Yönelik Olarak Bİst 100'de Yer Alan İmalat Sanayii Firmalarının Finansal Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 41-48.
  • Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu (SPK). (2005). İMKB şirketleri tarafından 2005 yılında yayınlanan kurumsal yönetim uyum raporlarına ilişkin genel değerlendirme. Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu.
  • Shakir, R. (2008). Board size, board composition and property firm performance. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 14, 1-16.
  • Short, H. and Keasey, K. (1999). Managerial ownership and the performance of firms: evidence from the UK, Journal of Corporate Finance, 5, 79-101.
  • Sulong, Z. ve. Nor F.M. (2010). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm valuation in malaysian listed firms: a panel data analysis. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 6(1), 1-18.
  • Sunday, O.K. (2008). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: The Case of Nigerian Listed Firms. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences,
  • Van Den Berghe, L. (2002). Corporate governance in a globalising World: Convergence or divergence? Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1450-2275.
  • Velnampy, T. (2013). Corporate governance and firm performance: A study of Sri Lankan manufacturing companies. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4 (3), 228-236.
  • Ülgen, H. ve Mirza, S.K. (2004). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. (3.Baskı). İstanbul: Literatür Yayınevi.
  • Ülgen H. ve Mirza, S.K. (2007). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. (4.Baskı). İstanbul: Literatür Yayınevi. Tabachnick, B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Tanna, S., Pasiouras, F. ve Nnadi, M. (2011). The effect of board size on the efficiency of UK banks, economics. Finance and Accounting Applied Research Working Paper Series, (Erişim Adresi:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092252) (Erişim Tarihi:18.03.2022).
  • TÜSİAD (2002). Kurumsal Yönetim En İyi Uygulama Kodu: Yönetim Kurulunun Yapısı ve İşleyişi (Tüsiad-T/2002–12/336). İstanbul: TÜSİAD.
  • TÜSİAD (2005). Sermaye piyasaları için örnek şirket yapısı. (Erişim Adresi: http://www.tusiad.org.tr/__rsc/shared/file/sermaye.pdf) (Erişim Tarihi: 03.04.2022).
  • Yermack D. (1996), “Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors”, Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.
  • Zulkafli, A.H. ve Samad, F.A. (2007). Corporate governance and performance of banking firms: Evidence from Asian emerging markets. Advances in Financial Economics, 12, 49-74.
  • Westham, H. (2009). Corporate Governance in European Banks. (Erişim Adresi:https://helda.helsinki.fi/) (Erişim Tarihi:27.04.2022).
  • World Bank. (2010). Corporate governance manual:second edition. Hanoi: World Bank.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF BOARD MEMBER STRUCTURE AND COMPANY PERFORMANCE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON BIST 100

Year 2024, SBF Dergisi Erken Görünüm, 1 - 19

Elif Savaşkan

https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1145157

Abstract

In today's intense competitive environment, the main goal for the members of the board of directors is the sustainability of the long-term activities of the companies, their success and maximizing the company's value. Adoption of corporate governance approach by companies means that they can reach a higher company performance and welfare level. This study aims to evaluate the size of the board of directors and the number of independent board members of companies in the BIST 100 index in terms of company performance. In the model of the study, profitability ratios, which are financial performance criteria, which are expressed as dependent variables, were used. Pearson correlation and regression analysis was performed with the data of the companies in the BIST 100 index for the years 2010-2021. According to the results of the study, there is a negative and significant relationship between the return on assets ratio (ROA) in the relationship between the structure of the board of directors and the performance of the company; While it was concluded that there was no significant relationship with return on equity (ROE), the effect of board member structure on company performance had a negative and significant effect on return on assets (ROA); It was concluded that there was no effect on return on equity (ROE).

Keywords

BIST 100 Corporate Governance Profitability Rates Number of Board Members Independent Board Members

References

  • 6102 sayılı Yeni Türk Ticaret Kanunu, madde 359.
  • Adams, R.B. ve Mehran, H. (2005). “Corporate Performance, Board Structure and its Determinants in the Banking Industry”, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  • Anderson, R.C.ve Reeb, D.M. (2004). “Board Composition: Balancing Family Influence in S&P Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 209-237.
  • Ararat, M., Aksu, M. ve Çetin, A.T. (2010). Impact of board diversity on boards's monitoring intensity and firm performance: Evidence from the Istanbul stock exchange. 17th Annual Conference of The Multinational Finance Society, New Jersey: Multinational Finance Society, 1-33.
  • Ararat, M., Orbay, H. ve Yurtoğlu, B. (2010). “The Effects Of Board Independence In Controlled Firms: Evidence from Turkey”, Working Paper.
  • Arslan, Ö., M.B. Karan ve C. Ekşi (2010). Board structure and corporate performance. Managing Global Transitions. 8(1), 3-22.
  • Aygün, M., S. İç ve C. Sayın (2011). Yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünü belirleyen faktörler ve yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü ile firma performansı arasındaki ilişki: türk sermaye piyasası üzerine bir inceleme. Gaziantep Üniversitesin Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 10(1), 77-92.
  • Bahng, J.S. (2002). Nonlinear Effects of Insider Ownership on Corporate Value: Korean Evidence. Working Paper Series. (Erişim Adresi: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=438362) (Erişim Tarihi:05.04.2022).
  • Baraz, B. (2004). Yönetim kurullarının kurumsal yönetişim açısından kritik önemi: Eskişehir’de bir araştırma. 3.Ulusal Bilgi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Kongresi Bildirileri, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 763-771.
  • Barnhart, S. W. ve Roseinstein, S., (1998). “Board Composition, Managerial Ownership, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis”, The Financial Review, 33, 1-16.
  • Bauer, R., Günster, N. ve Otten, R. (2003). Empirical evidence on corporate governance in Europe. Journal of Asset Management, 1-24.
  • Bauer, R., Frijns, B., Otten, R. and Tourani-Rad, A. (2008). The Impact of Corporate Governance on Corporate Performance: Evidence from Japan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16(3), 236-251.
  • Baysinger, B.D. ve H.N. Butler. (1985). Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 1.1, 101-124.
  • Ben, P.J. (2014). “Corporate Governance Index and Firm Performance”. Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, 9(3), 33–44.
  • Bino, A. ve Tomar, S. (2012). Corporate governance and bank performance: Evidence from Jordanian banking industry. Journal of Business Administration, 8 (2), 353-372.
  • Black, B. Jang, H. ve Kim, W. (2003). Does corporate governance predict firms' market values?
  • Boone, A.L., Field, L.C., Karpoff, J.M. ve Raheja, C.G. (2007). “The determinants of corporate board size and composition: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 66– 101.
  • Borsa İstanbul BİST (2022). (Erişim Adresi: www.borsaistanbul.com) (Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2022).
  • Charles, P.O. (2001). Corporate Governance and National Development. OECD Technical Papers.180, 1-47.
  • Chen, C.J.P. ve Jaggi, B. (2000). Association between independent nonexecutive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, 285-310.
  • Cheng, S. (2006). Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics (JFE). (Erişim Adresi: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009241) (Erişim Tarihi:05.04.2022).
  • Cheng, S. (2008). Board size and the variability of corporate performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 157-176.
  • Claessens, B. ve Yurtoglu, B. (2013). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A survey. Emerging Markets Review, 15, 1–33.
  • Carver, J. ve Oliver C. (2002). Corporate boards that create value: governing company peformance from the boardroom. Jossey-Bass, First Edition, USA.
  • Coleman, A.K. ve N. Biekpe (2007). The relationship between board size, board composition, ceo duality and firm performance: Experience from Ghana. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4, 114-122.
  • Dalton, D.R., Daily C.M., Ellstrand A.E. ve Johnson J.L. (1998), “Meta- Analytic Reviews of Board Composition, Leadership Structure, And Financial Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269-290.
  • Doğan, M. ve Yıldız, F. (2013). The Impact of the board of directors’ size on the bank’s performance: Evidence from Turkey. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(6), 130- 140. Dwivedi, N. ve Jain, A.K. (2005). Corporate governance and performance of ındian firms: The effect of board size and ownership. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17, 161-172.
  • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S. ve Wells, M. T. (1998), “Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms” Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35-54.
  • Ekşi, C. (2009). “Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliği ve Şirket Performansı: Türk Firmaları için Bulgular. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Ertuğrul, M. ve Hedge, S. (2009). “Corporate Governance Ratings and Firm Performance”. Financial Management, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Spring, 2009), pp. 139- 160.
  • Farinha, J. (2003). “Dividend Policy, Corporate Governance and the Managerial Entrenchement Hypothesis: An Emprical Analysis”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(9) & (10), Nov./Dec: 1173-1209.
  • Forbes, D.P. ve F.J. Milliken. (1999). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors As Strategic Decision-Making Groups. Academy of Management Review. 24(3), 489-505.
  • Gaudin, J.P. (1998). “Modern Governance, Yesterday and Today: Some Clarifications to be Gained from French Government Policies”, International Social Science Journal, 155, 47- 57.
  • Guest. P.M. (2008), “The determinants of board size and composition: Evidence from the UK”, Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 51–72.
  • Güdük, A. (2012). Relationship between the corporate board structure and performance: A research on the Turkish banking industry. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Gürbüz, A.O., Aybars, A. ve Kutlu, O. (2010). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance with a Perspective on Institutional Ownership: Empirical Evidence from Turkey”. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 8, 21-38.
  • Hermalin, B.E. ve Weisbach, M.S. (2003). “Boards of Directors as an Endogenously- Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Evidence” (with Benjamin E. Hermalin), Economic Policy Review, Vol. 9, Nr 1 (April 2003), pp.7-26.
  • Işık, Y. ve Saygılı, S. (2006). Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi Performans İlişkisi ve Gelime Perspektifi, Kurumsal Şirket Yönetimi. Ankara: SPK Yayınları.
  • Jensen, M.C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880.
  • Kara, E., Acar Erdur, D. ve Karabıyık, L. (2015). “Effects of Corporate Governance Level on The Financial Performance of Companies: A Research on BIST Corporate Governance Index (XKURY)”. Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 15(2), pp. 265-274.
  • Kamuyu Aydınlatma Platformu KAP (2022). (Erişim Adresi:www.kapo.org.tr) (Erişim Tarihi:03.03.2022).
  • Kılıç, M. (2014), “Yönetim Kurulu Yapısının İşletme Performansına Etkisi: Türkiye’de Bir Uygulama”, Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, Cilt: 16, say: 3, Ankara, ss. 33 – 56.
  • Koçel, T. (2003). İşletme yöneticiliği, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
  • Kula, V. (2005). “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 265-276.
  • Löffler, E. (2003). Governance and Government Networking With External Stakeholders. Tony Bovaird and Elke Löffler (Ed.) Public Management and Governance, London: Routledge.
  • Mak, Y.T. ve Li, Y. (2001). “Determinants of corporate ownership and board structure: evidence from Singapore”. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 235-256.
  • Mehran, H., Morrison, A. and Shapiro, J., (2012). Corporate Governance and Banks: What Have We Learned from the Financial Crisis? Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 502.
  • Millstein, I. M., Albert, M., Canbury, S. A., Denham, R. D., Feddersen, D. ve Tateisi, N. (1998). Corporate Governance: Improving Competitiveness and Access to Capital in Global Markets. A Report to The OECD By Business Sector Advisory Group on Corporate Governance. OECD Publishing, France, pp.18-25.
  • Morck, R.K. (2007). A history of corporate governance around the world: Family business groups to professional managers. A national bureau of economic research conference report, 1.b. Chicago: The university of Chicago Press, 4.
  • OECD. (2004). “Principles of Corporate Governance”. Report.
  • OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • Oktaviani, E., Karyawati, G. ve Arsyad, N. (2014). Factors Affecting Financial Statement Fraud: Fraud Triangle Approach. 3rd Economics dan Business Research Festival, pp.1939-1955.
  • Oman, C.P. (2001). Corporate Governance and National Development. Paris, OECD Publishing.
  • Oso, L. ve Semiu, B. (2012). The Concept and Practice of Corporate Governance in Nigeria:The Need for Public Relations and Effective Corporate Communication. Journal of Communication, 3(1), 1-16.
  • Owala, A.C. (2010). Corporate governance and stock returns:evıdence from the S&P 500. Master’s Thesis. VAASA.
  • Pathan, S. ve Faff, R. (2013). Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking and Finance, 37 (5), 1573-1589.
  • Pearce, J.A. ve Zahra, S.A. (1992). Board Composition From a Strategic Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Studies. 29(4), 411-438.
  • Rachdi, H. ve Ben Ameur, I.G. (2011). Board characteristics, performance and risk taking behaviour in Tunisian banks. International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (6), 88-97.
  • Ranti, U.O. (2011). Corporate Governance and Financial Performance of Banks: A Study of Listed Banks in Nigeria. (Erişim Adresi:https://www.academia.edu/29350735) (Erişim Tarihi:27.04.2022).
  • Romano, G., Ferretti, P. ve Rigolini, A. (2012). Corporate Governance and Performance in Italian Banking Groups. International Conference Corporate Governance and Regulation: Outlining New Horizons for Theory and Practice, 1-35.
  • Rowe, W., Shi, W. ve Wang, C. (2011). Board governance and performance of Chinese banks. Banks and Bank Systems, 6 (1), 26-40.
  • Salleha, S.M. ve Othmanbk, R. (2016). Board of Director’s Attributes as Deterrence to Corporate Fraud. Procedia Economics and Finance. 35:82-91. Sarıaslan, H. ve Erol, C. (2008). Finansal yönetim kavramlar, kurumlar ve ilkeler. Ankara:Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Savaşkan, E. (2020). Yönetim Kurulunda Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliğine Yönelik Olarak Bİst 100'de Yer Alan İmalat Sanayii Firmalarının Finansal Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 41-48.
  • Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu (SPK). (2005). İMKB şirketleri tarafından 2005 yılında yayınlanan kurumsal yönetim uyum raporlarına ilişkin genel değerlendirme. Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu.
  • Shakir, R. (2008). Board size, board composition and property firm performance. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 14, 1-16.
  • Short, H. and Keasey, K. (1999). Managerial ownership and the performance of firms: evidence from the UK, Journal of Corporate Finance, 5, 79-101.
  • Sulong, Z. ve. Nor F.M. (2010). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm valuation in malaysian listed firms: a panel data analysis. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 6(1), 1-18.
  • Sunday, O.K. (2008). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: The Case of Nigerian Listed Firms. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences,
  • Van Den Berghe, L. (2002). Corporate governance in a globalising World: Convergence or divergence? Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1450-2275.
  • Velnampy, T. (2013). Corporate governance and firm performance: A study of Sri Lankan manufacturing companies. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4 (3), 228-236.
  • Ülgen, H. ve Mirza, S.K. (2004). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. (3.Baskı). İstanbul: Literatür Yayınevi.
  • Ülgen H. ve Mirza, S.K. (2007). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. (4.Baskı). İstanbul: Literatür Yayınevi. Tabachnick, B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Tanna, S., Pasiouras, F. ve Nnadi, M. (2011). The effect of board size on the efficiency of UK banks, economics. Finance and Accounting Applied Research Working Paper Series, (Erişim Adresi:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092252) (Erişim Tarihi:18.03.2022).
  • TÜSİAD (2002). Kurumsal Yönetim En İyi Uygulama Kodu: Yönetim Kurulunun Yapısı ve İşleyişi (Tüsiad-T/2002–12/336). İstanbul: TÜSİAD.
  • TÜSİAD (2005). Sermaye piyasaları için örnek şirket yapısı. (Erişim Adresi: http://www.tusiad.org.tr/__rsc/shared/file/sermaye.pdf) (Erişim Tarihi: 03.04.2022).
  • Yermack D. (1996), “Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors”, Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.
  • Zulkafli, A.H. ve Samad, F.A. (2007). Corporate governance and performance of banking firms: Evidence from Asian emerging markets. Advances in Financial Economics, 12, 49-74.
  • Westham, H. (2009). Corporate Governance in European Banks. (Erişim Adresi:https://helda.helsinki.fi/) (Erişim Tarihi:27.04.2022).
  • World Bank. (2010). Corporate governance manual:second edition. Hanoi: World Bank.
There are 79 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Finance
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Elif Savaşkan 0000-0001-9913-3361

Early Pub Date January 18, 2024
Publication Date
Submission Date July 18, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2024 SBF Dergisi Erken Görünüm

Cite

APA Savaşkan, E. (2024). Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi1-19. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1145157
AMA Savaşkan E. Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı. SBF Dergisi. Published online January 1, 2024:1-19. doi:10.33630/ausbf.1145157
Chicago Savaşkan, Elif. “Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı”. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, January (January 2024), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1145157.
EndNote Savaşkan E (January 1, 2024) Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 1–19.
IEEE E. Savaşkan, “Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı”, SBF Dergisi, pp. 1–19, January 2024, doi: 10.33630/ausbf.1145157.
ISNAD Savaşkan, Elif. “Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı”. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. January 2024. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1145157.
JAMA Savaşkan E. Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı. SBF Dergisi. 2024;:1–19.
MLA Savaşkan, Elif. “Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı”. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 2024, pp. 1-19, doi:10.33630/ausbf.1145157.
Vancouver Savaşkan E. Yönetim Kurulu Üye Yapısının Şirket Performansıyla İlişkisi: BİST 100’e İlişkin Ampirik Kanıtı. SBF Dergisi. 2024:1-19.