The corporate social responsibility movement and law's empire: Is there a conflict?

At the heart of corporate governance and social responsibility discourse is recognition of the fact that the modern corporation is primarily governed by the profit maximisation imperative coupled with moral and ethical concerns that such a limited imperative drives the actions of large and wealthy corporations which have the ability to act in influential and significant ways, shaping how our social world is experienced. The actions of the corporation and its management will have a wide sphere of impact over all of its stakeholders whether these are employees, shareholders, consumers or the community in which the corporation is located. As globalisation has become central to the way we think it is also clear that ‘community’ has an ever expanding meaning which may include workers and communities living very far away from Corporate HQ. In recent years academic commentators have become increasingly concerned about the emphasis on what can be called short-term profit maximisation and the perception that this extremist interpretation of the profit imperative results in morally and ethically unacceptable outcomes.1 Hence demands for more corporate social responsibility. Following Cadbury’s2 classification of corporate social responsibility into three distinct areas, this paper will argue that once the legally regulated tier is left aside corporate responsibility can become so nebulous as to be relatively meaningless. The argument is not that corporations should not be required to act in socially responsible ways but that unless supported by regulation, which either demands high standards, or at the very least incentivises the attainment of such standards such initiatives are doomed to failure. The paper will illustrate by reference to various chosen cases that law’s discourse has already signposted ways to consider and resolve corporate governance problems in the broader social responsibility context.3 It will also illustrate how corporate responsibility can and must be supported by legal measures. Secondly, this paper will consider the potential conflict between an emphasis on corporate social responsibility and the regulatory approach.4 Finally, this paper will place the current interest in corporate social responsibility within the broader debate on the relationship between law and non-legally enforceable norms and will present some reflections on the norm debate arising from this consideration of the CSR movement.

Legal regulation of the software "patentable subject matter" requirement in the US and in Europe: The need for certainty, predictability and uniformity

This thesis critically investigates the divergent international approaches to the legal regulation of the patentability of computer software inventions, with a view to identifying the reforms necessary for a certain, predictable and uniform inter-jurisdictional system of protection. Through a critical analysis of the traditional and contemporary US and European regulatory frameworks of protection for computer software inventions, this thesis demonstrates the confusion and legal uncertainty resulting from ill-defined patent laws and inconsistent patent practices as to the scope of the “patentable subject matter” requirement, further compounded by substantial flaws in the structural configuration of the decision-making procedures within which the patent systems operate. This damaging combination prevents the operation of an accessible and effective Intellectual Property (IP) legal framework of protection for computer software inventions, capable of securing adequate economic returns for inventors whilst preserving the necessary scope for innovation and competition in the field, to the ultimate benefit of society. In exploring the substantive and structural deficiencies in the European and US regulatory frameworks, this thesis develops to ultimately highlight that the best approach to the reform of the legal regulation of software patentability is two-tiered. It demonstrates that any reform to achieve international legal harmony first requires the legislature to individually clarify (Europe) or restate (US) the long-standing inadequate rules governing the scope of software “patentable subject matter”, together with the reorganisation of the unworkable structural configuration of the decision-making procedures. Informed by the critical analysis of the evolution of the “patentable subject matter” requirement for computer software in the US, this thesis particularly considers the potential of the reforms of the European patent system currently underway, to bring about certainty, predictability and uniformity in the legal treatment of computer software inventions.