Governance, boards and value co-Creation: Changing perspectives towards a service dominant logic

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in European Management Journal on 20/06/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.06.001 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.In this multidisciplinary and conceptual paper, we use insights from new and challenging developments in the management and marketing literature to inform corporate governance research. We shed light on the role of governance and specifically boards of directors in value creation in small and medium enterprises. While corporate governance research mostly tends to emphasise the role of governance mechanisms such as boards in the protection and distribution of value, our research problematises such a narrow view and (re)conceptualises their role in value creation. By exploring the role of boards as resource integrators within a wider service ecosystem, we propose novel ways in which boards can become integral to firms' value creation processes. In doing so, we develop a new logic for framing the boards’ tasks and suggest new directions for corporate governance research and practice. We apply an empirical conceptualisation strategy in order to make our findings more accessible.Published versio

The effects of private equity investors on the governance of firms

Companies that receive external equity typically experience a separation of ownership and control, where owners who are not involved in the company (principals) have to rely on the management team (agents) for achieving expected goals and target levels. Theoretical literature argues that when ownership and control are separated, principals develop governance structures to reduce agency costs and align agents’ incentives (Berle and Means, 1932; Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Grossman and Hart, 1986; Zingales, 1995). Likewise, optimal financial structure design by financial intermediaries can effectively help to mitigate agency problems by identifying self-enforcing equilibria (Diamond, 1984; Fama and Jensen, 1985; Stiglitz, 1985; Bhattacharya and Thakor, 1993; Barry, 1994). In general terms, governance and financial devices can be thought of as either internal control mechanisms (such as the board) or external control mechanisms (such as the market for corporate control). An increasingly important external control mechanism affecting the governance of young and fast-growing companies worldwide is the emergence of institutional and private equity investors, as equity owners. Institutional investors have the potential to influence management’s activities directly through their ownership, and indirectly by trading their shares (Gillan and Starks, 2003). In this respect private equity investors are differentiated from institutional ones in the longer-term view and in the significantly more hands-on approach that they pursue when investing in a portfolio company. As a result, companies backed by private equity investors represent a fruitful environment to investigate the use and efficiency of a multitude of control mechanisms. The surge over the last 30 years in investment activity by private equity investors at large has given rise to an increased specialization of this class of investors conditional on the risk return profiles associated with different investment and firm life cycle stages. For instance, business angels supporting the archetypical ‘paper company’ start-up face a risk exposure that in terms of both magnitude and characteristics is significantly different from that incurred by a private equity investor acquiring control of a mature company. Yet, investors in this market share common traits such as a value maximization approach, risk‒return informed decisions, and a deep knowledge of governance mechanisms. As such their influence on portfolio company governance mechanisms is largely similar in terms of depth and breadth. In this chapter we aim at presenting an up-to-date review of the main theoretical contributions and empirical results in this active and growing field of research

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Governance for Innovation – Board Leadership and Value Creation in Entrepreneurial Firms

This dissertation has identified, developed and empirically tested concepts associated with the capacity of chairpersonship to promote innovation in entrepreneurial small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). A multi-methodological approach is applied in five studies, comprising a systematic literature review, three empirical studies and a concluding conceptual paper. The dissertation focuses on how the chairperson of the board of directors influences value creation in entrepreneurial SMEs. Value creation in this context is about the performance of strategic leaders at entrepreneurial firms’ upper echelons in acting and making strategic choices aimed at increasing firms’ capability to engage in innovation. Innovation is defined as the generation and/or adoption of an idea or behaviour, relating to a product, service, device, system, policy or program, which is new to the adopting organization. Innovation has been widely recognized as a concept central to economic growth and societal development. Governance is widely recognized as essential for the support and development of innovations in firms. However, the academic literature is scarce regarding how the chairperson of the board can contribute to and promote innovation in SMEs. This dissertation offers theoretical and empirical insights into how the chairperson of the board of directors influences value creation in entrepreneurial SMEs. In this respect, the dissertation offers a conceptual framework and a research model for understanding board leadership in promoting innovation in entrepreneurial SMEs. The framework and research model emphasize the behavioural aspects of board leadership and show how these are related to the development of entrepreneurial SMEs. Furthermore, the findings in this dissertation provide actionable knowledge for practitioners and policymakers. In this respect, the dissertation contributes theoretical and empirical understandings of the benefits of employing external chairpersons with relevant knowledge and experience in SMEs. These insights also provide practitioners with advice on the qualifications and processes that can help them to develop innovation-promoting boards

Olika sätt att utveckla styrelsens roll

I bilagan 7HAffäre