The influence of a board’s ethical commitment on corporate governance in enhancing a company’s corporate performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between corporate governance and company performance and how a board’s ethical commitment can influence this relationship. Prior studies documented mixed evidence on the corporate governance and corporate performance relationship, which can be due to the influence of a board’s ethical commitment and will shape the corporate governance mechanism in the company and, in turn, influence performance. Design/methodology/approach This study collected data for two years, i.e. 2013 and 2014, from the biggest 500 Malaysian companies listed in the stock exchange. Corporate governance is measured based on the requirements of the Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (MCCG), while a board’s ethical commitment is measured based on the MCCG and various international best practices. Corporate performance is measured based on return on equity, return on assets, net profit margin, market-to-book value and TobinQ. Findings A board’s ethical commitment was found to be significant in increasing the strength of the relationship between corporate governance and corporate performance. The findings are robust to the alternative performance measurements and lagged one-year corporate performance. Research limitations/implications This paper provides further evidence on the importance of ethical practices to improve corporate environment and, hence, sustain a company’s performance. This study, however, was conducted on only large companies with a limited data collection period. Practical implications This study provides an indicator that the policymaker and regulatory authorities need to double their efforts in promoting and encouraging a board of directors to take a bold step in improving its ethical culture. Shareholders and investors need to use their power and rights to demand the company to improve their governance and ethical practices. Originality/value This study is original, as it measures a board’s ethical commitment from various sources of local and international best practices such as Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Turkey, the UK and the USA. It also contributes to the literature and theoretical understanding of the interaction between a board’s ethical commitment and corporate governance on corporate performance, particularly in developing countries like Malaysia, which is scarce in the literature.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".