Seen and Heard? Children's Participation Rights and Corporate Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars in the fields of sociology, child development and human rights have focused on conceptualizations of children as well as the shift from viewing children as mere adjuncts to adults to distinct rights-holders. Researchers in the fields of business and management studies explore the interplay of business responsibility and society in general. What remains relatively unexplored in either literature is the nexus of business and the human rights of children. In particular, children’s participation rights remain largely ignored. People living with poverty at any age often cite a lack of agency and participation as one of the more onerous aspects of deprivation. The paper suggests that when policies and programs for which the poor are targeted do not include their meaningful participation, the same loss of control and dignity occurs once more. This holds as true for corporate social responsibility initiatives as any other poverty alleviation effort. The research assumes it is the role of States and NGOs to foster a climate of participation that avoids objectifying children and instead views them as rights-holders. The research questions how well the participation rights of children are accounted for in business in view of the fact that the CRC is the world's most widely ratified human rights instrument. The paper highlights the potential offered by recent efforts from the Committee on the Rights of the Child through General Comment 16 as well as the new Children's Rights and Business Principles to meaningfully engage children. It concludes, however, with a call to move from well-intentioned but ad hoc measures to mainstreaming children's participation rights in all interactions within the realm of business, particularly in this early stage when getting rights right is critical.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".