MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133439803 · doi:10.1108/14720700910998157

A specific role for boards in a regulatory framework: the New Zealand banking case

2009· article· en· W2133439803 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate Governance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceJurisdictionArgument (complex analysis)AccountingSubsidiaryOriginalityBusinessEmpirical evidenceSample (material)Value (mathematics)EconomicsIndustrial organizationPolitical scienceFinanceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it