Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2023, 69(4):151-161 | DOI: 10.17221/78/2023-AGRICECON

Corporate governance, ownership concentration and performance of European agricultural companies: New empirical evidenceOriginal Paper

Graþiela Georgiana Noja ORCID...1, Mirela Cristea ORCID...2, Nicoleta Sîrghi ORCID...3, Oana-Ramona Socoliuc Gurițã ORCID...4, Ioana Vãdãsan ORCID...3, Daniel Cîrciumaru ORCID...2
1 Department of Marketing and International Economic Relations, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timiºoara, Timiºoara, Romania
2 Department of Finance, Banking and Economic Analysis, Center for Economic, Banking and Financial Research (CEBAFI), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
3 Department of Economics and Economic Modelling, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timiºoara, Timiºoara, Romania
4 Department of Economics and International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Iași, Romania

Considering the relevance of the agricultural sectors for the European countries' development, but also the volatile features of agriculture, with unforeseen risks induced by climate, ensuring durable economic progress is foremost for the companies. This paper aims to assess the associations of the key parties in corporate governance (directors, managers, advisers, and shareholders), employees and the independence level with the main outcomes and capacity/size of the European companies operating in agriculture, fishing, and aquaculture activities. Using a newly compiled and complex dataset of 3 184 active companies from Europe, provided by the ORBIS database, advanced modelling approaches were employed, based on the robust regression (RREG) and Gaussian Graphical Model (GGM). The main findings emphasised that: directors, managers, and advisors had a strong positive influence on the firms' size, boosting their turnover, and the shareholders' funds; advisors induced positive connections with the companies' liquidity; the number of employees exerted positive impacts on the firms' size and outcomes of these companies; the independence level exerted a negative impact on the firms' size and outcomes. Finally, specific measures must be addressed to primarily reconsider the number of directors and managers and the shareholders' participation in the ownership of these companies due to their unfavourable exerted effects.

Keywords: agriculture; board structure; econometric modelling; Europe; financial performance; strategy

Received: March 5, 2023; Revised: April 1, 2023; Accepted: April 11, 2023; Published: April 28, 2023  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Noja GG, Cristea M, Sîrghi N, Gurițã OS, Vãdãsan I, Cîrciumaru D. Corporate governance, ownership concentration and performance of European agricultural companies: New empirical evidence. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2023;69(4):151-161. doi: 10.17221/78/2023-AGRICECON.
Download citation

Supplementary files:

Download file78-2023-AGRICECON_ESM.pdf

File size: 423.41 kB

References

  1. Burkart M., Gromb D., Panunzi F. (1997): Large shareholders, monitoring, and the value of the firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 693-728. Go to original source...
  2. BvD (2022): Bureau van Dijk Orbis Database. Available at https://www.bvdinfo.com/en-gb/our-products/data/international/orbis (accessed Nov 5, 2022).
  3. Chou C.H., Lee J.M., Teng Y.M., Lee H.L. (2021): What is the impact of corporate governance on the food industry at different thresholds of internationalization? A review. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 67: 21-32. Go to original source...
  4. European Commission (2023): The new common agricultural policy: 2023-27. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/new-cap-2023-27_en (accessed Nov 5, 2023).
  5. Furnivall J.S. (1909): Land as a free gift of nature. The Economic Journal, 19: 552-562. Go to original source...
  6. García-Meca E., Sánchez-Ballesta J.P. (2011): Ownership structure and forecast accuracy in Spain. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 20: 73-82. Go to original source...
  7. Hilkens A., Reid J.I., Klerkx L., Gray D.I. (2018): Money talk: How relations between farmers and advisors around financial management are shaped. Journal of Rural Studies, 63: 83-95. Go to original source...
  8. Horobet A., Belascu L., Curea Ș.C., Pentescu A. (2019): Ownership concentration and performance recovery patterns in the European Union. Sustainability, 11: 953. Go to original source...
  9. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. (1976): Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360. Go to original source...
  10. Kathuria V., Dash S. (1999): Board size and corporate financial performance: An investigation. Vikalpa, 24: 11-17. Go to original source...
  11. Kyere M., Ausloos M. (2021): Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26: 1871-1885. Go to original source...
  12. Lee S. (2008): Ownership structure and financial performance: Evidence from panel data of South Korea. Corporate Ownership & Control, 6: 254-267. Go to original source...
  13. Lepore L., Paolone F., Pisano S., Alvino F. (2017): A cross-country comparison of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm performance: Does judicial system efficiency matter? Corporate Governance, 17: 321-340. Go to original source...
  14. Levrau A., Van den Berghe L.A.A. (2007): Corporate governance and board effectiveness: Beyond formalism. Working papers of Ghent Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University. Available at https://repository.vlerick.com/handle/20.500.12127/2267 (accessed Jan 10, 2023).
  15. Machek O., Kubíèek. A. (2018): The relationship between ownership concentration and performance in Czech Republic. Journal of International Studies, 11: 177-186. Go to original source...
  16. Marshall J. (2001): Landlords, leaseholders & sweat equity: Changing property regimes in aquaculture. Marine Policy, 25: 335-352. Go to original source...
  17. Pirtea M.G., Noja G.G., Cristea M., Panait M. (2021): Interplay between environmental, social and governance coordinates and the financial performance of agricultural companies. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 67: 479-490. Go to original source...
  18. Price N.J. (2017): Best practices: Board size and corporate governance. Available at https://www.diligent.com/insights/board-diversity/best-practices-board-size-and-corporate-governance/ (accessed Jan 21, 2023).
  19. Russel T., Breen J., Gorman M., Heanue K. (2020): Advisors perceptions of their role in supporting farm succession and inheritance. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 26: 485-496. Go to original source...
  20. Tleubayev A., Bobojonov I., Gagalyuk T., García Meca E., Glauben T. (2021): Corporate governance and firm performance within the Russian agri-food sector: does ownership structure matter? International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 24: 1-120. Go to original source...
  21. Valentinov V., Iliopoulos C. (2012): Property rights problems in agricultural cooperatives: A heterodox institutionalist perspective. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61: 139-147.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.