MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948548308 · doi:10.1093/ajcl/avaa025

Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility? Legislative Innovation and Judicial Application in China

2020· article· en· W2948548308 on OpenAlexaff
Li-Wen Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Comparative Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityLegislationStatutory lawBusinessCorporate lawLawLegislatureFiduciaryPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsDutyCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Comparative LawSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207