MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance

2016· book· en· W2642590325 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia A. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceStakeholderCorporationCorporate social responsibilityShareholder primacyAccountingCorporate communicationCorporate lawCorporate securityBusinessStakeholder theoryShareholderArgument (complex analysis)Political sciencePublic relationsLaw and economicsLawEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate social responsibility is a subject of growing importance in business and law. Today, no analysis of corporate governance systems would be complete without considering the pressures on companies to be seen as responsible corporate citizens. This chapter provides a descriptive overview of developments in the field, including increasing voluntary and required environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure; and proliferating voluntary and multilateral standards for responsible corporate behavior. It reviews some of the more significant empirical evidence on the financial results of companies’ implementation of corporate responsibility initiatives, including the effects of such initiatives on innovation, trust, and social welfare. It concludes with an analysis relating these developments to arguments about the objectives of the corporation and the shareholder/stakeholder debate—with particular reference to the argument between Cornell Distinguished Professor of Corporate and Business Law, Lynn A. Stout, and Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo E. Strine, Jr.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207