The Impact of the Supervisory Board Supervision on Firm Performance: Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The various types of fraud events occurring in listed firms have led to the continuous questioning of the governance role of the board of supervisors. An ultimate controller who adopts the owner-management mode for a private firm is likely to motivate the board of supervisors to simply act as a "rubber stamp". Based on the background of the current capital market, this study investigates the impact of the owners of private firms on the independence of the board of supervisors. Using data of Chinese listed firms, the empirical results illustrate that there is a significant negative relation between the number of meetings of the board of supervisors and firm performance, indicating that the supervisors of listed firms in China are not only ineffective but also lack independence. Further, when the ultimate controllers¡¯ equity concentration is relatively centralised or the ultimate controller adopts the owner-management mode, the negative relation between the number of meetings of the board of supervisors and firm performance becomes more significant. The results demonstrate that the board of supervisors not only pretends to assume the role of supervision but also may collude with the ultimate controller. Compared with a context with more decentralised equity, when the ultimate controller holds more concentrated equity, it seriously damages supervisory board independence and weakens supervision. This weakening is eventually reflected in differences in firm performance. Because the ultimate controller either acts as chairman or another important management position in the listed firm to assume owner management or holds a more concentrated equity, (s)he strengthens control over the whole firm. In this situation, the ultimate controller tends to manipulate the supervisory board to pursue personal interest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".