A specific role for boards in a regulatory framework: the New Zealand banking case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present competing theories that argue: that boards of directors of locally incorporated subsidiaries of trans‐national entities contribute positively to local operations; and that locally constituted boards are an unnecessary expense and can confound the governance efforts of the trans‐national entities' boards of directors. Design/methodology/approach The relative merits of the competing theories are considered by examining whether a small sample of trans‐national entities choose to limit the role of their boards to the local regulator's minimum requirements, or to voluntarily exceed them. Findings The paper finds that in all cases board construction meets the local regulator's requirements, but in some cases, trans‐national entities have chosen to exceed minimum requirements, suggesting that in some cases a well constructed local board can make a positive contribution to local operations. Research limitations/implications This research is limited by the fact that it considers one sector (banking) in one jurisdiction (New Zealand). Future research could consider other sectors and locations. Practical implications The results in this paper suggest that there is latitude for regulators to expect more of local boards than is currently the case. Moreover, there is no conclusive empirical support for the argument that a local board is an unnecessary expense and might confound the governance initiatives of a parent company. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to empirically examine the two competing theories of locally constructed boards of directors set out above. It is of interest to regulators and others considering the role of local boards of directors.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".