Search results

This study aims to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on agency and resource dependency theories.

Using a panel data set of 788 firms listed in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Emerging Markets index from 2015 to 2020, the authors apply Panel-Corrected Standard Error estimation method to test the three proposed hypotheses and the two-stage least squares method is adopted for the endogenous test.

The results suggest that board-specific skills diversity (BSSD) and board independence (BIND) have a negative impact on systematic risk. On the other hand, board gender diversity does not affect systematic risk. The findings reinforce the relevance of board diversity for reducing systematic risk and offer valuable insights for policymakers and investors, suggesting that the presence of directors with specific skills and independent directors could reduce firms’ systematic risk.

The study extends the scope of agency and resource dependency theories by suggesting that the BSSD and BIND reduce agency costs and bring critical resources to the firm’s survival.

The findings support policymakers and managers in reducing systematic risk. In addition, the results demonstrate the importance of policies that encourage board diversity and BIND.

The study demonstrates how companies can reduce systematic risk through board diversity and BIND.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk only in emerging markets.

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.

The purpose of this paper is to explore existing and desired methodologies for systematic quality work to promote quality in preschools from the principal’s perspective.

A collaborative approach was used in this research project, and principals were asked to complete portfolio assignments. Their answers to those portfolio assignments were analysed by the research team and subsequently compared to total quality management values.

Existing and desired methodologies for systematic quality work are presented and sorted into 13 and 17 groups, respectively. The principals desire four times more methodologies than they are presently using to promote systematic quality work, and the results show that they must extend their methodologies to support TQM values.

This research is based on answers collected from 18 principals in one municipality in Sweden.

The use of the cornerstone model provides a framework to illustrate the application of TQM in preschools.

Principals struggle to find time for systemic quality work. The presented results can be used to work systematically with quality in preschools and other organizations.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is a widely accepted guideline for performing a systematic review (SR) in clinical journals. It not only helps an author to improve the reporting but also assists reviewers and editors in the critical appraisal of available SR. These tools help in achieving reproducibility in research, a major concern in contemporary academic research. But there is a lack of awareness about the approach among management researchers. This chapter attempts to fill this gap using a narrative review of reliable online resources and peer-reviewed articles to discuss the PRISMA guidelines and recent amendments. The chapter further points out the limitations of PRISMA in the review of management literature and suggests measures to overcome that. This piece of literature introduces a reader to the basics of a systematic review using PRISMA as an instrument. One of the significant contributions is to delineate a seven-step strategy to attain reproducibility in the systematic review. The chapter is useful for researchers and academicians in the field of social science and management.

A literature review or review article is an integral part of a scientific body of research which synthesizes prior knowledge and provides a holistic overview of a subject domain. While several studies emphasize the significance of literature reviews and include the guidelines for conducting a review, limited studies demonstrated different types of literature review methodologies in a comprehensive way. Accordingly, this chapter presents various types of review methodologies which includes narrative, descriptive, systematic, meta-analysis, hybrid, umbrella, scoping, theoretical, and critical reviews. In addition, the authors' skills including logical reasoning, content analysis, literature mapping, critical writing, and ethical consideration are presented. Further, quality aspects of the literature review are discussed such as the rigor and relevance of the selected studies. Overall, this chapter provides implications for researchers in understanding types of literature review methodologies along with their objectives, strengths, and weaknesses which can assist them in selecting a suitable methodology while conducting a review.

This study aims to develop the alleviating bullwhip effects framework (ABEF) replenishment rules, and bullwhip, inventory fluctuations and customer service fulfilment rates were examined. In addition, automated smoothing and replenishment rules can alleviate supply chain bullwhip effects. This study aims to understand the current artificial intelligence (AI) implementation practice in alleviating bullwhip effects in supply chain management. This study aimed to develop a system for writing reviews using a systematic approach.

The methodology for the present study consists of three parts: Part 1 deals with the systematic review process. In Part 2, the study applies social network analysis (SNA) to the fourth phase of the systematic review process. In Part 3, the author discusses developing research clusters to analyse the research state more granularly. Systematic literature reviews synthesize scientific evidence through repeatable, transparent and rigorous procedures. By using this approach, you can better interpret and understand the data. The author used two databases (EBSCO and World of Science) for unbiased analysis. In addition, systematic reviews follow preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The study uses UCINET6 software to analyse the data. The study found that specific topics received high centrality (more attention) from scholars when it came to the study topic. Contrary to this, others experienced low centrality scores when using NETDRAW visualization graphs and dynamic capability clusters. Comprehensive analyses are used for the study’s comparison of clusters.

This study used a journal publication as the only source of information. Peer-reviewed journal papers were eliminated for their lack of rigorousness in evaluating the state of practice. This paper discusses the bullwhip effect of digital technology on supply chain management. Considering the increasing use of “AI” in their publications, other publications dealing with sensor integration could also have been excluded. To discuss the top five and bottom five topics, the author used magazines and tables.

The study explores the practical implications of smoothing the bullwhip effect through AI systems, collaboration, leadership and digital skills. Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a preferred tool in the supply chain, so management must understand the opportunities and challenges associated with its implementation. Furthermore, managers should consider how AI can influence supply chain collaboration concerning trust and forecasting to smooth the bullwhip effect.

Digital leadership and addressing the digital skills gap are also essential for the success of AI systems. According to the framework, it is necessary to balance AI performance and accountability. As a result of the framework and structured management approach, the author can examine the implications of AI along the supply chain.

The study uses a systematic literature review based on SNA to analyse how AI can alleviate the bullwhip effects of supply chain disruption and identify the focused and the most important AI topics related to the bullwhip phenomena. SNA uses qualitative and quantitative methodologies to identify research trends, strengths, gaps and future directions for research. Salient topics for reviewing papers were identified. Centrality metrics were used to analyse the contemporary topic’s importance, including degree, betweenness and eigenvector centrality. ABEF is presented in the study.

Systematic literature review (SLR) papers have gained significant importance during the last years as many reputed journals have asked for literature review submissions from the authors. However, at the same time, authors are experiencing a high number of desk rejections because of a lack of quality and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer guidance to researchers who intend to communicate SLR papers in top-rated journals. We attempt to offer a guide to buddy researchers who plan to write SLR papers. This purpose is achieved by clearly stating how the traditional review method is different from SLR, when and how can each type of literature review method be used, writing effective motivation of a review paper and finally how to synthesize the available literature. We have also presented a few suggestions for writing an impactful SLR in the last. Overall, this chapter serves as a guide to various aspirants of SLR paper to understand the prerequisites of an SLR paper and offers deep insights to bring in more clarity before writing an SLR paper, thereby reducing the chances of desk rejection.

Literature reviews help summarize the field of a research area and identify gaps to be addressed as part of a future research agenda. Many types of literature reviews can be undertaken, including narrative literature reviews, scoping literature reviews, integrative literature reviews, and systematic literature reviews. While every researcher has undertaken some form of narrative literature review, the more advanced types of literature reviews require careful planning and following well-established protocols. This chapter discusses the various types of literature reviews, with an emphasis on the systematic literature review. It details the steps required in conducting a systematic literature review and provides some practical tips to enhance the quality of such studies and their contribution to the research field.

This study aims to understand and a lay a foundation of how analytics has been used in depression management, this study conducts a systematic literature review using two techniques – text mining and manual review. The proposed methodology would aid researchers in identifying key concepts and research gaps, which in turn, will help them to establish the theoretical background supporting their empirical research objective.

This paper explores a hybrid methodology for literature review (HMLR), using text mining prior to systematic manual review.

The proposed rapid methodology is an effective tool to automate and speed up the process required to identify key and emerging concepts and research gaps in any specific research domain while conducting a systematic literature review. It assists in populating a research knowledge graph that does not reach all semantic depths of the examined domain yet provides some science-specific structure.

This study presents a new methodology for conducting a literature review for empirical research articles. This study has explored an “HMLR” that combines text mining and manual systematic literature review. Depending on the purpose of the research, these two techniques can be used in tandem to undertake a comprehensive literature review, by combining pieces of complex textual data together and revealing areas where research might be lacking.

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a step-by-step primer on systematic and meta-analytic reviews across the service field, to systematically analyze the quality of meta-analytic reporting in the service domain, to provide detailed protocols authors may follow when conducting and reporting these analyses and to offer recommendations for future service meta-analyses.

Eligible frontline service-related meta-analyses published through May 2021 were identified for inclusion (k = 33) through a systematic search of Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, Web of Science, Google Scholar and specific service journals using search terms related to service and meta-analyses.

An analysis of the existing meta-analyses within the service field, while often providing high-quality results, revealed that the quality of the reporting can be improved in several ways to enhance the replicability of published meta-analyses in the service domain.

This research employs a question-and-answer approach to provide a substantive guide for both properly conducting and properly reporting high-quality meta-analytic research in the service field for scholars at various levels of experience.

This work aggregates best practices from diverse disciplines to create a comprehensive checklist of protocols for conducting and reporting high-quality service meta-analyses while providing additional resources for further exploration.