The Roles and Powers of the oecd National Contact Points Regarding Complaints on an Alleged Breach of the oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by a Transnational Corporation
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
This article reflects on the roles and powers of the oecd National Contact Points ( ncp s), under the 2011 version of the oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (‘the Guidelines’), regarding complaints on an alleged breach of the Guidelines by a transnational corporation, from both the empirical and the normative perspective. It does so through an examination of relevant oecd instruments, the regulations and practice of Brazil’s, Mexico’s, Norway’s, the United Kingdom’s and the United States of America’s ncp s, and many relevant theoretical and empirical studies. While this work demonstrates the particular importance of the function of ncp s of handling these complaints, it finds that the ncp s case studies and the Australian have fundamentally different conceptions of their roles and powers regarding such complaints. This contribution, then, proposes an interpretation of these matters based on a systematic understanding of relevant oecd instruments and broader normative considerations. When doing so, it demonstrates that these differences are not well justified in normative terms. In addition and when addressing the main arguments against the proposed view in this study, this work provides new analysis on the distinction between soft and hard law in the field of corporate social responsibility, in light of the case of the Guidelines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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