Stakeholder Theory in Corporate Law: Has It Got What It Takes?
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
There has been much debate for many years as to what should be the objective of the large public company. This issue is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the theory nominated will underpin corporate governance and dictate to a large extent the kind of corporate governance system that will exist. As far as the objective of the company is concerned, two theories have been dominant. They are the shareholder primacy and stakeholder theories. The former is said to be operative in what I will call “Anglo-American jurisdictions,” namely jurisdictions that model their law and practice on one or both of the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). Jurisdictions falling within this category are obviously the US and the UK, and other examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The stakeholder theory is said to operate in many continental European and East Asian countries. The prime examples are usually said to be Germany and Japan. Notwithstanding the fact that the US and the UK and other Anglo-American jurisdictions have been regularly said to embrace shareholder primacy, there are many who feel that some of these jurisdictions are moving towards more of a stakeholder approach to corporate governance. This is due to a number of factors such as : the enactment in the US of constituency statutes in more than forty of the States; 1 the growth in the literature in Anglo-
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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