MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corporate Responsibility and the Embedded Firm

2019· reference-entry· en· W2957813633 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia A. Williams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceShareholder primacyEmbeddednessCorporationShareholderFiduciaryCapitalismCorporate social responsibilityPoliticsCorporate lawBusinessMarket economyAccountingPolitical economyEconomicsPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceLawFinanceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines institutional and political economy accounts of corporate social responsibility debates in law and business, and how those debates have been used to shape the social expectations of business and the view of firms as either oriented toward shareholders or stakeholders. The chapter brings a number of disciplinary perspectives to bear on the study of the regulatory evolution and relationship between firms, corporate governance, and labor in the transformation from industrial to finance capitalism. It engages with Karl Polanyi’s concept of embeddedness while reassessing the foundations of corporate social responsibility as an emerging trend. Ultimately it concludes that the problem to be solved in the corporate social relationship is the deeper one of the business corporation being conceptualized in narrow economic terms, and the fiduciary duties of directors being misconceptualized as to maximize shareholder wealth, even as the business corporation acts throughout the world today as a powerful social and political actor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207