Does Adopting High-Standard Corporate Governance Increase Firm Value? An Empirical Analysis Of Canadian Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the impact of corporate governance on firm value has provided inconclusive results. The findings vary depending on the sample, country of study (regulation, law, shareholder protection, market development, etc.) and methodology employed. Many studies are unable to detect significant connection between corporate governance and firm value. Unlike the United States, Canada adopts a principles-based approach in corporate governance regulation. Canadian companies are required to disclose whether they comply with the corporate governance guidelines set up by authorities (such as the Toronto Stock Exchange) or explain deviations from the guidelines. Using panel data from 2004 to 2008 in Canada the empirical analyses in this paper show that the finding on the connection between corporate governance and firm value is sensitive to the methodology employed. Controlling relevant information is crucial to the results. When the data is analyzed in a self-selection framework, it is found that some time-varying unobservable firm characteristics that make firms adopt high-standard corporate governance also increase firm value, and somewhat surprisingly, adopting better corporate governance practices per se seems to decrease firm value. The results support the view that firms use sound corporate governance to signal their favorable private information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".