Nobody perhaps thought of the corporate excesses that are and have been taking place in a continued manner and
has made the corporate executives at home and abroad as “least-trusted people” (Murthy: 2004). Because of this,
the corporates emphasise on governance mechanism to re-establish their trustworthiness by assuming a role that
can nurture a revolution in socio-economic transformation of the society. Good Governance can be a catalyst in
improving the firm performance. Even the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, emphasized that less government
(control), more governance is the need of the hour”. Corporate governance stands for commitment to well-being and
progress of all stakeholders. Companies that have followed the principles of corporate governance have consistently
earned high returns, increased their net worth and enhanced their shareholders’ wealth, dealt ethically with customers,
government and business partners and maintained and updated their professional management culture, system
and process, and accomplished excellence.
The need to intensify the corporate governance mechanism in Indian corporates triggers this study to determine the
ascendancy of corporate board attributes on firm performance. The study used financial and governance related
disclosure from the annual reports of 36 randomly selected pharmaceutical companies in India for the financial year
2015-16. Correlation and regression analysis performed to measure the influence of board attributes i.e. board size,
board independency, promoter and director shareholding, multiple directorship, chairman and CEO duality, female
representative on corporate boards on firm performance. The results revealed that board size, promoter and directors
shareholding, chairman and CEO duality and female representatives in corporate boards significantly influence the
firm performance.

Click here to download

s Agrawal, A. a. (1996). Firm Performance and
Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems Between
Managers and Shareholders. Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 377-397
s Allen, e. (2004). Evaluating the Corporate Board.
Strategic Finance, 85(7), 37-43
s Anderson, R. S. (2004). Board Characteristics,
Accounting Report Integrity, and the Cost of Debt.
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 315-342
s Barman, J. K. (2014). Corporate Governance
Disclosure Practices in India : A Study of Select
BSE Sensex Companies. Asian Journal of
Management, 5(2), 129-132
s Beasley, M. (1996). An Empirical Analysis of the
Relation between Board of Director Composition and
Financial Statement Fraud. The Accounting Review,
71(4), 443-465
s Bhagat, S. a. (1999). The Uncertain Relationship
Between Board Composition and Firm Performance.
Business Lawyer, 54(3), 921-963
s Biswas, P. a. (2008). Agency Problem and the Role
of Corporate Governance Revisited. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1287185
s Brown, L. a. (n.d.). Corporate Governance and Firm
Performance. Retrieved from Social Science
Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
586423
s C.M. Daily, a. D. (1993). Board of Directors
Leadership and Structure: Control and Performance
Implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
17(3), 65-81
s Coles, J. M. (2001). An examination of the
relationship of governance mechanisms to
performance. Journal of Management, 27, 23-50
s Dunn.P. (2004). The Impact of Insider Power on
Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Journal of
Management, 30(3), 397-412
s Elsayed, K. (2007). Does CEO Duality Really Affect
Firm Performance? An International Reviews, 15(6),
1203-1204
s Elsayed, K. (2007). Does CEO Duality Really Affect
Firm Performance? Corporate Governance:An
International Review, 15(6), 1203-1214
s Elsayed, K. (2009). Board Size and Corporate
Performance: the Missing Role of Board Leadership
Structure. Journal of Management and Governance,
15, 415-446
s Farber, D. (2005). Restoring Trust After Fraud: Does
Corporate Governance Matter? The Accounting
Review, 80(2), 539-561
s Fich E.M., &. S. (2006). Are Busy Boards Effective
Monitors? The Journal of Finance, 61(2), 689-724
s Finegold, D. B. (2007). Corporate boards and
company performance: Review of research in light
of recent reforms. Corporate Governance,15(5), 865-
878
s Geoffrey C. Kiel, &. G. (2003). Board Composition
and Corporate Performance: how the Australian
expereince informs contrasting theories of corporate
governance. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 11(3), 189-
205
s Hartarska, V. a. (2007). Do Regulated Microfinance
Institutions Achieve Better Sustainability and
Outreach? Applied Economics, 39, 1207-1222
s Hermalin B.E., W. M. (1991). The Effects of Board
Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm
Performance. Financial Management, 20(4), 101-
112