Does proximity to corporate headquarters enhance directors' monitoring effectiveness? A look at financial reporting quality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research question/issue In this study, using a unique Canadian setting that relies on a principle‐based corporate oversight environment and that has access to a large pool of U.S. directors, we investigate how directors' proximity to a firm's headquarters influences its financial reporting quality. Research findings/insights Our results show that financial reporting quality is higher for firms whose boards (audit committees) consist of a greater proportion of independent directors who reside close to a firm's headquarters than for firms whose boards consist of directors who are more geographically dispersed. However, among nonlocal directors, the effect of nonlocal domestic directors on financial reporting quality is similar to the effect of local directors. In contrast, compared with local directors, the presence of U.S. directors has a negative impact on financial reporting quality. Theoretical/academic implications Our results suggest that directors' proximity to corporate headquarters extends beyond geographical proximity and also reflects directors' familiarity with a firm's institutional environment. Institutional familiarity helps domestic nonlocal directors reduce information costs associated with low geographical proximity, thus providing them with access to a wider range of information sources and enhancing their monitoring ability, at least for financial reporting. In contrast, foreign directors face information costs arising from both low geographical proximity and less familiarity with the institutional environment. Practitioner/policy implications Firms should take into consideration the consequences of nominating nonlocal directors on the monitoring of financial reporting quality. In addition, regulators should take a more comprehensive approach if they impose regulations such as board diversity initiatives, as regulatory pressures often imply appointing directors farther away from headquarters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it