Climate Change, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Extractive Industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the negotiation of the Paris Agreement, many argued that the final text should integrate a human rights approach so as to better align climate governance under the UNFCCC with climate justice. Reference to human rights ultimately appeared only in the Preamble, despite submissions from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that urgent and ambitious State action to combat climate change is an existing duty of international human rights law. Another submission highlighted the role of businesses as duty-bearers who must contribute to climate mitigation and be accountable for climate impacts.\nThis article will consider an unexplored avenue through which Canada could advocate for climate mitigation by examining whether Canada’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy for Canadian extractive sector companies operating internationally integrates consideration of human rights and climate change. The paper will argue that while Canada’s CSR strategy expects Canadian extractive companies, including oil & gas companies, to respect human rights wherever they operate, the international CSR standards endorsed in the Strategy are largely climate mitigation bind. Moreover, many of these standards are also gender blind, of importance given that women of the global south are among the most vulnerable to the human rights impacts of climate change.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".