The Role of Institutional Investors in Improving Board of Director Attributes around the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the role of institutional investors in the improvement of corporate governance for the companies in which they invest (investee companies) using evidence about the attributes of boards of directors across 15 countries. Furthermore, this paper examines the extent to which the activism of institutional investors is determined by the institutional environment, to include various economic conditions (pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis), legal systems and ownership structures. Drawing from the agency theory and institutional theory, the results show that foreign institutional investors are the main promoters of board governance structures across the globe. This study also provides evidence that institutional investors promote the independence of a board and its audit and compensation sub-committees (but excluding its nomination committee). The study also demonstrates that institutional investors reduce board entrenchment, though it presents no evidence that institutional investors reduce board busyness. The results also suggest that institutional investors behave differently when operating within different economic conditions (pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis), legal systems and ownership structures. This paper contributes to the growing literature on shareholder activism and comparative corporate governance mechanisms. The findings suggest that the activism of institutional investors is contingent on the institutional settings, to include economic conditions, legal systems and ownership structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".