In a recent study, a Rice Business professor found that board members actually need incentives — both short- and long-term — to act in stakeholders' best interests. Getty Images

If you're a stockholder, you may envision your investment helmed by a benevolent, all-knowing board of directors, sitting around a long finely-grained wooden table, drinking coffee, their heads buried in PowerPoint charts as they labor to plot the best course for the company. Too often, however, you can't take for granted that a company's board will steer it wisely.

Companies choose directors because they offer rich and varied experience in the business world. Many who serve on boards, moreover, are CEOs of other corporations, or have headed big companies in the past. As of October 2018, for example, six of the 11 directors on Walmart's board and eight of 13 on AT&T's board hold CEO or CFO positions in other firms. So it's easy to assume that board members will act in the best interests of stockholders.

But in a recent study, Rice Business professor Shiva Sivaramakrishnan found that board members actually need incentives — both short- and long-term — to act in stakeholders' best interests.

Corporations usually compensate board members with stock options, grants, equity stakes, meeting fees, and cash retainers. How important is such compensation, and what sort of incentives do board members need to perform in the very best interests of a company? Sivaramakrishnan joined co-author George Drymiotes to trace how compensation impacts various aspects of board performance.

Recent literature in corporate governance has already stressed the need to give boards of directors explicit incentives in order to safeguard shareholder welfare. Some observers have even proposed requiring outside board members to hold substantial equity interests. The National Association of Corporate Directors, for example, recommended that boards pay their directors solely with cash or stock, with equity representing a substantial portion of the total, up to 100 percent.

To the extent that directors hold stock in a company, their actions are likely influenced by a variety of long-and short-term incentives. And while the literature has focused mainly on the useful long-term impact of equity awards, the consequences of short-term incentives haven't been as clear. Moreover, according to surveys, most directors view advising as their primary role. But this role also has received little attention.

To scrutinize these issues, the scholars used a simple model, which assumes the board of directors perform three roles: contracting, monitoring and consulting. The board contracts with management to provide productive input that improves a firm's performance. By monitoring management, the board improves the quality of the information conveyed to managers. By serving in a consulting role, the board makes managers more productive, which, in turn, means higher expected firm output.

This model allowed the scholars to better understand the relationship between the board of directors and the company's managers, as well as with shareholders. The former was particularly important to take into account, because conflict between a board and managers is typically unobservable and can be costly.

The results were surprising. Without short-term incentives, the researchers found, boards did not effectively fulfill their multiple roles. Long-term inducements could make a difference, they found, but only in some aspects of board performance.

While board members were better advisors when given long-term motivations, short-term incentives were better motivators for performing well in their other corporate governance roles, according to the research, which tied specific aspects of board compensation to particular board functions.

Restricted equity awards provided the necessary long-term incentives to improve the efficacy of the board's advisory role, the scholars found, but only the short-term incentives, awarding an unrestricted share or a bonus based on short-term performance, motivated conscientious monitoring.

The scholars also examined managerial misconduct. Board monitoring, they concluded, lowered the cost of preventing such wrongdoing — but only if the board had strong short-term incentives in place.

Even at the highest rungs of the corporate ladder, in other words, short-term self-interest is the greatest motivator. Maybe it's not surprising. In the corporate world, acting for one's own benefit is a given — so stockholders need to look more closely at those at the very top. Like everyone else, board directors need occasional brass rings within easy reach to do their best.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Shiva Sivaramakrishnan is the Henry Gardiner Symonds Professor in Accounting at the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

11 Houston researchers named to Rice innovation cohort

top of class

The Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie) has named 11 students and researchers with breakthrough ideas to its 2026 Rice Innovation Fellows cohort.

The program, first launched in 2022, aims to support Rice Ph.D. students and postdocs in turning their research into real-world ventures. Participants receive $10,000 in translational research funding, co-working space and personalized mentorship.

The eleven 2026 Innovation Fellows are:

Ehsan Aalaei, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Michael King Laboratory

Aalaei is developing new therapies to prevent the spread of cancer.

Matt Lee, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Caleb Bashor Laboratory

Lee’s work uses AI to design the genetic instructions for more effective therapies.

Thomas Howlett, Bioengineering, Postdoctoral 2028

Professor Kelsey Swingle Laboratory

Howlett is developing a self-administered, nonhormonal treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Jonathan Montes, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2025

Professor Jessica Butts Laboratory

Montes and his team are developing a fast-acting, long-lasting nasal spray to relieve chronic and acute anxiety.

Siliang Li, BioSciences, Postdoctoral 2025

Professor Caroline Ajo-Franklin Laboratory

Li is developing noninvasive devices that can quickly monitor gut health signals.

Gina Pizzo, Statistics, Lecturer

Pizzo’s research uses data modeling to forecast crop performance and soil health.

Alex Sadamune, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Chong Xie Laboratory

Sadamune is working to scale the production of high-precision neural implants.

Jaeho Shin, Chemistry, Postdoctoral 2027

Professor James M. Tour Laboratory

Shin is developing next-generation semiconductor and memory technologies to advance computing and AI.

Will Schmid, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Postdoctoral 2025

Professor Alessandro Alabastri Laboratory

Schmid is developing scalable technologies to recover critical minerals from high-salinity resources.

Khadija Zanna, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ph.D. 2026

Professor Akane Sano Laboratory

Zanna is building machine learning tools to help companies deploy advanced AI in compliance with complex global regulations.

Ava Zoba, Materials Science and Nano Engineering, Ph.D. 2029

Professor Christina Tringides Laboratory

Zoba is designing implantable devices to improve the monitoring of brain function following tumor-removal surgery.

According to Rice, its Innovation Fellows have gone on to raise over $30 million and join top programs, including The Activate Fellowship, Chain Reaction Innovations Fellowship, the Texas Medical Center’s Cancer Therapeutics Accelerator and the Rice Biotech Launch Pad. Past participants include ventures like Helix Earth Technologies and HEXASpec.

“These fellows aren’t just advancing science — they’re building the future of industry here at Rice,” Kyle Judah, Lilie’s executive director, said in a news release. “Alongside their faculty members, they’re stepping into the uncertainty of turning research into real-world solutions. That commitment is rare, and it’s exactly why Lilie and Rice are proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them and nurture their ambition to take on civilization-scale problems that truly matter.”

Houston startup debuts new drone for first responders

taking flight

Houston-based Paladin Drones has debuted Knighthawk 2.0, its new autonomous, first-responder drone.

The drone aims to strengthen emergency response and protect first responders, the company said in a news release.

“We’re excited to launch Knighthawk 2.0 to help build safer cities and give any city across the world less than a 70-second response time for any emergency,” said Divyaditya Shrivastava, CEO of Paladin.

The Knighthawk 2.0 is built on Paladin’s Drone as a First Responder (DFR) technology. It is equipped with an advanced thermal camera with long-range 5G/LTE connectivity that provides first responders with live, critical aerial awareness before crews reach the ground. The new drone is National Defense Authorization Act-compliant and integrates with Paladin's existing products, Watchtower and Paladin EXT.

Knighthawk 2.0 can log more than 40 minutes of flight time and is faster than its previous model, reaching a reported cruising speed of more than 70 kilometers per hour. It also features more advanced sensors, precision GPS and obstacle avoidance technology, which allows it to operate in a variety of terrains and emergency conditions.

Paladin also announced a partnership with Portuguese drone manufacturer Beyond Vision to integrate its Drone as a First Responder (DFR) technology with Beyond Vision’s NATO-compliant, fully autonomous unmanned aerial systems. Paladin has begun to deploy the Knighthawk 2.0 internationally, including in India and Portugal.

The company raised a $5.2 million seed round in 2024 and another round for an undisclosed amount earlier this year. In 2019, Houston’s Memorial Villages Police Department piloted Paladin’s technology.

According to the company, Paladin wants autonomous drones responding to every 911 call in the U.S. by 2027.

Rice research explores how shopping data could reshape credit scores

houston voices

More than a billion people worldwide can’t access credit cards or loans because they lack a traditional credit score. Without a formal borrowing history, banks often view them as unreliable and risky. To reach these borrowers, lenders have begun experimenting with alternative signals of financial reliability, such as consistent utility or mobile phone payments.

New research from Rice Business builds on that approach. Previous work by assistant professor of marketing Jung Youn Lee showed that everyday data like grocery store receipts can help expand access to credit and support upward mobility. Her latest study extends this insight, using broader consumer spending patterns to explore how alternative credit scores could be created for people with no credit history.

Forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing Research, the study finds that when lenders use data from daily purchases — at grocery, pharmacy, and home improvement stores — credit card approval rates rise. The findings give lenders a powerful new tool to connect the unbanked to credit, laying the foundation for long-term financial security and stronger local economies.

Turning Shopping Habits into Credit Data

To test the impact of retail transaction data on credit card approval rates, the researchers partnered with a Peruvian company that owns both retail businesses and a credit card issuer. In Peru, only 22% of people report borrowing money from a formal financial institution or using a mobile money account.

The team combined three sets of data: credit card applications from the company, loyalty card transactions, and individuals’ credit histories from Peru’s financial regulatory authority. The company’s point-of-sale data included the types of items purchased, how customers paid, and whether they bought sale items.

“The key takeaway is that we can create a new kind of credit score for people who lack traditional credit histories, using their retail shopping behavior to expand access to credit,” Lee says.

The final sample included 46,039 credit card applicants who had received a single credit decision, had no delinquent loans, and made at least one purchase between January 2021 and May 2022. Of these, 62% had a credit history and 38% did not.

Using this data, the researchers built an algorithm that generated credit scores based on retail purchases and predicted repayment behavior in the six months following the application. They then simulated credit card approval decisions.

Retail Scores Boost Approvals, Reduce Defaults

The researchers found that using retail purchase data to build credit scores for people without traditional credit histories significantly increased their chances of approval. Certain shopping behaviors — such as seeking out sale items — were linked to greater reliability as borrowers.

For lenders using a fixed credit score threshold, approval rates rose from 15.5% to 47.8%. Lenders basing decisions on a target loan default rate also saw approvals rise, from 15.6% to 31.3%.

“The key takeaway is that we can create a new kind of credit score for people who lack traditional credit histories, using their retail shopping behavior to expand access to credit,” Lee says. “This approach benefits unbanked applicants regardless of a lender’s specific goals — though the size of the benefit may vary.”

Applicants without credit histories who were approved using the retail-based credit score were also more likely to repay their loans, indicating genuine creditworthiness. Among first-time borrowers, the default rate dropped from 4.74% to 3.31% when lenders incorporated retail data into their decisions and kept approval rates constant.

For applicants with existing credit histories, the opposite was true: approval rates fell slightly, from 87.5% to 84.5%, as the new model more effectively screened out high-risk applicants.

Expanding Access, Managing Risk

The study offers clear takeaways for banks and credit card companies. Lenders who want to approve more applications without taking on too much risk can use parts of the researchers’ model to design their own credit scoring tools based on customers’ shopping habits.

Still, Lee says, the process must be transparent. Consumers should know how their spending data might be used and decide for themselves whether the potential benefits outweigh privacy concerns. That means lenders must clearly communicate how data is collected, stored, and protected—and ensure customers can opt in with informed consent.

Banks should also keep a close eye on first-time borrowers to make sure they’re using credit responsibly. “Proactive customer management is crucial,” Lee says. That might mean starting people off with lower credit limits and raising them gradually as they demonstrate good repayment behavior.

This approach can also discourage people from trying to “game the system” by changing their spending patterns temporarily to boost their retail-based credit score. Lenders can design their models to detect that kind of behavior, too.

The Future of Credit

One risk of using retail data is that lenders might unintentionally reject applicants who would have qualified under traditional criteria — say, because of one unusual purchase. Lee says banks can fine-tune their models to minimize those errors.

She also notes that the same approach could eventually be used for other types of loans, such as mortgages or auto loans. Combined with her earlier research showing that grocery purchase data can predict defaults, the findings strengthen the case that shopping behavior can reliably signal creditworthiness.

“If you tend to buy sale items, you’re more likely to be a good borrower. Or if you often buy healthy food, you’re probably more creditworthy,” Lee explains. “This idea can be applied broadly, but models should still be customized for different situations.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Written by Deborah Lynn Blumberg

Anderson, Lee, and Yang (2025). “Who Benefits from Alternative Data for Credit Scoring? Evidence from Peru,” Journal of Marketing Research.