MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086374548 · doi:10.1080/13600820701201996

Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Constructivist Regime? Evidence from Latin America

2007· article· en· W2086374548 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Alexander Haslam

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPolitical scienceCorporate social responsibilitySocial constructivismSocial responsibilityConstructivist teaching methodsSociologySocial sciencePolitical economyPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper argues that the emerging norms on corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be theorised as a constructivist regime, specifically a subset of private authority regimes—a transnational private legitimacy regime. The purpose of this regime is the transnational legitimation of globalised private accumulation strategies. It hypothesises that CSR acts as a framework of principles, norms and practices that enables communication, negotiation and contestation between civil society organisations (CSOs) and transnational corporations about the social impact of foreign investment. The regime inadvertently transforms the terrain on which businesses interact with other actors from one of power (where business was clearly dominant) to a terrain of (at least partial) legitimacy. This implies that actors that control “legitimacy resources”, such as CSOs, should see their negotiating power increase vis-à-vis businesses. The paper examines these conjectures through a case study of CSR promotion and advocacy in Latin America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal SocietySame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207