Directors Duties under the CBCA:Shareholder Theory versus Stakeholder Theory Consideration of Stakeholder Theory's Legal and Moral Supremacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional scholarship on corporate law evidences the lack of analysis undertaken to understand the interconnectivity between businesses and the societies in which they operate where , scholarship and case law had favored shareholder primacy. However, an analysis of Section 122 of the Canadian Business Corporations Act (CBCA), reveals that the ambiguous language of director’s duties under the CBCA allows for the courts to continue modernize the law inclusive of stakeholder rights without requiring statutory amendments. Therefore, this thesis argues that courts have the flexibility to interpret that directors are within their duties to balance the rights of both shareholders and stakeholders. In fact, this thesis argues that stakeholder theory is superior to shareholder theory in consideration of law and morality. By concluding that stakeholder theory is the new accepted standard in Canadian Corporate law, this paper offers directors guidance on how to perform their role in accordance with the CBCA.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".