Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 377, 2023
Curtin Global Campus Higher Degree by Research Colloquium (CGCHDRC 2022)
Article Number 02005
Number of page(s) 10
Section Social, Economic, and Health Transformations in a Post-Pandemic Future
Published online 17 April 2023
  1. Wernerfelt, B., A Resource-Based View of The Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984. 5(2): p. 171–180. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carpenter, M. and J. Westphal, The Strategic Context of External Network Ties: Examining The Impact of Director Appointments on Board Involvement in Strategic Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 2001. 44(4): p. 639–660. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arzubiaga, U., et al., Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance In Family SMEs: The Moderating Effects of Family, Women, and Strategic Involvement in The Board of Directors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2018. 14(1): p. 217–244. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Haynes, K.T. and A. Hillman, The Effect of Board Capital and CEO Power on Strategic Change. Strategic Management Journal, 2010. 31(11): p. 1145–1163. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barker, V. and G. Mueller, CEO Characteristics and Firm R&D Spending. Management Science, 2002. 48(6): p. 782–801. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Stiles, P. and B. Taylor, The Strategic Role of the Board. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 1996. 4(1): p. 3–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, H.-L., CEO Tenure and R&D Investment: The Moderating Effect of Board Capital. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2013. 49(4): p. 437–459. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fligstein, N. and A. Roehrkasse, The Causes Of Fraud in The Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009: Evidence From The Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry. American Sociological Review, 2016. 81(4): p. 617–643. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jain, T. and R. Zaman, When Boards Matter: The Case of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. British Journal of Management, 2020. 31(2): p. 365–386. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chari, M. and J. Dixit, Corporate Governance and Returns to Emerging Economy Firm Acquisitions in Tax Havens: An Empirical Test on Indian Firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 2020. 62(1): p. 107–117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Price Waterhouse Coopers, PwC’s Global Economic Crime and Fraud Survey - Malaysia Report, in Fraud and Corruption Malaysia Has Its Say. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nair, P., Malaysian Agencies Investigate Alleged Breach Affecting 13M, in Bank Info Security. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rajaretnam, T., A Review of Data Governance Regulation, Practices and Cyber Security Strategies for Businesses: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Technology Management and Information System, 2020. 2(1): p. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hamzah, M.A., et al., Big Data Implementation in Malaysian Public Sector: A Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2020. 10(11): p. 1461–1474. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rao, K. and C. Tilt, Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 2016. 138(2): p. 327–347. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bennouri, M., et al., Female Board Directorship and Firm Performance: What Really Matters? Journal of Banking and Finance, 2018. 88(1): p. 267–291. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Zona, F., L. Gomez-Mejia, and M. Withers, Board Interlocks and Firm Performance: Toward a Combined Agency–Resource Dependence Perspective. Journal of Management, 2018. 44(2): p. 589–618. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rashid, A., Board Independence and Firm Performance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Future Business Journal, 2018. 4(1): p. 34–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Terjesen, S., E.B. Couto, and P.M. Francisco, Does the Presence of Independent and Female Directors Impact Firm Performance? A Multi-Country Study of Board Diversity. Journal of Management & Governance, 2016. 20(3): p. 447–483. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik, The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. 1978, New York: Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hillman, A., A. Cannella, and R. Paetzold, The Resource Dependence Role of Corporate Directors: Strategic Adaptation of Board Composition in Response to Environmental Change. Journal of Management Studies, 2000. 37(2): p. 235–256. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalton, D., et al., Number of Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 1999. 42(6): p. 674–686. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen, H.L., Board Capital, CEO Power and R&D Investment in Electronics Firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2014. 22(5): p. 422–436. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hillman, A. and T. Dalziel, Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 2003. 28(3): p. 383–396. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Frynas, J.G. and C. Yamahaki, Corporate Social Responsibility: Review and Roadmap of Theoretical Perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 2016. 25(3): p. 258–285. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Reguera-Alvarado, N., P.D. Fuentes, and J. Laffarga, Does Board Gender Diversity Influence Financial Performance? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 2017. 141(2): p. 337–350. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Bear, S., N. Rahman, and C. Post, The Impact of Board Diversity and Gender Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2010. 97(2): p. 207–221. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Brennan, N. and J. McCafferty, Corporate Governance Practices in Irish Companies. Irish Business and Administrative Research, 1997. 18(1): p. 116–135. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fondas, N., Women on Boards of Directors: Gender Bias or Power Threat?, in Women on Corporate Boards of Directors, R. Burke and M. Mattis, Editors. 2000, Springer: Dordrecht. p. 171–177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hernandez-Lara, A.B. and J.P. Gonzales-Bustos, The Influence of Family Businesses and Women Directors on Innovation. Applied Economics, 2020. 52(1): p. 36–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Amorelli, M.F. and I.M. Garcia‐Sanchez, Critical Mass of Female Directors, Human Capital, and Stakeholder Engagement by Corporate Social Reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2020. 27(1): p. 204–221. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Munir, S.A., et al., Do Heterogeneous Boards Promote Firm Innovation? Evidence from Malaysia. Capital Markets Review, 2020. 28(1): p. 25–47. [Google Scholar]
  33. Katmon, N., et al., Comprehensive Board Diversity and Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Journal of Business Ethics, 2017. 157(2): p. 447–481. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gnyawali, D. and R. Madhavan, Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2001. 26(3): p. 431–445. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pennings, J., Interlocking Directorates: Origins And Consequences of Connections among Organisations' Board of Directors. 1980, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  36. Uzzi, B., The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organisations: The Network Effect. American Sociological Review, 1996. 61(4): p. 674–698. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gabrielsson, J. and H. Winlund, Boards of Directors in Small and Medium-Sized Industrial Firms: Examining the Effects of the Board's Working Style on Board Task Performance. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2000. 12(4): p. 311–330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Yildiz, H.E., et al., Directionality Matters: Board Interlocks and Firm Internationalization. Global Strategy Journal, 2021. 1(1): p. 1–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Isidro, H. and M. Sobral, The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. 132(1): p. 1–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Green, C. and R. Jame, Company Name Fluency, Investor Recognition, and Firm Value. Journal of Financial Economics, 2013. 109(3): p. 813–834. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Carter, D., et al., The Gender and Ethnic Diversity of US Boards and Board Committees and Firm Financial Performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2010. 18(5): p. 396–414. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Levi, M., K. Li, and F. Zhang, Director Gender and Mergers and Acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2014. 28(1): p. 185–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Luo, J.-H., Y. Xiang, and Z. Huang, Female Directors and Real Activities Manipulation: Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research, 2017. 10(2): p. 141–166. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Bommaraju, R., et al., Does A Customer on the Board of Directors Affect Business-to-Business Firm Performance? Journal of Marketing, 2019. 83(1): p. 8–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., et al., The Effect of Director Interlocks on Firms' Adoption of Proactive Environmental Strategies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2012. 20(2): p. 164–178. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Chen, H.L., M.H.C. Ho, and W.T. Hsu, Does Board Social Capital Influence Chief Executive Officers' Investment Decisions in Research and Development? R&D Management, 2013. 43(4): p. 381–393. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Salim, M. and R. Yadav, Capital Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Listed Companies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 65(1): p. 156–166. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Coad, A., A. Segarra, and M. Teruel, Innovation and Firm Growth: Does Firm Age Play a Role? Research Policy, 2016. 45(2): p. 387–400. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruigrok, W., S. Peck, and H. Keller, Board Characteristics and Involvement in Strategic Decision Making: Evidence from Swiss Companies. Journal of Management Studies, 2006. 43(5): p. 1201–1226. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Husnain, M., et al., Corporate Governance Characteristics and Firm Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Emerging Equity Market. International Journal of Management, 2021. 12(3): p. 155–164. [Google Scholar]
  51. Khan, M., Q. Al‐Jabri, and N. Saif, Dynamic Relationship Between Corporate Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 2021. 26(1): p. 644–661. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Gujarati, D., Basic Econometrics 4th ed. 2003, New York: McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hair, J., et al., Multivariate Data Analysis. 1998, New York: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, P., et al., Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 2019. 30(5): p. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sarabi, Y. and M. Smith, Busy Female Directors: An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Quotas and Interest Groups. Gender in Management, 2021. 36(3): p. 368–385. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Siddiki, S., J. Kim, and W. Leach, Diversity, Trust, and Social Learning in Collaborative Governance. Public Administration Review, 2017. 77(6): p. 863–874. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Nam, H.-J. and Y. An, The Effect of Interlocking Directors Network on Firm Value and Performance: Evidence from Korean-Listed Firms. Global Economic Review, 2018. 47(2): p. 151–173. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ingersoll, A., et al., Power, Status and Expectations: How Narcissism Manifests Among Women CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019. 158(4): p. 893–907. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Collica-Cox, K. and D.M. Schulz, A Token for Your Thoughts? Perceptions of Tokenism Among Female Corrections Executives. Criminal Justice Review, 2020. 45(3): p. 337–357. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  60. Cheng, Z., et al., Social Learning in Information Technology Investment: The Role of Board Interlocks. Management Science, 2021. 67(1): p. 547–576. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.