Theoretical Perspectives on Ethical Dilemmas in Globalization and International Taxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global corporations confront ethical dilemmas that lead to increasingly contentious environments where corporations extend tax planning by availing of ambiguities and new devices such as tax havens emerging from a globalized economic system. Adopting a normative theory-based approach, the paper contextualizes global tax planning approaches applying three theoretical perspectives, agency, legitimacy and normative stakeholder that help interpret ethical issues in global taxation to reflect the tensions and viewpoints of interest groups. The paper thereby extends the classifications of tax planning beyond those that emerge through the stages of historic growth of tax departments as profit centers and risk management centers (e.g., Donohoe, McGill, & Outslay, 2014) to stakeholder accountability centers. Specifically, drawing attention to the multiple stakeholders impacted by global business and international taxation, the paper presents a rationale for public policy that engages global business to further the public interest through a stakeholder based tax planning approach.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".