Non-executive directors in the Netherlands: another expectations gap?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notwithstanding the importance of non-executives as a control mechanism to reduce the potential divergence between corporate management and shareholders and the increasing attention they receive from both regulators as well as the media, research concerning non-executives is still in its infancy. This dearth of knowledge may account for the unrealistic expectations the public is said to have of non-executive directors. However, no study has previously looked into possible expectations gaps regarding non-executive directors. This study fills that lacuna and reports the results of a survey sent to more than 1,000 non-executive directors, employee representatives, and institutional investors from the Netherlands. Although we do not find an expectations gap regarding nonexecutive directors' main function, gaps are found with respect to stakeholders' satisfaction with current functioning of non-executive directors and non-executives' roles concerning directors' remuneration. Furthermore, a gap is also present with respect to the interests non-executive directors should serve. The results indicate that, notwithstanding the Cadbury and Peters Committees, the public's confidence in corporate governance has not yet been fully restored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".