MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W403029504

The Impact of a Change in Corporate Governance Regulations on Firms in Canada

2009· article· en· W403029504 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth MacAulay, Shantanu Dutta, Mary Oxner, Tim Hynes

Notice bibliographique

RevueQuarterly journal of finance and accounting · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorporate governanceAccountingPromulgationBusinessStock exchangeStakeholderEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceManagementLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Since the market crash of 2001-2002, regulators around the world are paying increased attention to the corporate governance of companies. The approaches adopted by regulators vary. One approach is a rules-based (1) approach that is best exemplified by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the United States. The alternative is a comply-or-explain approach taken by countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Studies on comply-or-explain based approaches are limited (Anand et al., 2006). This study investigates the effect of the recent introduction of new governance rules (i.e., new Canadian governance rules in 2005) in a comply-or-explain regime. In Canada, the reform of corporate governance began with the 1994 Dey Report and the resulting Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) comply-or-explain requirements in 1995. Studies of the effectiveness of these corporate governance rules are mixed. While the promulgation of these requirements resulted in a general improvement in corporate governance practices, there are areas where practices declined or were deficient. (See Swain et al., 2002 for a detailed summary.) As a result, securities regulators continued to focus on improving corporate governance practices. The outcome was the issuance of new corporate governance guidelines (National Policy 58-201 [Corporate Governance Guidelines] and National Instrument 58-101 [Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices]) by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) in 2005. Subsequently, the TSX also replaced its corporate governance requirements with the new guidelines. Given the considerable time and effort expended by the CSA to improve corporate governance guidelines, it is important that the impact of these efforts on company behavior be assessed. Drawing on this primary thrust, motivations for this study are threefold. First, given that compliance is voluntary for the comply-or-explain regime, it is relevant to examine the pertinent question--do the corporate governance practices of Canadian firms improve following the introduction of the new governance rules in 2005? To the extent that Canada's comply-or-explain system is representative of many other countries' corporate governance systems, answering the question of how publicly traded firms respond to new governance requirements will be of interest to international market regulators and investors. This question is especially relevant in Canada given the recent CSA proposal to move to a more principles-based approach. (2) Second, according to conventional wisdom, improved corporate governance practices are likely to affect a firm's performance positively. In reality, however, does the adoption of better corporate governance practices by firms translate into improved performance? A number of studies examine the relationship between firms' governance practices and performance and the results are mixed (e.g. Gompers et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2005; Core et al., 2006; Daines et al., 2008). This relationship needs to be re-examined with more recent data. Regulators, investors, and other market participants are now paying more attention to firms' corporate governance practices. As a result, the publicly traded firms feel pressure to comply with most of the governance guidelines. (3) Such compliance might be superficial and may not reflect true changes in corporate governance practices. Under this circumstance, the relationship between corporate governance practices and firm performance is likely to lose significance. Third, the current corporate governance literature reports a number of governance indices reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of firms' governance practices (for example, G-Index for USA; Globe and Mail Index for Canada). These indices, however, generally focus on certain governance practices (for example, G-index focuses on anti-takeover measures) or only larger firms (for example, the Globe and Mail Index for Canadian firms includes primarily TSX index firms). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,303
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,808

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,003
Communication savante0,0080,001
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQuarterly journal of finance and accounting→Même sujetAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance→Travaux en français237 207→