Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility? Legislative Innovation and Judicial Application in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often understood as voluntary corporate behavior beyond legal compliance. The recent emergence of CSR legislation is challenging this typical understanding. A number of countries including China, Indonesia, and India have expressly stated in legislation that companies shall undertake CSR. However, the CSR law is controversial. Critics of CSR see the law as an unwise effort to challenge profit maximization as the only social responsibility of the corporation. Even CSR advocates welcome the CSR law with great caution. Given the vague statutory language of CSR, the practical application of the law places high demands on the judiciary. However, as the countries that have adopted the CSR law are mainly developing countries with rather weak legal institutions, it raises a common concern that the law is simply an innovation without implementation. This Article conducts an empirical study of China, an early adopter of CSR legislation. The empirical analysis of Chinese court cases reveals what the CSR law means in judicial practice, whether CSR is in fact mandatory, and in what types of disputes CSR is relevant or outcome determinative. Among various findings, this Article shows that the CSR law is by no means as useless as commonly expected. The meaningful application of the law is attributable to the law’s compatibility with China’s legal infrastructure and sociopolitical institutions. Chinese courts have innovatively applied CSR in various contexts far beyond the traditionally Western-led focus on directors’ fiduciary duties. The Chinese experience suggests that the CSR law is more of a judicial review standard than a corporate behavior standard, which further confirms the importance of judicial capacity in implementing the vague law. This Article concludes with insights for the corporate purpose debate from a comparative perspective and with policy suggestions for adopting CSR legislation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it