MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295546125 · doi:10.4236/tel.2022.125066

Economic Crisis and Corporate Governance: How Can Board Independence and Expertise Maximize the Firm Value?

2022· article· en· W4295546125 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Crifo, Gwenaël Roudaut

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Economics Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
FundersLabex EcodecAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCorporate governanceIncentiveContext (archaeology)Independence (probability theory)BusinessAccountingValue (mathematics)Sustainable growth rateIndustrial organizationEconomicsFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of recurrent crises and the necessity to move to more sustainable firm level changes, this paper analyzes the trade-off between board’s dual role of monitoring and advising the CEO, especially relevant for the integration of sustainable development into corporate strategy, depending on board independence and expertise. We propose a theoretical model in which boards may choose to be either monitoring or advisory type towards the CEO. In this framework, the board’s incentives to adopt a high monitoring level are non-monotonically (U-shaped) related to the expertise level. On the other hand, the incentives for an advisory board to discipline the CEO are increasing with expertise, if the business has high opportunity for growth. Finally, under specific parameter values, the model generates a disciplining effect of expertise in the sense that the more expert the board is, the less opportunistic the CEO is. We then test these theoretical results using a dataset on the French 120 largest listed companies over the 2006-2011 period. Empirical evidence reveals that expertise plays a mediating role in the relationship between independence and performance in French firms. Directors’ competences for sustainable development hence are likely to play a crucial role for firms to integrate such issues into their core strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Economics LettersSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207