Corporate Stakeholders in Canada—An Overview and a Proposal
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
The stakeholder vision has emerged as an influential stream in corporate governance. In the English-speaking world, Canada was the pioneer in introducing a regulatory stakeholder regime. This article examines the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for its concern for non-shareholder groups, in particular, their inclusion in the remedies provided in the statute and the experience with it. After making a critical review of the CBCA stakeholder regime, the article proposes specialized agencies to deal with intra-corporate or stakeholder disputes in business corporations. The stakeholder remedy in the CBCA is egalitarian. It posits a doctrinal equality between shareholders and other constituencies. An issue with the stakeholder remedy the CBCA promotes and the stakeholder empowerment it attempts in this process is their ex post principle. It is about intervention after conflicts have arisen between corporate actors. The framework is derived, essentially, from private law ideas about disputes and resolving them through litigation. As a result, the stakeholder regime in the CBCA does not sufficiently adopt the institutional approach to lawmaking. Yet the CBCA regime is a positive beginning, which can graduate towards a more wholesome model, one with the stakeholder vision as an informing principle of governance.The oppression remedy in the CBCA is also available to non-shareholder groups. Yet, the article argues, it has not been applied in an effective manner to resolve disputes raised by corporate stakeholders. The business judgment rule that courts apply to refrain from inquiring into corporate disputes is an important factor in undermining the statutory remedy available to non-shareholder groups. To overcome some of the difficulties posed by the business judgment rule and courts' lack of business expertise, the article proposes the creation of specialized, interdisciplinary panels to inquire into stakeholder disputes. This can help in making the stakeholder vision in Canadian corporate law more real and robust.
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 | 0.000 | 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