Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<p>An ebullient global campaign against investment in fossil fuel industries isattracting a diverse entourage that includes community activists, universities andeven some mainstream financial institutions. The movement is coagulatingaround anti-fossil fuel networks, such as 350.orgs Fossil Free, and the FossilFuel Divestment Student Network as well as numerous local hubs of activismsuch as Divest Harvard and Fossil Free UNSW. Frustrated by governmentprevarication, the campaign avows to curb greenhouse gas emissions bypressuring investors to shun fossil fuel industries such as oil firms and coalminers in the hope that they adopt more environmentally benign practices or goout of business altogether. Divestment conventionally means withdrawingfinancial ties from a company, usually by selling stocks or bonds, but mayextend to other financial sanctions such as a bank declining a loan.</p><p>The foregoing campaign is opposed by many financiers, and governmentstoo, for reasons that include the belief that divesting is financially irresponsible,it cannot leverage positive change and that it is unlawful or legally dubious. TheBritish government in February 2016 warned municipal councils against fossil fuels divestment and threatened to financially punish those who defy it. Anumber of United States universities, which have faced concerted pressure fromstudents to divest, have similarly resisted for the foregoing reasons. The legalcontext is ambiguous, partly because of the paucity of case law or legislativeguidance on whether and how climate change risks and impacts can be criteria infinancial decision-making. Legal opinions tend to be couched with manyqualifications, such as one given to the Interfaith Center on Corporate SocialResponsibility the leading faith-based investor network in the United States that the law likely preclude[s] a fiduciary from eliminating the entire [fossil fuel]industry [from its portfolio] without considering each investment [that would beaffected] on a case-by-case basis.</p><p>This article assesses the legality of fossil fuels divesting. Divesting is a formof socially responsible investing (SRI), and therefore the analysis draws onunderstandings of SRIs legal context. The article focuses on the majorAnglophile jurisdictions because they are either globally preeminent financialmarkets (United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK)) or host large fossilfuel sectors such as oil sands (Canada) and coal mining (Australia). Thediscussion is not directly applicable to civil law systems, such as Germany orJapan, where some different legal doctrines and procedures govern investing.Neither the merits of fossil fuel investing nor its impact on corporate behaviourare assessed: the focus is strictly on understanding the legal scope to practisefossil fuels divestment.</p>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».