Convergence of Corporate Governance: Critical Review and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Manuscript Type:Review Research Question/Issue:Convergence in corporate governance across countries has been a subject of interest and controversy in a variety of disciplines. We attempt to address a number of related research questions: (1) what constitutes convergence? (2) what are the drivers that propel corporations in different nations towards convergence? (3) what are the major impediments that stand in the way of convergence? (4) what empirical evidence do we have to suggest that we are moving towards or away from convergence? and (5) what would be some productive avenues for further research on this topic? Research Findings/Results:Despite the vigorous intellectual position of the proponents of convergence, there is only limited evidence to indicate that such convergence is actually occurring. Even when there is ostensible convergence, much of it is convergence in form rather than substance, and governance convergence is not a context‐free phenomenon. Theoretical Implications:Our review of the past literature suggests that increasing integration of product and capital markets is leading to changes in corporate governance around the world, but there is only limited evidence that such changes constitute convergence. Governance changes seem to be primarily attributable to the quest for greater efficiency in governance and enhanced legitimacy in capital markets. However, local forces such as institutional embeddedness and politics can hinder governance changes or create “hybrid” practices. Practical Implications:The ideal corporate governance may be institution‐ and firm‐specific and an imposition of new practices or standards may not lead to intended policy or performance outcomes.
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 | 0.046 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".