Board Response to Transnational Regulation on Corporate Governance: A Case Study on EU Banking Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does a board of directors respond to stringent transnational regulations on corporate governance? We explore this question in a case study that includes interviews with key governance actors of a bank dealing with regulatory changes in the European Union (EU) initiated in 2010 in response to the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Our findings suggest that transnational regulations introduced a conflicting prescription to the directors, who were caught between two needs: existing local governance practices and transnational regulatory compliance. Contributing to the international corporate governance research, our findings corroborate the resistance to transnational regulations and the distrust attributable to boards of directors’ role struggles and the invasive accountability mechanisms introduced by such regulations. We, therefore, contribute to the ongoing discussion on how the conflicting layers of corporate governance—local versus global—and how the discontinuities between competing existing practices and the prescriptions of transnational regulations can provoke micro-resistance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".