Towards Corporate Health Responsibility? An Analysis of Workplace Health Promotion Through the Prism of CSR and Transnational New Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) adopted a new standard, requiring companies to report on their initiatives for the promotion of workers’ health. These initiatives range from the provision of smoking cessation programmes to free health screenings in the workplace, going beyond ‘traditional’ occupational health and safety (OHS) requirements. The new standard is the first transnational instrument to specify express requirements for employers in workplace health promotion. It provides an interesting example of transnational new governance, whereby private actors adopt voluntary norms to regulate business in areas traditionally pertaining to public regulators (here, public health). This article analyses the extent to which private actors have acted as norm entrepreneurs in workplace health promotion, and whether the new standard could mark the emergence of ‘corporate health responsibility’ in the workplace. The article starts by analysing existing intergovernmental instruments in workplace health promotion. After highlighting a regulatory gap in traditional governance, the article examines the contribution of private regulators in workplace health promotion. To this end, it analyses the new standard, as well as the recent reporting practice of transnational corporations (TNCs) in workplace health promotion. Although the new standard is a welcome private, regulatory initiative, it also illustrates the orchestration deficit often found in transnational new governance. The article concludes that the road to ‘corporate health responsibility’ is likely to be a long one. Corporate Social Responsibility, Global Health, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Transnational New Governance, Occupational Health And Safety, Standards, Workers’ Health, Workplace Health Promotion
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".