Responsible Business Conduct in the European Union’s Investment Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to characterize the role of responsible business conduct (RBC)/corporate social responsibility (CSR) within the European Union’s (EU) common investment policy. It explores how the EU uses CSR/RBC to promote sustainable development in the context of foreign direct investment (FDI). The main research objectives include an assessment of the potential impact of the provisions on CSR/RBC included in the EU’s international trade/investment agreements on achieving the sustainable goals in host and home countries of FDI, methods of implementing these provisions in international relations, and the future role of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Investment Facilitation Framework for Development (IFD) Agreement in reshaping the EU’s investment policy.The study employs qualitative methods, supported by the examination of examples of the EU’s new generation of international trade and economic partnership agreements (Korea, Canada, and Japan). The EU treats RBC/CSR as a crucial tool for achieving the UN Agenda 2030’s sustainable development goals. Responsible business behavior is promoted and supported by the instruments of the EU’s trade and investment policies. Since RBC/CSR is voluntary, agreements are enforced through soft measures and actions. The only strong instrument, i.e., trade sanctions, is treated as the last resort and has not been used so far.The newly negotiated WTO Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement is expected to enhance the re‑orientation of the EU’s policy towards facilitating foreign investment in relations with developing countries. The paper’s main contribution lies in its examination of the EU’s approach towards CSR/RBC in its international trade/investment agreements. It also analyses the problems associated with implementing RBC/CSR provisions within these agreements.
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 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| 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".