Click here to download

Corporate governance and performance in the veneto region: an empirical investigation
Author/s: Michele Fabrizi 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  21 Pg. 122-142 FullText PDF:  333 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ES2015-003008
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

In this study, we analyze the consequences on firms’ performance of allowing the Ceo to serve as board chairperson (Ceo duality). Previous studies highlighted both pros and cons of Ceo duality: on one hand, it allows a clear focus for objectives and operations and it fosters the strategic role of the board, while on the other hand it may hamper the monitoring role of the board. Using a sample of Italian companies from the Veneto region, the study finds a positive and significant relation between Ceo duality and firm’s performance. Additional analyses show that this positive relation is not present in large firms where likely there is a stronger need of monitoring. Overall, results reported in the paper highlight the importance of corporate governance in shaping performance and call for designing the corporate structure of each company according to its specific needs.
Keywords: Governance, Firm’s Performance, Board of Director, Ceo, Ceo Duality, Monitoring, Agency Theory, Stewardship Theory
Jel Code: M10, M12, M40, G34, O16

  1. Anderson C.A. e Anthony R.N. (1986). The New Corporate Directors. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Andrews K.R. (1981). Corporate strategy as a vital function of the board. Harvard Business Review, 59 (6): 174-184.
  3. Baliga B., Moyer R.C. e Rao R.S. (1996). CEO duality and firm performance: what’s the fuss? Strategic Management Journal, 17: 41-53,, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1<41::AID-SMJ784>3.0.CO;2-#
  4. Bozzolan S., Fabrizi M., Mallin C.A. e Michelon G. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Earnings Quality: International Evidence. The International Journal of Accounting, 50: 361-396,, DOI: 10.1016/j.intacc.2015.10.003
  5. Brickley J.A., Coles J.L. e Jarrell G. (1997). Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board. Journal of Corporate Finance, 3: 189-220,, DOI: 10.1016/S0929-1199(96)00013-2
  6. Coase R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386-405,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  7. Davis J.H., Schoorman F.D. e Donaldson L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22: 20-47,, DOI: 10.2307/259223
  8. Dayton K. N. (1984). Corporate governance: The other side of the coin. Harvard Business Review, 62: 34-37.
  9. De Marchi V. e Grandinetti R. (2012). L’industria del Nord-Est e il suo intorno: crisi e discontinuità evolutiva. L’industria, 33:169-204,, DOI: 10.1430/37078
  10. Fabrizi M. (2014). Chief marketing officer’s equity incentives: economic determinants and effects on shareholder value. European Journal of Marketing, 48: 1757-1781,, DOI: 10.1108/EJM-09-2012-0552
  11. Fama E. e Jensen M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301-325,, DOI: 10.1086/467037
  12. Ginsborg P. (1998). Storia d’Italia 1943-1996. Famiglia, società, Stato. Torino: Einaudi.
  13. Hirsch P., Michaels S. e Friedman R. (1987). “Dirty hands” versus “clean models”. Theory and Society, 16: 317-336,, DOI: 10.1007/BF00139485
  14. Hung H. (1998). A typology of the theories of the roles of governing boards. Corporate governance, 6: 101-111,, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00089
  15. Jensen M. e Meckling W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360,, DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  16. Levy L. (1981). Reforming board reform. Harvard Business Review, 59 (1): 166-172.
  17. Matsumura E.M. e Shin J.Y. (2005). Corporate governance reform and CEO compensation: Intended and unintended consequences. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 101-113,, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-005-0175-7
  18. Mills G. (1981). On the Board. Hampshire: Gower Perrow C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  19. Pi L. e Timme S.G. (1993). Corporate control and bank efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance, 17: 515-530,, DOI: 10.1016/0378-4266(93)90050-N
  20. Rechner P.L. e Dalton D.R. (1991). CEO duality and organizational performance: A longitudinal analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 155-160,, DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250120206
  21. Schulze W.S., Lubatkin M.H., Dino R.N. e Buchholtz A. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization science, 12: 99-116,, DOI: 10.1287/orsc.
  22. Shleifer A. e Vishny R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52: 737-783,, DOI: 10.1111/j.15406261.1997.tb04820.x
  23. Vance S. C. (1983). Corporate Leadership: Boards, Directors and Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  24. Williams H. M. (1979). Corporate accountability one year later. Intervento tenuto presso il Securities Regulation Institute.8 January. San Diego (CA).

Michele Fabrizi, Corporate governance and performance in the veneto region: an empirical investigation in "ECONOMIA E SOCIETÀ REGIONALE " 3/2015, pp. 122-142, DOI:10.3280/ES2015-003008


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content