Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Marianne Von Blomberg!

Welcome to Dr Marianne Von Blomberg who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Marianne von Blomberg is a Global Academic Fellow (postdoctoral researcher) at the Law and Technology Centre of the University of Hong Kong. She also participates in a research project on corporate social responsibility regimes and techno-regulation in Europe and China at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. Her work uses qualitative empirical methods to examine how public regulation of and through digital technologies evolves across China and the European Union.

Her research focuses on social credit systems and related forms of assessment-based governance in China and beyond, as well as on techno-orientalism in media and policy discourse. In her current work, she expands her work on regulation and governance to include processes of technical standardization as key sites where regulatory logics are developed and negotiated.

She completed her PhD at the University of Cologne, funded by the German Academic Scholarship Foundation and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation. The project investigated how evolving social credit systems strengthen, weaken and transform the law in China and is grounded in three years of fieldwork and analyses of official documents.  Her focus on modes of public regulation and their transformation has led her to observe the processes and fora of technical standardization in her postdoctoral work.

Beyond research, Marianne contributes to public and policy-facing engagement on PRC law in Europe through advising EU officials, teaching, and serving as the editor of the blog of the European Chinese Law Studies Association (ecls.eu), and co-organizing its conferences and summer schools. Marianne holds an LL.M. from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou and a BA in Communication and Cultural Studies from Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen. She has been a visiting scholar at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law and has professional experience with several news outlets, the Jingling Law Firm (criminal defense), the Volkswagen Group, and the German Embassy in Ottawa.

Say Goo on Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations (Amicus Curiae)

"Is Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations"
Say Goo
Amicus Curiae (‘Friend of the Court’), Vol. 7 No. 2 (2026): Series 2, pp.601-639
Published online: March 2026

Abstract: This article fundamentally challenges the dominant corporate social responsibility (CSR) paradigm by arguing that structural governance reform (stakeholder boards) is necessary because voluntary CSR, disclosure requirements, and external regulation cannot adequately internalize externalities when boards are legally bound to prioritize shareholder interests. It fundamentally reframes CSR from a voluntary ethical choice or matter of “enlightened” management discretion to a structural governance problem. It challenges the dominant assumption that shareholder profit maximization maximizes societal efficiency. It demonstrates formally that when externalities can be externalized, shareholder profit (M) diverges from societal efficiency (E), sometimes dramatically. Current corporate law compounds this problem by legally obligating directors to pursue the misleading profit figure rather than genuine social value. The proposed solution offered is that stakeholder board representation offers a more direct and potentially more efficient mechanism for internalizing costs than relying on external regulation alone. Voluntary environment, social and governance reporting, stakeholder consultation, and investor pressure all fail because they leave intact the fundamental board structure that creates incentives to externalize. Stakeholder representation addresses the root cause.

Say Goo on The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China (The Journal of Comparative Law)

"The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China"
Say Goo
The Journal of Comparative Law, Vol 20, Issue 2, 2025
Published in Oct 2025

The Background

State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China have long been struggling with, amongst other problems, the question of the efficiency of their governance structure and their corporate social responsibility (CSR). The recent introduction of party committees into China's SOEs and the imposition of a duty of corporate social responsibility on the SOEs was intended to deal with these issues, but have raised concerns in the West of political interference by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the SOEs' operations, thereby affecting the objectives and efficiency of the SOEs, and how this duty is to be fulfilled by SOEs. This paper therefore, examines the research question: how China can improve the corporate governance structure of SOEs to better fulfil CSR while maintaining efficiency, and specifically, whether implementing stakeholder representation within existing party committee structures or boards of directors would be able to address current governance shortcomings?

Haochen Sun on Corporate Fundamental Responsibility: What Do Technology Companies Owe the World? (U of Miami L Rev)

"Corporate Fundamental Responsibility: What Do Technology Companies Owe the World?"

Haochen Sun

University of Miami Law Review, 
April 2020, Volume 74, Issue 3, Article 6 

Abstract: In this digital age, technology companies reign supreme. However, the power gained by these companies far exceeds the responsibilities they have assumed. The ongoing privacy protection and fake news scandals swirling around Facebook clearly demonstrate this shocking asymmetry of power and responsibility. Legal reforms taking place in the United States in the past twenty years or so have failed to correct this asymmetry. Indeed, the U.S. Congress has enacted major statutes minimizing the legal liabilities of technology companies with respect to online infringing acts, privacy protection, and payment of taxes. While these statutes have promoted innovation, they have also had the unintended effect of breeding irresponsibility among technology companies. Against this backdrop, this Article offers a new lens through which we can deal with the ethical crisis surrounding technology companies. It puts forward the concept of corporate fundamental responsibility as the ethical and legal foundation for imposing three distinct responsibilities upon technology companies: to reciprocate users’ contributions, play their role positively, and confront injustices created by technological development. The Article further considers how these responsibilities could be applied to improve protection of private data and to encourage responsible exercise of intellectual property rights by technology companies. The tripartite conception of corporate fundamental responsibility, this Article shows, is built upon the ethical theories of reciprocity, role responsibility, and social justice. Therefore, corporate fundamental responsibility paves the way for technology law to embrace ethics whole-heartedly, creating new legal and ethical guidance for the benevolent behavior of technology companies. In developing technologies, collecting data, and regulating speech, technology company leaders must act responsibly for the future of humanity. Click here to read the full paper at SSRN.