Board Dynamics and Integrity Transparency in Healthcare: A Conceptual Framework for Online Disclosure Governance in Malaysian Private Hospitals

Ethical transparency in the private healthcare sector is a growing concern, particularly in Malaysia, where governance disclosures on hospital websites remain inconsistent. Despite regulatory advancements, limited studies have examined the influence of board-level governance and human governance attributes on the disclosure of integrity-related information in digital platforms. This study aims to conceptualize a governance-integrity framework that integrates board characteristics, human governance, audit risk committee effectiveness, and ownership concentration as key drivers of online integrity disclosure. Using a narrative review methodology, the study systematically analysed 19 peer-reviewed articles sourced from the Scopus database. Thematic synthesis was applied to identify conceptual patterns across governance practices, ethical leadership traits, and digital reporting behaviours. Findings suggest that while board structure and independence play foundational roles, human governance which include ethical values and professional background of board members, exerts a significant yet underexplored influence. The audit risk committee was found to mediate governance effectiveness, while ownership concentration moderated transparency outcomes. This framework contributes theoretically by extending agency and stakeholder theory into the digital disclosure. Practically, it recommends the formal integration of human governance indicators into board assessment tools and the strategic implementation of digital integrity dashboards on hospital websites. This study offers new insight into how healthcare institutions can improve ethical accountability by addressing governance mechanisms holistically.

Corporate Governance; Integrity Disclosure; Audit Risk Committee

1. Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2004). Audit committee characteristics and restatements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2004.23.1.69 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agyei-Mensah, B. K. (2017). Effects of corporate board characteristics on social sustainability disclosures. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 8(4), 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-06-2016-0071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arjoon, S. (2005). Corporate governance: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-7888-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian corporations. Abacus, 38(3), 317–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hashim, H. A., & Devi, S. S. (2008). Board independence, CEO duality and accrual management: Malaysian evidence. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 1(1), 27–46. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hashim, H. A., Salleh, Z., & Ariff, A. M. (2015). The influence of corporate governance and firm characteristics on the timeliness of corporate internet reporting by Malaysian listed companies. Asian Review of Accounting, 23(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-11-2013-0076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jaggi, B., Leung, S., & Gul, F. A. (2009). Family control, board independence and earnings management: Evidence based on Hong Kong firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. J. (2002). Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mohamad, M. H. S., & Sori, Z. M. (2016). Corporate integrity system and performance of public sector organizations in Malaysia. Malaysian Accounting Review, 15(1), 53–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mohd Iskandar, T., Rahmat, M. M., Noor, N. M., & Saleh, N. M. (2020). Audit committee characteristics and audit report lag: A study on Malaysian public listed companies. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 18(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-01-2019-0014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ng, T. H., Chong, L. L., & Ismail, H. (2012). Audit committee effectiveness and financial reporting quality: Evidence from Malaysia. Malaysian Accounting Review, 11(2), 35–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Said, R., & Joseph, C. (2020). Corporate integrity system and the role of internal stakeholders in Malaysian companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2019-0009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Said, R., Zainuddin, Y., & Haron, H. (2018). Audit committee characteristics and integrity disclosure in Malaysian public listed companies. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(10), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i10/4762 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Salleh, Z., & Ahmad, N. (2012). Human governance: A catalyst for integrity, transparency and accountability. International Conference on Governance and Accountability, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Salleh, Z., Hashim, H. A., & Ariff, A. M. (2020). Ethical governance disclosure and the role of board characteristics: Evidence from Malaysian listed firms. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 16(2), 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2020.100208 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sean, D. (2020). Malaysia’s private healthcare in need of urgent surgery. The Edge Markets. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Zainuddin, F. (2019). Enhancing transparency in private healthcare: The role of online integrity information disclosure. Malaysian Journal of Health Ethics, 12(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors