Networks of directors on Russian boards: The hidden part of the corporate governance iceberg
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2020.102Abstract
In this paper we apply social network analysis to study the boards of directors of 107 large listed Russian firms between 2009 and 2014. Traditional corporate governance metrics, such as demographic characteristics, experience or multiple directorships, confirm a previously established positive trend towards greater independence and better qualification of the boards of Russian firms. We also find a decrease in the centrality of directors, which corroborates the diminishing concentration of power of some directors. The most connected firms have a specific profile since they are larger, have lower market valuations, and stronger ties with government (both due to higher proportions of government owned shares and a greater number of directors who are former politicians). Our findings also demonstrate that the boards of financial
institutions are less connected, whereas political and independent directors are more centralized.
Keywords:
boards of directors, corporate governance, social networks, Russia
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
REFERENCES
Adams R. B., Hermalin B. E., Weisbach M. S. 2010. The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: A conceptual framework and survey. Journal of Economic Literature 48 (1): 58–107.
Andres C., van den Bongard I., Lehmann M. 2013. Is busy really busy? Board governance revisited. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 40 (9–10): 1221–1246.
Barnea A., Guedj I. 2007. Sympathetic boards: director networks and firm governance. European Finance Association Conference. Ljubljana.
Blanco-Alcántara D., Díez-Esteban J. M., Romero-Merino M. E. 2019. Board networks as a source of intellectual capital for companies: Empirical evidence from a panel of Spanish firms. Management Decision 57 (10): 2653–2671.
Böhler D., Rapp M. S., Wolff M. 2010. Director Networks, Firm Performance, and Shareholder Base. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1691241
Bohman L. 2012. Bringing the owners back in: An analysis of a 3-mode interlock network. Social Networks 34 (2): 275–287.
Bonacich P. 1972. Factoring and Weighting Approaches to Status Scores and Clique Identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2: 113–120.
Cárdenas J.-C. 2015. Are Latin America’s corporate elites transnationally interconnected? A network analysis of interlocking directorates. Global Networks 15 (4): 424–445.
Comet C., Pizarro N. 2011. The cohesion of intercorporate networks in France. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 10: 52–61.
Core J. E., Holthausen R. W., Larcker D. F. 1999. Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics 51 (3): 371–406.
Chan A. L.-C., Lee E., Petaibanlue J., Tan N. 2017. Do board interlocks motivate voluntary disclosure? Evidence from Taiwan. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 48: 441–466.
Chen G., Wang X., Li X. 2015. Fundamentals of Complex Networks: Models, Structures and Dynamics. Wiley.
Chen H.-L., Hsu W.-T., Chang C.-Y. 2016. Independent directors’ human and social capital, firm internationalization and performance implications: An integrated agency-resource dependence view. International Business Review 25 (4): 859–871.
Chuluun T., Prevost A., Puthenpurackal J. 2014. Board ties and the cost of corporate debt. Financial Management 43 (3): 533–568.
De B. 2012. Incidence and Performance Effects of Interlocking Directorates in Emerging Market Business Groups: Evidence from India. Working paper. IGIDR.
Devos E., Prevost A., Puthenpurackal J. 2009. Are interlocked directors effective monitors? Financial Management 48: 861–887.
Dolgopyatova T. 2003. Ownership and corporate control structures as viewed by statistics and surveys. Russian Economic Barometer 12 (3): 12–20.
Durbach I. N., Parker H. 2009. An analysis of corporate board networks in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management 40 (2): 15–26.
Enikolopov R., Stepanov S. 2013. Corporate governance in Russia. In: Alexeev M., Weber S. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Russian Economy. Oxford University Press: N.Y.
Fich E. M., Shivdasani A. 2006. Are busy boards effective monitors? Journal of Finance 61 (2): 689–724.
Fich E. M., White L. J. 2005. Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other’s boards? Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (1–2): 175–195.
Freeman L. C. 1978. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1 (3): 215–239.
Frye T. M., Iwasaki I. 2011. Government directors and business–state relations in Russia. European Journal of Political Economy 27 (4): 642–658.
Goriaev A., Zabotkin A. 2006. Risks of investing in the Russian stock market: Lessons of the first decade. Emerging Markets Review 7 (4): 380–397.
Granovetter M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.
Guriev S., Rachinsky A. 2005. The role of oligarchs in Russian capitalism. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (1): 131–150.
Hayden F. G., Garner A. D., Hoffman J. 2013. Corporate, social, and political networks of Koch Industries Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation: Extension to the State of Nebraska. Journal of Economic Issues 47 (1): 63–94.
Horton J., Millo Y., Serafeim G. 2012. Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 39 (3–4): 399–426.
Iwasaki I. 2008. The determinants of board composition in a transforming economy: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Corporate Finance 14 (5): 532–549.
Iwasaki I. 2013. Firm-level determinants of board system choice: Evidence from Russia. Comparative Economic Studies 55 (4): 636–671.
Iwasaki I. 2014. Global financial crisis, corporate governance, and firm survival: The Russian experience. Journal of Comparative Economics 42 (1): 178–211.
Kawai N., Ko J.-H. 2012. The dark sides of institutionalized informal connections: Evidence from the Japanese banking sector in the post-bubble crisis era. International Journal of Business 17 (3): 238–257.
Kim Y. 2005. Board network characteristics and firm performance in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review 13 (6): 800–808.
Lai J.-H., Chen L.-Y., Song S. 2019. How outside directors’ human and social capital create value for corporate international investments. Journal of World Business 54 (2): 93–106.
Larcker D. F., So E. C., Wang C. C. Y. 2013. Boardroom centrality and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics 55 (2): 225–250.
Lazareva O., Rachinsky A., Stepanov S. 2008. A survey of corporate governance in Russia. In: McGee R. W. (ed.). Corporate Governance in Transition Economies. Springer: N.Y.
Li C., Li Q., Van Mieghem P., Stanley H. E., Wang H. 2015. Correlation between centrality metrics and their application to the opinion model. The European Physical Journal B 88 (3): 1–13.
Madhani P. M. 2017. Diverse roles of corporate board: Review of various corporate governance theories. The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance 16 (2): 7–28.
Mendes-Da-Silva W. 2011. Small worlds and board interlocking in Brazil: A longitudinal study of corporate networks, 1997–2007. Brazilian Finance Review 9 (4): 465–492.
Michailova S., Worm V. 2003. Personal networking in Russia and China: Blat and Guanxi. European Management Journal 21 (4): 509–519.
Muravyev A. 2017. Boards of directors in Russian publicly traded companies in 1998–2014: Structure, dynamics and performance effects. Economic Systems 41 (1): 5–25.
Muravyev A., Berezinets I., Ilina Y. 2014. The structure of corporate boards and private benefits of control: Evidence from the Russian stock exchange. International Review of Financial Analysis 34: 247–261.
Pfeffer J., Salancik G. R. 2003. The external control of organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
Pombo C., Gutiérrez L. H. 2011. Outside directors, board interlocks and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Colombian business groups. Journal of Economics and Business 63 (4): 251–277.
Prokofieva M., Muniandy B. 2011. Board composition and audit fee: evidence from Russia. Corporate Ownership and Control 8 (2): 551–565.
Purkayastha S., Manolova T. S., Edelman L. F. 2012. Diversification and performance in developed and emerging market contexts: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (1): 18–38.
Qiao P., Fung H.-G., Ju X. 2013. Effects of social capital, top executive attributes and R&D on firm value in Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. China & World Economy 21 (4): 79–100.
Santos R. L., Da Silveira A. D. M., Barros L. A. 2012. Board interlocking in Brazil: directors’ participation in multiple companies and its effect on firm value and profitability. Latin American Business Review 13 (1): 1–28.
Schiehll E., Martins H. C. 2016. Cross-national governance research: A systematic review and assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review 24 (3): 181–199.
Schonlau R., Singh P. V. 2009. Board Networks and Merger Performance. Working paper. Carnegie Mellon University.
Silva F., Majluf N., Paredes R. D. 2006. Family ties, interlocking directors and performance of business groups in emerging countries: The case of Chile. Journal of Business Research 59 (3): 315–321.
Singh D., Delios A. 2017. Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India. Journal of World Business 52 (5): 615–627.
Sitthipongpanich T., Polsiri P. 2015. Do CEO and board characteristics matter? A study of Thai family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy 6 (2): 119–129.
SpencerStuart. 2018. 2018 Russia Spencer Stuart Board Index.
Steckler E., Clark C. 2019. Authenticity and corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics 155 (4): 951–963.
Valente T. W., Coronges K., Lakon C., Costenbader E. 2008. How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections 28 (1): 16–26.
Wasserman S., Galaskiewicz J. 1994. Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications.
Withers M., Kim J. Y., Howard M. 2018. The evolution of the board interlock network following Sarbanes-Oxley. Social Networks 52: 56–67.
Yigit I., Behram N. K. 2013. The relationship between diversification strategy and organizational performance in developed and emerging economy contexts: Evidence from Turkey and Netherlands. Eurasian Business Review 3 (2): 121–136.
Zona F., Boyd B. K., Takacs Haynes K. 2019. Coordination, control, or charade? The role of board interlocks among business group members. Management Decision 57 (10): 2630–2652.
Zona F., Gomez-Mejia L. R., Withers M. C. 2018. Board interlocks and firm performance: Toward a combined agency–resource dependence perspective. Journal of Management 44 (2): 589–618.
Downloads
Published
2020-05-29
How to Cite
Zavertiaeva, M. A., & López-Iturriaga, F. J. (2020). Networks of directors on Russian boards: The hidden part of the corporate governance iceberg. Russian Management Journal, 18(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2020.102
Issue
Section
Theoretical and Empirical Studies
License
Articles of the Russian Management Journal are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
