Corporate social responsibility and "contemporary community expectations"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines recent developments in company law surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR). The focus is on the recognition of stakeholder interests and the role of contemporary community expectations in director decision making. The author provides judicial evidence regarding the recognition of the legitimate interests of shareholders and other stakeholders in company decision making, but acknowledges that the case law does not establish these interests as “rights”. There is discussion of the role of a company as a “good corporate citizen” and contemporary community expectations concerning responsible corporate behaviour and sustainable growth that does not harm the environment or society. The author subsequently argues that contemporary community expectations form a policy basis for judges to interpret the law to reflect CSR. The unique legislative approaches to CSR adopted in the United Kingdom, Canada, India and the European Union are analysed, with consideration of the legislative elements that serve to promote CSR, and those that merely allow corporations to carry on with profit maximisation in a “business as usual” manner. The article concludes that CSR obligations should be reviewed in Australia, with a view to potential law reform in this area considering recent international developments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".