Does corporate governance influence firm performance? Evidence from India


Corporate Governance (CG) in India has undergone major transformation in the recent past with the enactment of Companies Act, 2013 and revision of SEBI’s Listing Agreement. Though some studies were undertaken in the Indian context few conventional aspects of CG have been repetitively addressed with conflicting results. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of some prominent CG attributes such as board size, board independence, role duality, board’s gender diversity, ownership concentration and audit committee independence on both market as well as accounting based measures of firm performance (FP). To this end the study uses a sample of top 100 non-financial and non-utility firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) for the period of 2014-2018 and employs two stage least square with instrumental variables technique of estimation which takes into account potential endogeneity in CG-FP relationship. The findings reveal a significant positive impact of board size, ownership concentration and audit committee independence on market based measure of FP while board independence is found to have a significant negative impact on accounting based measure of FP. Moreover role duality and gender diversity are not associated with FP. The outcome of this study highlights how the relationship between CG and FP works in the unique institutional setting of India and it should be of interest to regulators, practitioners and other market participants.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309.

  • Amar, A. B. (2014). The effect of independence audit committee on earnings management: The case in French. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 4(1), 96-102.

  • Arora, A., & Bodhanwala, S. (2018). Relationship between corporate governance index and firm performance: Indian evidence. Global Business Review, 19(3), 675-689.

  • Arora, A., & Sharma, C. (2016). Corporate governance and firm performance in developing countries: Evidence from India. Corporate Governance, 16(2), 420-436.

  • Azeez, A. A. (2015). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Finance, 3(1), 180-189.

  • Balasubramanian, N. (2013). Gender equality, inclusivity and corporate governance in India. Journal of Human Values, 19(1), 15-28.

  • Balasubramanian, N., Black, B. S., & Khanna, V. (2010). The relation between firm-level corporate governance and market value: A case study of India. Emerging Markets Review, 11(4), 319-340.

  • Berkman, O., & Zuta, D. S. (2017). The impact of audit committee size and composition on negative events in the life of a company: The case of Israel. Tel-Aviv: Academic College of Tel-Aviv.

  • Black, B. S., & Khanna, V. S. (2007). Can corporate governance reforms increase firm market values? Event study evidence from India. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 749-796.

  • Cadbury, A. (1992). The financial aspect of corporate governance. London: Gee (A Division of Professional Publishing Ltd).

  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249-265.

  • Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(5), 396-414.

  • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38(1), 33-53.

  • Chang, A., & Leng, A. (2004). The impact of corporate governance practices on firms’ financial performance. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 21(3), 1-29.

  • Denis, D. J., & Sarin, A. (1999). Ownership and board structures in publicly traded corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(2), 187-223.

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.

  • Ducassy, I., & Guyot, A. (2017). Complex ownership structures, corporate governance and firm performance: The French context. Research in International Business and Finance, 39, 291-306.

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.

  • Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107-156.

  • Goswami, O. (2002). Corporate governance in India. Taking Action Against Corruption in Asia and the Pacific, 85-106.

  • Gujarati, D. N. (2010). Essentials of econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Hermalin, B. E. & Weisbach, M. S. (1988). The determinants of board composition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(4), 589-606.

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2001). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. (Working Paper No. 8161). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 492-509.

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.

  • Jermias, J. (2007). The effects of corporate governance on the relationship between innovative efforts and performance. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 827-854.

  • Kao, M. F., Hodgkinson, L., & Jaafar, A. (2019). Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(1), 189-216.

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Emerging market business groups, foreign intermediaries, and corporate governance. In R. K. Morck (Ed.), Concentrated corporate ownership (pp. 265-294). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Klein, A. (1998). Firm performance and board committee structure. The Journal of Law and Economics, 41(1), 275-304.

  • Klein, A. (2002). Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 375-400.

  • Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A model proposal for improved corporate governance, Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59-77.

  • Letza, S., & Sun, X. (2002). Corporate governance: Paradigms, dilemmas and beyond. Poznan University Economic Review, 2(1), 43-59.

  • Mak, Y. T., & Kusnadi, Y. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(3), 301-318.

  • Mishra, R. K., & Kapil, S. (2018). Effect of board characteristics on firm value: Evidence from India. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 7(1), 41-72.

  • Mizruchi, M. S., & Stearns, L. B. (1988). A longitudinal study of the formation of interlocking directorates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 194-210.

  • Muth, M., & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure: A contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), 5-28.

  • Neter, J., Wasserman, W. & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models (2nd ed.). Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

  • Ntim, C. G. (2015). Board diversity and organizational valuation: Unravelling the effects of ethnicity and gender. Journal of Management & Governance, 19(1), 167-195.

  • Qaiser, R. Y., & Abdullah, A. M. (2016). Audit committee structure and earnings management in Asia Pacific. Economics and Business Review, 2(1), 66-84.

  • Sanan, N. K. (2016). Board gender diversity, financial and social performance of Indian firms. Vision, 20(4), 361-367.

  • Securities and Exchange Board of India [SEBI]. (2015). (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. Gazette of India Extraordinary, 3(4).

  • Sheikh, A. N., Wang, Z., & Khan, S. (2013). The impact of internal attributes of OECD on firm performance: Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 23(1), 38-55.

  • Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783.

  • Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. (2009). Business group affiliation, firm governance, and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 411-425.

  • Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & Johnson, P. (2001). Women directors on top UK boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), 206-216.

  • Tachiwou, A. M. (2016). Corporate governance and firms financial performance of listed company in the West African Monetary Union (Wamu) Regional Financial Exchange. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(8), 212-221.

  • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2010). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. CELS 2009 4th Annual Conference on Emperical Legal Studies. Retrieved from

  • Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), 185-211.

  • Zabri, S. M., Ahmad, K., & Wah, K. K. (2016). Corporate governance practices and firm performance: Evidence from top 100 public listed companies in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 287-296.


Journal + Issues