Stuck in Neutral? Reforming Corporate Purpose and Fiduciary Duties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After decades of corporate leadership based on shareholder wealth maximization, momentum is now gathering behind a shift towards the recognition of stakeholder interests. However, from voluntary actions by business to changes in soft and hard law, the steps taken thus far have been insufficient to result in meaningful changes. Instead, we are stuck in neutral. A more decisive push is needed to ensure that business contributes to tackling the most pressing societal issues of our times in a substantial and timely manner. The Canadian corporate landscape, although beginning to shift away from shareholder primacy, is still not settled and in many ways has stagnated since the Supreme Court’s decisions in People’s and BCE. The CBCA’s new section 122(1.1) codifies that case law and therefore cannot be expected to provide a new impetus. Drawing from the experience in the United Kingdom, which previously introduced legislation similar to the Canadian reforms, we suggest that more than minor tweaks to corporate law are necessary to achieve meaningful and timely change. Working along with regulation in other areas of the law, corporate law can help transform corporate acts away from a solitary focus on shareholder wealth maximization if it offers mandatory and tailored mandates that guide corporations to prescribed outcomes. We propose therefore legislative changes to re-define corporate purpose more broadly and implement a mandatory system of balancing of shareholder and stakeholder interests by corporate leadership, with an emphasis on protection and advancement of human rights and environmental considerations.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".