Corporate Governance and Risk Disclosures: A Comparative Analysis Between Bangladeshi and Malaysian Islamic Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate governance provides a fundamental framework to oversee corporate conduct and ensures transparency of institutions like banks. In case of Islamic banks, it adds additional importance as the profit sharing (with the depositors) system enhances the chance of agency problem for such institutions. Again, risks are inherent in institutions like Islamic banks, which necessitate the investors to get proper information about the risk encountered by the banks in which they invest. Thus, corporate governance and risk disclosures bear utmost importance. Since Malaysian banking industry has already experienced a favorable growth of Islamic banking and Bangladesh is observing a rapid growth of popularity of Islamic banking, a comparative study has been undertaken between Malaysian and Bangladeshi Islamic banks regarding corporate governance and risk disclosures in annual reports. Content analysis technique has been applied to facilitate the comparison. Both quantity and quality of risk reporting of the sample companies have been evaluated. A corporate governance disclosure index has been developed by following the guidelines provided by Bangladesh Security and Exchange Commission (BSEC) and the principles laid down in the ‘Guidelines on Corporate Governance for Licensed Islamic Banks in Malaysia’ to explore and compare the degree of good corporate governance and relevant disclosures in the annual reports. It is hypothesized that corporate governance and risk disclosure will vary between Malaysian and Bangladeshi Islamic Banks. It is also argued that the corporate risk disclosures will be positively associated with the quality of the firm’s corporate governance mechanisms. Results are generally supportive of hypotheses. At the end, implications for theory and practices are discussed in the study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".