MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309857774 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15120550

Board Directorships and Carbon Emissions: Curvilinear Relationships and Moderating Roles of Other Board Characteristics

2022· article· en· W4309857774 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kwok Yip Cheung, Chung Yee Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvilinear coordinatesCorporate governanceGeneralized method of momentsOn boardIndependence (probability theory)BusinessGender diversityAccountingIndex (typography)Diversity (politics)EconometricsEconomicsPolitical sciencePanel dataGeographyMathematicsComputer scienceFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our research investigates the moderating roles of various board characteristics (independence, gender diversity, tenure, duality, and size) on the curvilinear relationship between board directorships and carbon emissions using a two-step generalized method of moments (GMM) system approach. We use a total of 1582 observations from 391 firms listed in the US Standard and Poor 500 (S&P 500) index collected from 2015 to 2021. Our findings provide empirical evidence in four aspects: (1) there is a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between board directorships and carbon emissions; (2) board directors should not go over two directorships because carbon emissions are likely to increase; (3) board independence, duality, and size positively moderate curvilinear relationships between board directorships and carbon emissions; and (4) board tenure and gender diversity negatively moderate curvilinear relationships. Our study contributes to expanding the existing literature related to sustainable corporate governance in the US market, and also has implications for regulatory issues, business practice, and further research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207