Going Global Responsibly? China's Strategies Towards "Sustainable" Overseas Investments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article traces the evolution of China's policies aimed at promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainable investments, while assessing the extent to which its regulatory regime has succeeded in influencing the investment strategies of Chinese national companies across the developing world, specifically in Africa and the Mekong region. In an attempt to improve its international reputation, the Chinese government has stepped up its initiatives in recent years to oversee the practices of Chinese companies abroad and reorient the country's policies towards greater corporate responsibility. But while promising, these efforts have been largely impeded by weak policy implementation. As evinced from the African mining sector and the Mekong's hydropower industry, the diversity of corporate actors and their relative autonomy in making investment decisions, combined with lax governance in host countries and a long-standing concern with national development, have worked to hinder the effective regulation of Chinese overseas investments. Yet, that China, as a new country of origin of FDI, and Chinese firms are now making commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability remains significant, indicating an important development in the country's "Going Global" strategy. © Pacific Affairs. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".