Corporate social responsibility: a hybrid concept restraining legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focus on the Corporate Social Responsibility as a hybrid concept born from discussion on corporations’ behaviors and the consequences of its activities on the world stage. The purpose of this thesis is to study the origins of corporate social responsibility and how this concept was introduced in the law. The first part of this study is to identify the substance of CSR. After understanding the concept of CSR, the next objective will be to identify how this content is implemented in the legislation. In order to do that, the approach will be international. On the second part, this thesis starts to focus on how the concept of CSR is implemented in the international standards and norms by international organizations. As this study was born from my experience in Canadian and French law school, this thesis will focus for the third part on how these international standards have been implemented into Canadian and French law. Moreover, this will be illustrated by case law of the Canadian and French Courts. This will be concluded by a reflection on the situation of corporate social responsibility and observations of how CSR have evolved during these years, how case law showed evolution and improvements in the approach of CSR, and what could be the future of CSR.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".