Directors’ Duties in Managing AI and ESG Under Malaysian Law: A Doctrinal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) integration with corporate governance has redefined the company directors’ responsibility. This scenario has changed the important legal questions on the extent the which directors in Malaysia are obliged to oversee and govern emerging risks and opportunities related to AI and ESG. This article examines the directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2016 using the doctrinal legal research methodology to determine whether there are provisions in relation to AI and ESG governance. To answer the question, a systematic analysis of the statute, case law and other regulatory frameworks is explored to clarify the emergence of legal duties of directors. The positions from the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are referred to highlight international trends and best practices as a basis of comparison. The article asserts that directors are increasingly required to be actively involved with ESG and AI-related governance risks, including ethical considerations, transparency and sustainability reporting. It emphasised the need for legal reform, board competency enhancement, and clear regulatory frameworks to ensure that the boards are well-positioned to address the growing challenges of AI and ESG. In essence, the article suggests that directors must adopt a strategic and principled approach to governance that aligns with both statutory obligations and stakeholder expectations in the digital and sustainability-driven business landscape.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".