Rise of the Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case for Corporate Customary International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Corporations have taken on an expansive role in the global community with transnational operations, extensive resources, power and influence, and significant environmental and human rights impacts. While corporate social responsibility (CSR) has developed standards and practices aimed at addressing the social responsibility of corporations, its legal effect, if any, is unclear. In part, this can be linked to the lack of status and direct accountability for corporations in international law. This article seeks to carve out a space for corporations in which the realities of their power and impact can be acknowledged, addressed, and managed. It suggests that this can be accomplished through the recognition of corporate customary international law. This corporate customary international law would apply the well-developed law-creation processes of traditional state-based customary international law to businesses. Employing CSR as a practical example, the article suggests that not only is corporate customary international law a theoretical possibility, but its elements can already be seen in the development of CSR. Ultimately, this article aims to show how customary international law, which is an existing tool of international law formation, can be used to bridge the gap between the traditional and contemporary international systems and increase opportunities for businesses to fulfil ethical and legal obligations and to be held accountable for environmental and human rights harms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".