Do Board Characteristics Affect Banks’ Environmental Performance?
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 empirically investigates the relationship between board characteristics (board size, board independence, Corporate Social Responsibility sustainability committee, board gender diversity, CEO duality, board-specific skills) and environmental performance (emissions, environmental innovation and resource use) of a sample of banks from different countries. In detail, we use an unbalanced panel dataset of 1,644 observations for 311 banks from the United States, Europe, the UK and Canada, over the period between 2015 and 2020. Through the Fixed Effect panel model and the generalized method of moments system version of the Arellano-Bond estimator, we find that both the percentage of women on boards and the presence of the CSR sustainability committee enhance the banks’ environmental performance. These findings are confirmed by all three sub-pillars of environmental performance, that is, emissions, environmental innovation and resource use. Our results shed light on the role that certain board characteristics play in improving the environmental performance of banks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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