Board monitoring and corporate disclosure: the role of the institutional environment and firm-level governance

Purpose This article aims to answer two research questions that remain controversial in the accounting and corporate governance literature: (1) how corporate disclosure is related to board monitoring and (2) how this link is affected by the institutional environment and firm-level governance. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on S&P data on corporate disclosure by Russian companies collected over 2002–2010 and supplemented by information from the SKRIN database. The dataset covers 125 non-financial companies, with 559 observations in total. We use three indicators of board monitoring: the percentage of non-executive directors, a dummy for two-tier boards, and a dummy for an audit committee. The firm’s governance is proxied by a dummy for single class stock, while the institutional environment is proxied by a dummy for ADRs/GDRs. We apply conventional methods of panel data analysis with several robustness checks, including the random- and fixed-effects models, 2SLS that addresses the potential endogeneity of board composition, alternative definitions of the dependent variable, and an extended list of controls. Findings We find a positive (complementary) relationship between the amount of disclosure and the proxies for board monitoring employed. This complementary relationship turns out to be the strongest among companies that have better internal governance but face a weaker institutional environment. There is little evidence of such complementarity under strong institutions. Practical implications The findings may be of interest to investors and policymakers. As to the former, the results warn of firms that provide limited disclosure in the presence of strong corporate governance arrangements, such as independent boards, as these factors are not substitutes for each other. As to the latter, the results support comprehensive policies aimed at simultaneous improvements in both board governance and corporate disclosure in weak institutional settings. Originality/value This paper uses a unique setting and rich, partly proprietary data to extend the existing literature on the relationship between corporate disclosure and board monitoring, with an emphasis on the moderating role of the institutional environment and firm-level governance. It is also one of the very few studies of corporate disclosure in Russia, an important emerging economy of the early 2000s.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/jaee-08-2023-0221
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.68
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Board monitoring and corporate disclosure: the role of the institutional environment and firm-level governance

Alexander Muravyev
6 citations
Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
5.68
article

Board monitoring and corporate disclosure: the role of the institutional environment and firm-level governance

Alexander Muravyev
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Purpose This article aims to answer two research questions that remain controversial in the accounting and corporate governance literature: (1) how corporate disclosure is related to board monitoring and (2) how this link is affected by the institutional environment and firm-level governance. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on S&P data on corporate disclosure by Russian companies collected over 2002–2010 and supplemented by information from the SKRIN database. The dataset covers 125 non-financial companies, with 559 observations in total. We use three indicators of board monitoring: the percentage of non-executive directors, a dummy for two-tier boards, and a dummy for an audit committee. The firm’s governance is proxied by a dummy for single class stock, while the institutional environment is proxied by a dummy for ADRs/GDRs. We apply conventional methods of panel data analysis with several robustness checks, including the random- and fixed-effects models, 2SLS that addresses the potential endogeneity of board composition, alternative definitions of the dependent variable, and an extended list of controls. Findings We find a positive (complementary) relationship between the amount of disclosure and the proxies for board monitoring employed. This complementary relationship turns out to be the strongest among companies that have better internal governance but face a weaker institutional environment. There is little evidence of such complementarity under strong institutions. Practical implications The findings may be of interest to investors and policymakers. As to the former, the results warn of firms that provide limited disclosure in the presence of strong corporate governance arrangements, such as independent boards, as these factors are not substitutes for each other. As to the latter, the results support comprehensive policies aimed at simultaneous improvements in both board governance and corporate disclosure in weak institutional settings. Originality/value This paper uses a unique setting and rich, partly proprietary data to extend the existing literature on the relationship between corporate disclosure and board monitoring, with an emphasis on the moderating role of the institutional environment and firm-level governance. It is also one of the very few studies of corporate disclosure in Russia, an important emerging economy of the early 2000s.

Journal of Accounting in Emerging EconomiesVol. 15(1)
National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU), Saint Petersburg University of Management and Economics (RU)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
5.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.