Search results

This study empirically demonstrates a contradiction between pillar 3 of Basel norms III and the designation of Systemically Important Banks (SIBs), also known as Too Big to Fail (TBTF). The objective of this study is threefold, which has been approached in a phased manner. The first is to determine the systemic importance of the banks under study; second, to examine if market discipline exists at different levels of systemic importance of banks and lastly, to examine if the strength of market discipline varies at different levels of systemic importance.

This study is based on all the public and private sector banks operating in the Indian banking sector. The Gaussian Mixture Model algorithm has been utilized to classify banks into distinct levels of systemic importance. Thereafter, market discipline has been observed by analyzing depositors' sentiments toward banks' risk (CAMEL indicators). The analysis has been performed by employing the system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) to estimate models with different dependent variables.

The findings affirm the existence of market discipline across all levels of systemic importance. However, the strength of market discipline varies with the systemic importance of the banks, with weak market discipline being a negative externality of the SIBs designation.

By employing the Gaussian Mixture Model algorithm to develop a framework for categorizing banks on the basis of their systemic importance, this study is the first to go beyond the conventional method as outlined by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

This study aims to identify and assess the key ethical challenges associated with integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in knowledge-sharing (KS) practices and their implications for decision-making (DM) processes within organisations.

The study employs a mixed-methods approach, beginning with a comprehensive literature review to extract background information on AI and KS and to identify potential ethical challenges. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted using data collected from individuals employed in business settings to validate the challenges identified in the literature and assess their impact on DM processes.

The findings reveal that challenges related to privacy and data protection, bias and fairness and transparency and explainability are particularly significant in DM. Moreover, challenges related to accountability and responsibility and the impact of AI on employment also show relatively high coefficients, highlighting their importance in the DM process. In contrast, challenges such as intellectual property and ownership, algorithmic manipulation and global governance and regulation are found to be less central to the DM process.

This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on the ethical challenges of AI in knowledge management (KM) and DM within organisations. By providing insights and recommendations for researchers, managers and policymakers, the study emphasises the need for a holistic and collaborative approach to harness the benefits of AI technologies whilst mitigating their associated risks.