Investigating the impact of information on the decision making of the board of directors

Subject Areas :

Meysam Arabzadeh ^{1 *} , Salman Cheraghi Badi ² , Hassan Ghodarti ³ , Hossein Jabbary ⁴ , Mostafa Ezadpour ⁵

1 - Assistant Professor of Accounting Department, Kashan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kashan, Iran.
2 - Salman Chiraghi Badi is a PhD student in the Department of Accounting, Kashan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kashan, Iran
3 - Hasan Gudari Ghazaani, Ph.D. in industrial management, majoring in operations research Assistant Professor of Accounting Department of Islamic Azad University, Kashan Branch
4 - استادیار گروه حسابداری، واحد کاشان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کاشان، ایران
5 - Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Received: 2023-09-26 Published : 2025-09-07

Keywords: Risk, interaction of the board of directors, reports of the board of directors.,

Abstract :

The present article has been done based on the field approach and in order to investigate the effect of the information provided to the board of directors to make a decision for the company. In addition to the interviews, field notes were also used, and these field notes were also recorded and coded. These notes produced a total of 64 codes with a total of 64 sources, and in the final analysis, 64 codes and 261 sources were created. The pilot interview indicated that there was a need to focus more on listening during the interview and to ensure that coding in the research was done effectively and that trends and activities were explored. In this article, it is assumed that perspective "Effort Allocation" is related to the board's role and risk perception. Therefore, assuming the correctness of this philosophical stance, it should There are symbols in the processes of the board of directors that allow us to understand the prospects in "allocation". If all members of the board of directors have a common understanding of the role of the company's board of directors and the necessary understanding of risk, the board of directors will be considered as a group's understanding of risk and the organization's understanding of risk. In that case, "allocation of effort", a clear manifestation of non-compliance between the members of the board of directors, or in relation to the understanding of their role or the resulting risk. This will be the issue.

References:

منابع
برزگر عباسپور, کسری, اسلامی مفیدآبادی, حسین، و ابراهیمی شقاقی, مرضیه. (1402). تأثیر ویژگی‌های حسابرس و ساختار هیئت‌مدیره بر احتمال وقوع تقلب در صورت‌‌های مالی شرکت‌های تجاری. قضاوت و تصمیم گیری در حسابداری و حسابرسی، 10.30495/JDAA.2023.705530.
قاسمی پور, بهروز, احمدی, فایق، وکیلی فرد, حمیدرضا. (1402). فراتحلیل حاکمیت شرکتی و افشای اطلاعات شرکت. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت.12(47). 391-406.
مجدزاده، شراره، رضائی، غلامرضا و زرین کلاه، فائزه، (1398). به بررسی تجربی این موضوع با استفاده از اطلاعات مربوط به شرکت¬های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، فصلنامه زن و جامعه، مقاله 14، دوره 10، شماره 40، صص 317-338.
نخعی، حبیب اله و احمدپور، جعفر، (1399). تحقیقی را تحت عنوان تأثیر ساختار هیئت‌مدیره و حاکمیت شرکتی برمعیارهای عملکرد و محافظه‌کاری غیرشرطی شرکت‌های ایرانی، چشم انداز حسابداری و مدیریت دوره سوم بهار 1399 شماره 22 (جلد 2).
Abraham, S. E. 2015. Information technology, an enabler in corporate governance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 12, 281-291.
Hoang Bui and Zoltan Krajcsak.2023. The impacts of corporate governance on firms’ performance: from theories and approaches to empirical findings. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Emerald Publishing Limited 1358-1988 . DOI 10.1108/JFRC-01-2023-0012.
Allegrini, M., Melville, R., Paape, L. & Selim, G. 2021. Special issue on “internal audit and corporate governance”: Introduction. Journal of Management & Governance, 13, 1-3.
Bloomfield, S. 2013. Theory and practice of corporate governance: An intergrated approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 19, 3-10.
Cadbury, A. 2015. Corporate governance and chairmanship: A practical view, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Carver, J. 2019. A case for global governance theory: Practitioners avoid it, academics narrow it, and the world needs it. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 149-157.
Creswell, J. W. 2019. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, CA, USA, SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dey, I. 2017. Grounding catergories. In: BRYANT, A. & CHARMAZ, K. (eds.) the sage handbook of grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Donaldson, L. & Davis, J. H. 2011. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management (University of New South Wales), 16, 49.
Eccles, R. 2011. The performance measurement manifesto. In: PRESS, H. B. S. (ed.) Harvard business review on measuring corporate performance. 1998 ed. Boston USA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Feilzer, M. Y. 2020. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4, 6-16.
Frewer, L. 2019. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 28, 569-574.
Geiger, S. W. & Marlin, D. 2012. The relationship between organizational/board characteristics and the extent of female representation on corporate boards. Journal of Managerial Issues, 24, 157-172.
Gibson, B. & Hartman, J. 2014. Rediscovering grounded theory London, UK, SAGE Publications Ltd
Hillman, A., Cannella, J. & Paetzold, R. 2021. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal Of Management Studies, 37, 43-58.
Huse, M. 2015. Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16, 65-79.
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.
Joseph, S. 2021. Pause for thought - Wednesday 4th sept 2013, 0915. BBC Radio 2.
Judge, W. 2012. The importance of considering context when developing a global theory of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20, 123-124.
Lee, S.-H. S. & Phan, P. H. 2021. Competencies of directors in global firms: Requirements for recruitment and evaluation. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8, 204.
Lewis, R. B. 2014. Nvivo 2.0 and atlas.Ti 5.0: A comparative review of two popular qualitative data-analysis programs. Field Methods, 16, 439-464.
Manzoni, A. & Islam, S. M. N. 2019. Performance measurement in corporate governance, Victoria Australia, Springer.
Martin, V. B. & Gynnild, A. 2020. Grounded theory; the philosophy, method and work of barney glaser, FL, USA, BrownWalker Press.
Massie, R. 2014. Ad hoc committees; their role in the governance process (abstract). British Academy of Management Conference 2014. Belfast UK. Massie, R. 2014b. Ad hoc committees; their role in the governance process (presentation). British Academy of Management Conference 2014. Belfast UK.
Neely, A., Adams, C. & Kennerley, M. 2012. The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success, Harlow, UK, Pearson Education Ltd.
Orna, E. 2016. Organizations and information. In: HINTON, M. (ed.) Introducing Information Management: The business approach. Oxford UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Roberts, J., McNulty, T. & Stiles, P. 2021. Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16, S5-S26.
Saldana, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, London UK, SAGE Publications Ltd.
Stiles, P. & Taylor, B. 2021. Boards at work: How directors view their roles and responsibilities, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Tricker, R. I. 2019. Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Virtanen, A. 2012. Women on the boards of listed companies: Evidence from Finland. Journal of Management & Governance, 16, 571-593.
Weber, E. U., BLAIS, A. & betz, N. E. 2018. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.
Zhang, P. 2013. Power and trust in board–ceo relationships. Journal of Management & Governance, 17, 745-765.
Zou, Xiang, Che Ruhana Isa, and Mahfuzur Rahman. 2019. Valuation of enterprise risk management in the manufacturing industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 30: 1389–410.