Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article concerns the theorization of shareholder responsibility and ethical investing. The article develops the following arguments, among others:\nIf public corporations pursue stockholder profits “pathologically,” as claimed by some critical scholars, it is not because of any obligation arising under corporate law, but because the pursuit of stockholder profits is congenial to the stockholders.\nFor this reason (and others discussed in the article), shareholders have an ethical stake in the conduct of corporate business, quite apart from any notion that shareholders “own” the corporation.\nA phenomenon which the article terms “bounded empathy,” analogous to “bounded rationality”, can help to explain why, in practice, shareholders’ sense of ethical engagement is more limited than one might wish.\nAlthough unimpeachable from the standpoint of the “nexus of contracts” conception of the corporation, the concept of ethical investing is awkward for corporate law theorists who advocate a rule of exclusive profit-maximization.\nThese theorists respond by characterizing ethical investing as either irrational and aberrant, or else rational and pernicious, both of which characterizations are misguided.\nThe article also considers the implications of the foregoing for two concrete questions arising under corporate law in connection with ethical investing, specifically (a) whether the law should filter out ethically-motivated shareholder proposals; and (b) whether disclosure of matters relevant to ethical analysis of corporate conduct should be mandatory.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".