MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909688504 · doi:10.5430/afr.v8n1p118

Directors’ Remuneration and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Study on Malaysian Listed Firms

2019· article· en· W2909688504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Waliuddin Mohd Razali, Hew Jing Ying, Janifer Lunyai, Noraisyah Abd Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak
KeywordsRemunerationCorporate social responsibilityLeverage (statistics)AccountingBusinessAnnual reportFinancePublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this paper is to examine the relationship between directors’ remuneration and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for listed firms in Malaysia. All financial data such as firm size, performance and leverage can be collected from Thomson Reuters DataStream while directors’ remuneration and CSR disclosures were collected from annual reports. 377 samples of listed firms on Bursa Malaysia were collected from year 2014 to 2016. The results of this study show that increase director’ remuneration motivates the directors to perform higher CSR. The CSR practices should benefit people and firms. Therefore, more benefits gained by public and firms from CSR should not be compensated with low directors’ remuneration. The results also show that firm size and leverage have positive relationship with CSR. This study can be extended using other measurements of CSR such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), human rights and environmental reporting which could give new insights on the relationship between CSR and directors’ remuneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207