Next Article in Journal
Green Credit, Debt Maturity, and Corporate Investment—Evidence from China
Next Article in Special Issue
Entrepreneurial Leadership and Turnover Intention in Startups: Mediating Roles of Employees’ Job Embeddedness, Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment
Previous Article in Journal
FDI and International Knowledge Diffusion: An Examination of the Evolution of Comparative Advantage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis on Consumers’ Purchase and Shopping Well-Being in Online Shopping Carnivals with Two Motivational Dimensions
Article

Strengthen Financial Holding Companies’ Business Sustainability by Using a Hybrid Corporate Governance Evaluation Model

1
Graduate Institute of Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 10607, Taiwan
2
Department of Banking & Finance, Chinese Culture University, Taipei 11114, Taiwan
3
Graduate Institute of Finance, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 10607, Taiwan
4
Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Taipei University, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(3), 582; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030582
Received: 11 December 2018 / Revised: 7 January 2019 / Accepted: 14 January 2019 / Published: 22 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Business and Development II)
While the importance of corporate governance has been broadly acknowledged in global financial markets and academic research, how to devise a practical evaluation system is relatively unexplored. This paper attempts to refine the Corporate Governance Evaluation System (CGES), constructed by the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) since 2014. The current CGES has several debatable issues in its complicated design (e.g., it comprises over 80 indicators in different types). To resolve those issues, this study invited ten senior domain experts (including several CEOs of financial holding companies) to retrieve 13 essential criteria from the CGES in four dimensions. Additionally, this study integrates several multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods (i.e., decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), modified VIKOR, DEMATEL-based analytical network process (DANP)) and the fuzzy evaluation technique to rank the exemplary companies. The final ranking is consistent with the one released from the CGES in 2017. This study conducted additional experiments to ensure the robustness of the findings. The newly devised model not only assists the ranking decisions but also supports a company in discussing the plausible action plans to strengthen corporate governance based on the analytics. These findings enrich the understanding of corporate governance and contribute to gaining business sustainability for financial holding companies. View Full-Text
Keywords: corporate governance; business sustainability; multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM); decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL); VIKOR; DEMATEL-based analytical network process (DANP); fuzzy set theory corporate governance; business sustainability; multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM); decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL); VIKOR; DEMATEL-based analytical network process (DANP); fuzzy set theory
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, J.-Y.; Shen, K.-Y.; Shieh, J.C.P.; Tzeng, G.-H. Strengthen Financial Holding Companies’ Business Sustainability by Using a Hybrid Corporate Governance Evaluation Model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030582

AMA Style

Huang J-Y, Shen K-Y, Shieh JCP, Tzeng G-H. Strengthen Financial Holding Companies’ Business Sustainability by Using a Hybrid Corporate Governance Evaluation Model. Sustainability. 2019; 11(3):582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030582

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Jim-Yuh; Shen, Kao-Yi; Shieh, Joseph C.P.; Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung. 2019. "Strengthen Financial Holding Companies’ Business Sustainability by Using a Hybrid Corporate Governance Evaluation Model" Sustainability 11, no. 3: 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030582

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop