Corporate governance guidelines compliance and firm financial performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the impact of compliance with corporate governance (CG) guidelines during the period 2002-2014 on firm financial performance and firm value of Kenyan-listed companies. Design/methodology/approach Using panel data of 520-firm year’s observations between 2005 and 2014, the authors test the hypothesis that compliance with CG guidelines issued in 2002 by Capital Markets Authority (CMA) improved firm financial performance and firm value. Findings Compliance with CG Index which is an aggregate of all the CG guidelines is positively and significantly related to firm performance and firm value. Board evaluation is also positively and significantly related to firm performance. The findings suggest that CG guidelines are associated with firm financial performance and firm value. Originality/value The authors provide evidence on the relationship between CG practices and firm financial performance and firm value in Kenya. Second, the authors provide evidence on board evaluation which has not been tested before in a “comply or explain” environment. Finally, they evaluate how CMA 2002 CG guidelines steered firm financial performance and firm value over its life cycle from 2002 to 2014. These results are important to CMA and other CG regulators and boards in their efforts to improve CG practices in the region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".