Examining the Relationship Between Enterprise Risk Management and Firm Performance in Malaysia
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
This study aims to examine the relationship between enterprise risk management (ERM) implementation and firm performance in Malaysia. Using the sample from 2010 to 2016, this study examines the relationship between ERM and firm performance among Malaysian top 100 public listed firms registered on the Index FTSE Bursa Malaysia 100 (FBM100) KLSE. This study also provides comparisons before and after the introduction of Bursa Malaysia Guidelines 2013. This study shows a positive and significant coefficient between profitability and firm performance towards ERM implementation. However, this study shows insignificant relationship between firm size, financial leverage and audit firm with firm performance. This study also shows that there is an increase in the mean score and standard deviation of these variables after the implementation of Bursa Malaysia Guideline 2013. The findings in this study provides an understanding to the Malaysian public listed firms on the importance of ERM and subsequently, maximise the benefits of ERM especially after the introduction of Bursa Malaysia Guidelines 2013 for the benefits of their stakeholders and regulatory improvement in future.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it