scholarly journals The Analysis on the china company law by Chinese company investment climate change

2007 ◽  
Vol null (26) ◽  
pp. 147-175
Author(s):  
허동원
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Investment Climate ◽  
Chinese Company

Chinese Company Law

2018 ◽  
pp. 179-214
Author(s):  
Xuemei Qiu ◽  
Zhengling Lin
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Chinese Company

Accounting for Climate Change: Rethinking the Chaotic Corporate Reporting Landscape and Its Purpose, with the UK’s Failure as a Case Study

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-100
Author(s):  
Charlotte Villiers ◽  
Georgina Tsagas
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Corporate Reporting ◽  
Current State ◽  
Legal Consequences

The chapter considers whether company law and corporate governance-related initiatives provide effective mechanisms for holding corporations to account for their contribution to climate change. A key regulatory device targeted at corporations is disclosure, the goal of which, in this context, is to achieve greater transparency regarding the risks and opportunities connected to climate change. The chapter explores to what extent climate change-related reporting contributes to the efforts towards reducing global warming. It is argued that there are a number of significant problems with climate-related reporting in its current state, in so far as there are many different requirements, including standards, codes, guidelines, at industry or sector level as well as at national and international levels; all these combined create a chaotic reporting landscape. Moreover, there is no meaningful link between the disclosures required under company law and initiatives within the area of environmental protection; hence it becomes difficult to identify clearly what the key reporting information is and what the responses and possible legal consequences of any such disclosures should be. Consequently, corporations’ accountability for their contribution to climate change is open to question.

scholarly journals On the Improvement of China’s Legal System of Foreign Direct Investment

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu-Xue Jia
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Joint Ventures ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Operation Duration ◽  
Chinese Company ◽  
Foreign Investment Enterprises

China has not enacted unified foreign direct investment code, and the legal system of foreign direct investment is composed of separate laws and numerous regulations and rules at both national and local level. The establishment of all foreign investment enterprises in China is subject to examination and approval of relevant authorities, only after which enterprises can be registered. The operation duration of equity joint ventures, contractual joint ventures and solely foreign-founded enterprises shall comply with relevant provisions of Chinese laws. The operation duration and disillusion of foreign-invested stock joint limited companies are subject to Chinese Company Law. The 2-track legislation model, under which foreign investment enterprises and domestic enterprises are governed by different laws and regulations, caused conflicts among different laws and difficulties in application of laws. To overcome the defaults China must enact unified law on foreign direct investment.

Civilian Tradition and the Chinese Company Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Porcelli
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Chinese Company

Group Companies and Climate Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Global South ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Corporate Group ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Global North ◽  
Group Structures ◽  
Parent Companies

Abstract A string of corporate litigation cases in the United Kingdom highlights the role of corporate group structures in complicating efforts to impose liability on parent companies for the activities of their subsidiaries, particularly where those subsidiaries are located in the Global South. Corporate group structures serve to insulate parent companies against liability for actions of their subsidiaries. This is the case even where economic benefits accrue to parent companies, which are often incorporated in the Global North. These group structures cabin liability for environmental and climate harms within subsidiary companies through reliance on company law principles such as limited liability and separate legal personality. These company law principles allow parent companies to enjoy corporate profits from the activities of their subsidiaries but disavow liability for any environmental damage resulting from such activities. This dichotomy has obvious equity implications, which are exacerbated in the extractive industries and in the context of climate change. Negative climate impacts are and will be felt predominantly in the Global South. In addition, environmental damage removes avenues of climate adaptation for vulnerable populations. But company law principles are not impervious to these equity challenges. These principles have never been absolute and courts have consistently found exceptions to them, although those exceptions have fluctuated in effectiveness and frequency over the years. Recent decisions by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the United Kingdom imposed duties on parent companies for environmental damage caused by their subsidiaries. Cases following the decision in Chandler v Cape Industries illustrate tension between company law as interpreted in the Global North, and climate and environmental justice as experienced in the Global South. Climate change forces a reconceptualization of company law, including transnational corporate liability. This paper argues that these reconsiderations are not only appropriate, but given the contested histories of many of these companies in the Global South, long overdue.

Capital verification and auditor liability: evidence from China

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (6/7) ◽  
pp. 657-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingfa Lu ◽  
Falconer Mitchell ◽  
Chris Pong
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Social Construction Of Reality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Outright Rejection ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Chinese Company

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the different perspectives of auditors and non-auditors on this question, along with the rationale and impact of these differences. Chinese company law requires an audit report on paid-up capital when business entities are newly formed or their capital altered, which raises questions regarding the liability of auditors should the business entities fail. Design/methodology/approach – Interviews and a questionnaire survey were conducted to analyse how legislation can impact on interested parties in a relatively immature audit environment. The theories of social construction of reality and symbolic interactionism are used as a basis for explaining the different conceptions of capital verification held by interested parties. Findings – There is a mismatch between the purpose of capital verification and the functions of paid-up capital. Paid-up capital is not a reliable indicator of business liquidity and creditworthiness. Auditors and non-auditors have different understandings about the assurance provided by paid-up capital at the point of company formation or auditing field work, and at the point of actual trading after the company formation or auditing field work. They also differ on the causation between deficient capital verification reports and trading loss. The liability crisis adversely influenced auditors’ perception of the capital verification service, although it did not lead to outright rejection by them. Originality/value – This paper describes an important compliance auditing service in China. By conducting an analysis of the conflicting views of auditors and non-auditors on capital verification, it contributes to the existing literature on the sources of disputes between auditors and other stakeholders, and the efforts to establish a balanced auditor liability regime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document