Corporate Governance and Intangibles Disclosure as Determinants of Corporate Reputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper investigates corporate governance mechanisms and the voluntary disclosure of intangible assets as determinants of corporate reputation. Reputation scores from Management Today Britain’s “Most Admired Companies” 2004 survey are applied as a measure of corporate reputation. A content analysis method is applied to UK 2003/2004 annual reports in establishing the voluntary disclosure index which consists of structural, relational and human capital attributes. This paper suggests that when the resource based view of the firm is applied together with signalling theory, both the presence and disclosure of corporate governance structures and intangible resources is important if markets are to acknowledge a firm’s quality and reputation; the agency approach is twofold, on the one hand the existence of governance structures allows firms to draw on various corporate governance mechanisms that may align directors’ interests with the firm’s objectives; on the other hand, governance mechanisms may enhance accountability and transparency through disclosure and therefore mitigate risks associated with asymmetry of information. The results of the analysis indicate that financial performance and growth enhance corporate reputation whereas directors’ share ownership and executive remuneration appear to hinder the development and maintenance of corporate reputation. The presence of financial expertise on the audit committee is a governance mechanism that appears to be employed by firms whose strategy comprises building and developing corporate reputation. In addition, maintenance of lower voluntary disclosure of intangible assets appears to appeal to firms with higher levels of corporate reputation whereas, although the relationship is weaker, higher levels of financial gearing lead to lower corporate reputations as perceived by stakeholders. Furthermore, the results indicate that the proportion of experienced non-executive directors to total directors is insignificant in explaining the variation in corporate reputation. Management strategies differ significantly as they may be tailored to build and develop corporate reputation or tailored to maintain such reputations once attained.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".