DETOXIFYING THE POISONED CHALICE Do the new social responsibility policies for Japanese corporate operations and government development assistance in other countries represent progress after a history of controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) departments have become established in Japanese corporate culture since 2003, there has been a lack of study on how much progress has been made.In addition, important new principles have been established with the Japanese ODA Charter of 2003.The present study attempts to shed light on how social responsibility has progressed in Japanese companies and ODA, and whether the progress can be said to represent a benchmark for other countries to follow.The history of Japan cleaning up its home islands since the Minamata disaster and associated pollution problems shows that remarkable progress has occurred in the past.This history is recounted along with 3 recent case studies.These are the lawsuit launched by Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI) against the Friends of the Lubicon in Canada, the case of Mitsui's attempt to secure rights to mine inside Kudremukh National Park in India, and the JBIC loan for the Orissa Forestry Sector Development Project in India.In each of these cases, an attempt is made to ascertain progress at the present time.The title refers to the need to establish mutual trust following conflicts.I refer to my experience as an environmental journalist over 2 decades, which led me to cover several of these issues at the time they were occurring.It is found that while DMI appears to have made significant progress in terms of CSR implementation, significant problems exist in the other two cases, particularly in terms of transparency.The deeper causes of these problems are analyzed and found to be rooted in the continuing promotion of neoclassical economic principles in economic policy, both in developed and developing countries.Emerging new economic paradigms that may provide a solution are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".