Global supply chains have become increasingly complex and a critical source of competitive advantage, which makes the understanding of how supply chains create and distribute value an essential task. Prior literature on concentration risks has primarily focused on customer concentration and has overlooked the challenges posed by the major upstream supply chain partners. In addition, CEOs with an optimal mix of technical and behavioral abilities can shape the strategic decision-making process to obtain an advantage against the nonfinancial stakeholders. The existing literature has also overlooked the significant role of the CEO in reducing the impact of supplier-base/customer-base concentrations. Utilizing objective supply chain relation data collected from Bloomberg SPLC and Compustat, we map the supplier base and the customer base for each electronic and chemical manufacturing firm publicly listed under S&P1500 for the fiscal year 2017. We then construct objective measures of supplier and customer concentrations and examine their impacts on the focal firm's financial performance measured by Tobin's Q, gross profit margin, and net profit margin. The performance metrics also include the focal firm's payable period (against the supplier-base) and receivable period (against the customer-base). We also collect information related to the CEOs appointed by the focal manufacturing firm, such as gender, age, and tenure from Execucomp, and consequently investigate their impacts on the supplier concentration and the customer concentration. Our empirical analysis shows contradictory results in the context of supplier-base/customer-base concentrations: higher supplier-base concentration is observed to harm the focal firm’s financial performance, but higher customer-base concentration leads to an increase in the focal firm’s profitability. Although CEO characteristics such as tenure and age did not have any notable impact, female CEOs are found to reduce the adversarial impact of supplier-base concentration and are assumed to exercise a voluntary power restraint against the cooperative customer-base.

No description available.

A firm’s participation in cartel depends upon the potential problems that may arise due to price fixing and the incentives provided to the management. The top levels of management such as the board of directors and the CEO are responsible for deciding if the firm will participate in the cartel and manage the corporate governance activities of collusive price fixing agreements. This study aims to identify which characteristics of the participating firms’ boards of directors and CEOs are associated with cartel formation. It analyses the empirical investigation of cartel participation of firms, taking into account corporate governance characteristics as such as board of directors’ characteristics, ownership structure, CEO characteristics, and CEO compensation scheme. The study is focused on UK cartel firms which has the highest representation in the sample. A total number of 150 cartel firms in 52 cases from all around the world between the years 1990 to 2008 are involved in this study, of which 114 are UK firms. Therefore, this study is dominated by UK firms. The challenge of this study is that the personal attributes of CEOs and boards can make a significant contribution to the risk profile of a cartel being formed. This indeed would be to ‘diagnose’ organisational culture in a quite radical direction. The study suggests and finds that some corporate governance attributes are associated with cartel formation. The results reveal consistency with prior researches, that cartel firms have different corporate governance relative to a control sample in the three years prior to cartel formation. Specifically, the study concludes that UK-based cartel firms characterised by having larger board size compared to non-cartel firms; lower percentage of independent directors (non-executive); higher average of board remuneration; less likely that cartel is formed by family-owned and controlled firm (large shareholders); having older CEOs represented on the board; having CEO who served a less number of years as a director; less likely to have a female CEO represented; more likely to have CEOs who’s combined CEO-chairman position; and a higher average of CEOs bonuses and compensation packages.

Risk is something intrinsic to business, and something firms are exposed to on a daily basis. This means that there exists a great deal of pressure on the Top Management of a firm to successfully navigate the different risks to which they are exposed. The CEO holds a unique position in the firm, as she is ultimately responsible for deciding which strategies to employ in order to properly respond to these risks. But what influenced the CEO when making such decisions? The Upper Echelon Theory suggests that decisions made by the Top Management Team of a firm are influenced by their values and their cognitive base, which is formed throughout their upbringing. Researchers on Upper Echelon Theory suggest that these two abstract constructs can be difficult to measure and analyse, and should therefore be approximated using specific and observable characteristics of the Top Management Team. In our study, this theory has applied to Swedish CEOs as they are the ultimate decision-maker in a firm. The specific characteristics observed and analysed in our investigation into the relationship between the CEO and risk are; gender, age, nationality, and tenure. Thus, the purpose of this study is formulated as follows: “The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between CEO characteristics, specifically age, gender, tenure, and nationality, and firm risk-taking, as measured by the leverage ratio, stock return volatility, cash holdings, and R&D expenditure, on the Swedish market. As a sub-purpose, we intend to investigate whether there is a nonlinear relationship between CEO tenure and risk-taking.” By collecting data from the databases, Thomson Reuters Eikon and Amadeus, a dataset of 284 firms and their CEOs was collected and used in the cross-sectional analysis. Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to determine the relationships between the previously mentioned CEO characteristics and the proxies for firm risk-taking. The majority of the relationships found were of a non-significant nature, indicating that the relationship between Swedish CEO characteristics and the strategies they employ when running their firms is weak and differs from relationships found in earlier studies, using data from different markets. The significant relationships found were between cash holdings and age, long tenures and leverage ratio, and short tenures and stock return volatility. This indicates that older CEOs are more risk-averse, while longer seated CEOs maintain less debt, and shorter seated CEOs are perceived as more risky by the market. However, as these results only entail 15% of our observed results, none of the hypotheses constructed for this study were verified. Therefore, our conclusion is that the previously observed relationships between the characteristics of CEOs and their risk-taking is not present within our sample of firms listed on the Swedish market. Some tendencies that align with previous results have been found but are not generalisable and as a result, we cannot recommend that private actors act on these results.

No description available.