Tying It All Together: The Potential of Legal, Social and Market-Based Control Mechanisms to Enforce Integrated and Sustainable Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated and sustainable decision-making, which requires directors of corporations to take into account environmental, social and economic issues into their decision process, is the “keystone” of the legal principles of corporate social responsibility. A voluntary form of the principle of integrated and sustainable decision-making is part of Canadian corporate law since the enlargement of corporate directors’ duties of loyalty in the BCE decision. Although socio-legal literature has shown that voluntary principles may have a real regulatory impact, the effectiveness of a voluntary principle of integrated decision-making in furthering social and economic issues has still not been assessed. This article will argue that in order to determine the potential of integrated decision-making in ensuring greater corporate social responsibility, it is necessary to study the legal, social and market-based control mechanisms by which integrated decision-making is implemented. To what extent do these control mechanisms enforce the principle of integrated decision-making, given the unequal access of stakeholders to these control mechanisms and the competing norms of shareholder primacy and share value maximization they carry? We find that while each of the regulatory mechanisms could be used to implement the principle of integrated decision-making, no mechanism alone is sufficient to ensure that social responsibility will trump financial considerations if a choice has to be made. The analysis concludes on the regulatory courses of action that could be taken to strengthen the principle of sustainable and integrated decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".