The pursuit of greenhouse gas reduction objectives by major economies has led them to increase their share of renewable energy. Energy subsidies are crucial but are fraught with controversy under WTO law. For renewables such as photovoltaics, the focus on production subsidies makes them an easier target of WTO cases. The photovoltaic industry requires technological innovation, which is rarely addressed in WTO law. Therefore, there is a need to reform the relevant rules to support the development of renewable energy.

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has its roots in the United States, between the 1930s and 1950s. Following the first definition proposed by Howard Bowen, who is today considered the father of CSR, it soon became a concept of great interest to the scientific community. Over the decades, this community has gradually shifted its interest from a definition of CSR to its implementation. Nevertheless, in today’s highly globalized and pluralized economies, affected as they are by new social issues, deficiencies in the theorization and conceptualization of CSR are still considered significant and pending challenges, which need to be resolved before there can be a univocal and global understanding of CSR. In this context, culture plays an important and distinctive role: the more global and de-territorialized a corporate’s activities, the wider the differences to which its CSR approach is exposed. Consequently, when applied to a pluralized and globalized market service, the more difficult the theorization and conceptualization of CSR become. The experiences of Japan and China, both deeply touched by Confucianism over time, represent two interesting examples of special dimensions of CSR from which Western countries can learn much. The CSR approach of Bhutan offers another interesting perspective. Recognising that the objective identification of corporate duties is extremely complex, and that it is equally complex to identify criteria, on the basis of which a corporate practice may be considered to conform to the principles of CSR, the chapter wants to stimulate debate around the question: Does CSR need to be regulated and defined, as ‘something’ new in corporates’ management experience, or is it perhaps something that has always existed, and in some situations, is self-regulating and therefore it translates only in a tool for competition?

Since the beginning of this century, information technologies have been characterized by impressive advancements that have offered us powerful tools such as distributed ledger technologies, blockchain, machine learning algorithms and smart contracts. Corporate law has not been immune from this rapid evolution; in 2014, the news that an algorithm named “Vital” had been appointed to a board of directors of a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm caused a sensation in the business environment and among corporate law scholars. In fact, this algorithm did not assume the legal role of a board member; rather it operated as an advisor of the board of directors aimed at protecting the firm from risky (as well as overpriced) investments.
A similar use of technology at the board level has been noticed as a starting point from which it is conceivable (and desirable) to develop unique tools to overcome humans’ cognitive biases and improve board monitoring function as well as boost businesses’ productivity.
The crucial role of Corporation Technologies in reducing agency costs and promoting the disintermediation of organizational structures has been further emphasised in connection with the corporate social responsibility discourse. In fact, the economist Milton Friedman’s traditional assumption that ‘the only social responsibility’ of the corporation is ‘to increase its profit so long as it stays within the rules of the game’ has been vigorously re-discussed. In the Anglo-American corporate debate, as well as in the European debate, the sustainability of businesses is among the top item in the agendas of leading corporations and policy makers, increasingly so after the pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of economic structures to systemic risks.
In view of the intersection between corporate governance and sustainability, the international debate has identified shareholders’ long-term interests as a point of convergence of private business models and social and environmental values. In other words, private companies are invited to assume a societal role and to design appropriate strategies for managing their impact on the environment and the society as a whole.
The colours of 21st -century corporate law are blue for corporate technologies and green for environmental policies. The prospect of algorithmic governance in contemporary corporate law systems could be a desirable tool as long as it serves to promote the sustainable development of firms integrating management models inspired by IEL general principles but not compromising their competitiveness.

By 2021, over two-thirds of countries across the globe were exploring the way to issue a CBDC, among which China has taken the lead. The Chinese CBDC – DCEP has been on trial in various cities and areas, which heralds its general application in the near future. However, by elaborating on the main features of the DCEP, this paper discerns several challenges that the DCEP may have to face owing to the special regulatory design – setting the reserve rate for the DCEP at 100% – to cater to the need of the internationalization of the Renminbi (‘RMB’). This paper maintains that this approach cannot achieve the goal as contemplated. Instead, it would invoke the severe issue of narrow banking. To prevent this negative externality, as well as to stave off the risk of a systemic bank run, this paper proposes to adopt differentiated treatments for various types of digital wallets holding the DCEP.

Commercial mediation is regarded as one of the most significant parts of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, since it has unique advantages compared with “adversarial” dispute resolution mechanisms, such as litigation and arbitration, particularly in cross-border disputes. With the support of official guidelines and the implementation of local governments, it is observed that mediation has become a popular alternative dispute resolution method applied by more and more citizens in the GBA. In addition, China became a member state of the Singapore Mediation Convention in 2019, which demonstrates that China attaches great importance to mediation mechanisms, with both academics and professionals recognizing the unique role of mediation in the process of dispute resolution. Against this backdrop, this article focuses on the implications of the Hong Kong experience to the development of commercial mediation in the Mainland, which revolves around four aspects: voluntariness of mediation activities, confidentiality rules, the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements and capacity building of mediators. Due to the great disparity in the development of commercial mediation in different GBA regions, particularly in terms of rule frameworks and patterns of mediation, this article argues that the future development in the GBA of commercial mediation can refer to the Hong Kong experience in the following four respects. Firstly, the principle of voluntariness should be enhanced in the conduct of commercial mediation; Secondly, provisions of confidentiality and detailed provisions for breaching the confidentiality principle should be formulated in commercial mediation; Thirdly, a uniform rule framework to govern the mutual recognition and enforcement of commercial mediated settlement agreements across the GBA should be provided. Last but not least, a uniform mediator evaluation system and a mediator qualification certification platform should be established in the Mainland. 

Globalization and international trade call for dispute resolution service competitions among various nations. China is building a Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DDRM) to connect litigation with alternative dispute resolution methods to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of its dispute resolution system and improve the legal environment for foreign investment. This Chapter demonstrates China’s latest development in international commercial dispute resolution from three perspectives: the construction of the Chinese International Commercial Court under the Belt-and-Road Initiative, arbitration reforms in FTZs, and the development of commercial mediation in China with the impact of the Singapore Mediation Convention on Mediation. These judicial reforms and legal practices prove that China is moving towards the modernization of its commercial dispute resolution system, but further legislative and judicial reforms are required.

Structure: The structure of this chapter consists of five sections. Section I summarizes the concept of a diversified dispute resolution mechanism (DDSM) in the background of China’s further integration into the world market and embracing international rules of commercial dispute resolution. Section II to IV demonstrates the framework of the DDSM from three perspectives: international commercial court, arbitration, and commercial mediation. Section II focuses on China’s International Commercial Court with emphasis on its jurisdiction, expertise in foreign law ascertainment, procedural reforms, and the construction of a one-stop international commercial dispute resolution platform. Section III concentrates on international arbitration reforms in the context of free trade zones. The FTZs serve as a judicial experiment for allowing foreign arbitration institutions to administer international commercial disputes in China, with practical challenges, such as the legality concern of foreign arbitration institutions, the scope of foreign-related disputes, and judicial support for the arbitration proceedings administered by foreign arbitration institutions. Section IV discusses the mediation legal framework in China, focusing on judicial mediation and commercial mediation, with a light touch on the impact of the Singapore Convention on China’s mediation development. Section V concludes with current challenges to China’s development in a diversified dispute resolution mechanism and provides recommendations for the future development of the DDRM.