We analyse the impact of firm-level corporate governance practices on the riskiness of a firm’s stock returns in a setting that can be considered as less conducive to managerial risk-taking. Our empirical evidence, based on a comprehensive sample of New Zealand firms, shows that firms with large boards are associated with lower levels of risk-taking, ceteris paribus. Furthermore, our results indicate that multiple large shareholders facilitate higher levels of risk-taking by the firm. Finally, our results also show that concentrated shareholdings of inside directors have a negative relation to risk-taking. Our findings are robust to controls for the three potential sources of endogeneity. Since prior work documents results consistent with the view that institutional and market environments largely determine governance outcomes, our work has implications for managers, investors and policy makers, particularly in less developed capital markets with weaker corporate takeover regimes and less performance-oriented managerial compensation.

In this paper, we investigate whether a firm’s Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives could affect its financial performance. We specifically investigate the firm’s capital allocation efficiency as a moderating channel affecting their performance. We employ a comprehensive sample of Australian and New Zealand stock exchange-listed firms consisting of 3324 firm-year observations for the period 2004–2017. We do not find that the firm’s capital allocation efficiency is negatively affected by the overall CSR scores or its two main components, namely the environmental or social dimensions. However, our empirical analysis exposes a challenging result for the firms in that we find strong evidence that extremely costly environmental CSR initiatives or policies (e.g., emission reduction, employee health and safety improvements, clean energy products) could reduce the firm’s investment efficiency. Hence, firms need to follow a balancing act when contemplating CSR plans and investing in them. While investors appreciate moderate levels of investment in CSRs, they penalize those firms that invest excessively in such initiatives.

In this paper, we explore the relationship between a firm’s environmental policies and their risk-adjusted stock returns, using a sample of stock exchange-listed Australian firms over the period of 2010–2018. We observed a positive and statistically significant relationship suggesting that a firm’s environmental policies partially explain their stock performance. Moreover, we found that investors in the Australian market significantly value a companies’ efforts to reduce emissions, and that this primarily drives the investors’ observed reaction to a firm’s social corporate policies. Next, we formed portfolios and observed that portfolios formed on high environmental, social, and governance (ESG) Environmental Pillar scores consistently outperformed those formed on low-ESG Environmental Pillar scores. Overall, our results lend support to the notion that investors in the Australian market value information about a firm’s social policies.

This study seeks to disentangle the human capital and the social capital of directors to improve our understanding of the value that directors bring to their boardroom. Employing social network analysis (SNA) to measure the social capital of directors and using a unique and comprehensive sample of New Zealand publicly listed firms over the period of 2000–2015, we find a positive and significant relationship between the human capital and the social capital of directors, where the human capital appears to predict changes in social capital. We contend that the growing literature in the area of corporate finance and governance investigating the impact of characteristics of directors on corporate outcomes, need to take note of the complementary impact that social capital can have in addition to human capital.

New Zealand KiwiSaver fund industry enjoys a near monopoly situation, with no exposureto international competition. Annual fees that KiwiSaver funds charge New Zealanders(which are now close to $350 million p.a.) are far above international standards and notjustifiable given their relatively poor performance since inception. We believe that allowingself-managed retirement portfolio investments by employees, expanding the menu ofinvestment choices including low cost international ETFs, and opening the industry tointernational competition will be beneficial for individual investors and the country as whole.