research proposals law

Recommended pages

• Undergraduate open days
• Postgraduate open days
• Accommodation
• Information for teachers
• Maps and directions
• Sport and fitness

How to Write a Research Proposal

As part of the application for admission onto our MJur, MPhil and PhD programmes, you must prepare a research proposal outlining your proposed area of study.

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. It sets out the central issues or questions that you intend to address. It outlines the general area of study within which your research falls, referring to the current state of knowledge and any recent debates on the topic. It also demonstrates the originality of your proposed research.

The proposal is the most important document that you submit as part of the application process. It gives you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have the aptitude for graduate level research, for example, by demonstrating that you have the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly, concisely and critically. The proposal also helps us to match your research interest with an appropriate supervisor.

What should you include in the proposal?

Regardless of whether you are applying for the MJur, MPhil or PhD programmes, your research proposal should normally include the following information:

This is just a tentative title for your intended research. You will be able to revise your title during the course of your research if you are accepted for admission.

Examples of the thesis titles of some of our current and recent research students can be seen on our Current Projects page .

2. Abstract

The proposal should include a concise statement of your intended research of no more than 100 words. This may be a couple of sentences setting out the problem that you want to examine or the central question that you wish to address.

3. Research Context

You should explain the broad background against which you will conduct your research. You should include a brief overview of the general area of study within which your proposed research falls, summarising the current state of knowledge and recent debates on the topic. This will allow you to demonstrate a familiarity with the relevant field as well as the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.

4. Research Questions

The proposal should set out the central aims and questions that will guide your research. Before writing your proposal, you should take time to reflect on the key questions that you are seeking to answer. Many research proposals are too broad, so reflecting on your key research questions is a good way to make sure that your project is sufficiently narrow and feasible (i.e. one that is likely to be completed with the normal period for a MJur, MPhil or PhD degree).

You might find it helpful to prioritize one or two main questions, from which you can then derive a number of secondary research questions. The proposal should also explain your intended approach to answering the questions: will your approach be empirical, doctrinal or theoretical etc?

5. Research Methods

The proposal should outline your research methods, explaining how you are going to conduct your research. Your methods may include visiting particular libraries or archives, field work or interviews.

Most research is library-based. If your proposed research is library-based, you should explain where your key resources (e.g. law reports, journal articles) are located (in the Law School’s library, Westlaw etc). If you plan to conduct field work or collect empirical data, you should provide details about this (e.g. if you plan interviews, who will you interview? How many interviews will you conduct? Will there be problems of access?). This section should also explain how you are going to analyse your research findings.

6. Significance of Research

The proposal should demonstrate the originality of your intended research. You should therefore explain why your research is important (for example, by explaining how your research builds on and adds to the current state of knowledge in the field or by setting out reasons why it is timely to research your proposed topic).

7. Bibliography

The proposal should include a short bibliography identifying the most relevant works for your topic.

How long should the proposal be?

The proposal should usually be around 2,500 words. It is important to bear in mind that specific funding bodies might have different word limits.

Can the School comment on my draft proposal?

We recognise that you are likely still developing your research topic. We therefore recommend that you contact a member of our staff with appropriate expertise to discuss your proposed research. If there is a good fit between your proposed research and our research strengths, we will give you advice on a draft of your research proposal before you make a formal application. For details of our staff and there areas of expertise please visit our staff pages . 

Read a sample proposal from a successful application  

Learn more about Birmingham's doctoral research programmes in Law:

Birmingham Law School is home to a broad range of internationally excellent and world-leading legal academics, with a thriving postgraduate research community. The perfect place for your postgraduate study.

Law PhD / PhD by Distance Learning / MPhil / MJur

• School of Law
• Postgraduate

Writing a PhD research proposal

The following guidance has been compiled to help you submit a high quality application that is targeted to the research strengths of The School of Law.

Choosing a research topic

PhDs are supposed to contain an element of originality and innovation. Originality need not mean that you explore a wholly new concept. For instance, it might also include applying new methods or new theories to existing scholarship on the topic. They also need to be backed up by logically reasoned evidence and argument – whether that is provided by theoretical or empirical sources.

The types of thesis that could be constructed:

An analysis of a specific area of law or criminology on which there is no significant existing literature. The lack of existing literature may be explained by the relative newness of the body of law and/or creation of institutions; or the previous lack of attention given to the practical impact of the chosen area of study. A thesis in this area might attempt to describe, explain and rationalise the development of this particular area of law and/ or critically analyse the content of the legal system being researched.

An analysis applying, analysing, or evaluating existing studies in a new context. For instance, one might extend a study of one jurisdiction to another, providing comparative evidence that tests the applicability of existing research and enables the existing theory to be challenged, reconsidered, or expanded upon.

An empirical study of  an area of law or criminology where there is existing doctrinal, conceptual, or theoretical literature, but limited empirical evidence to test those doctrines, concepts, or theories. Such an empirical study would still require a degree of originality but would be academically interesting if it offers a view of the area of study not previously attempted and/or allowed for an appraisal of the effectiveness of the law as it currently stands and is organised.

An in-depth critical study of a specific aspect of law or criminology. Such an examination may consist solely or mainly of library based or theoretical work, or include an element of socio-legal research. As well as recognising existing literature, such an approach needs to make clear how this project would build on and add to that work. The answer may be that the area of law or criminology has evolved or the work itself takes a very different approach to analysing the problem.

Before drafting a research proposal it is a good idea to consult with any academic contacts you already have for their feedback.

The Research Proposal

Applications must include an outline research proposal. If a proposal is submitted without a proposal it will be automatically rejected.

The application asks you to give a description of your research project, including the research questions to be addressed, the methodology to be used, the sources to be consulted and a brief timetable. Your proposal should be included in the application as a separate attachment, and distinguished from your supporting statement (if you include one).

There is no set format or page length for proposals, although to keep the proposal concise and clear while still providing enough information, we recommend limiting yourself to 1,500-2,500 words. Within your application it is useful to identify and bear in mind some or all of the following points:

It is important that you demonstrate clearly the area that you intend to research and provide some indication that you are already knowledgeable in the area that you intend to research. This can be achieved through suitable references and/or by supplying a bibliography to support your application.

Research is about more than collating knowledge already in the public domain. Within your application you should indicate how you intend to add to the knowledge that you will be uncovering. Examples of potential aims include: adding to existing theory; disproving previous understandings; a critique of the current legal position; a defended positive/negative prognosis of the impact of a new legal provision; new empirically obtained findings. You may find it helpful to express your research aims as questions to be answered, or as aims to fulfil by doing the research. Try to limit the number of aims of your study as much as possible.

A research application is more likely to be accepted if you can demonstrate that it has relevance and academic merit. Ultimately PhDs are awarded where a piece of work can demonstrate some originality and innovation. This should be explained within your application.

It is rare for an entirely original piece of research to be written. Therefore, the links with existing research should be made clear, as should the possibilities your work might open up for future research. You should provide some background to the research, exploring the wider literature and making as clear as possible what makes your proposed research original in the context of that literature.

In other words, how do you intend to undertake the research? Methods may include reviewing library-based resources or empirical research. If the latter, then what form – e.g. quantitative or qualitative analysis, and what evidence can you provide that you have the skills to undertake such research. These methods should be carefully considered in relation to the research aims and questions you are seeking to address in the proposed research.

You must consider the partnerships, knowledge exchange and impacts associated with your proposed research. If you already have collaborative arrangements in place with relevant external stakeholders then you should describe these and potentially also provide letters of support, in principle, if you have them. You should consider the likely impacts of your proposed research and how these will be achieved, as well as your plans for disseminating your research findings beyond academia.

If you are applying for WRDTP or WRoCAH scholarships, it is essential that you consider how your proposed research fits in with the research pathways or clusters of these two funders. The quality of your scholarship application will be judged partly by the fit of your research within these pathways or clusters.

Your application should not be too unrealistic as to what can be delivered. It is also wise to predict the likely challenges that you will face in undertaking the research and suggest ways in which those challenges can be overcome.

What to avoid

Research proposals should not be viewed as binding contracts. Most first-year PhD students adapt their research proposal once they start studying the topic in more depth and working with their supervisor. Nevertheless, a PhD proposal should amount to a coherent, intelligent, realistic and relatively well thought-out idea of an area of potential research.

The following errors should be avoided if possible:

Simplistic descriptions of an area of study should be avoided – eg ‘I want to research EU law’. The specific focus of the research must be clear.

Offer to review or analyse an area of law on which there is already a significant existing literature. PhDs should be attempting something more than bringing together knowledge that already exists.

Develop a research proposal primarily because the topic is or has been fashionable. Topics such as the legality of the war in Iraq, the operation of the International Criminal Court or the Human Rights Act 1998 remain extremely important areas of academic study, but as a PhD student it is going to be very difficult to say anything interesting, new or original about these topics.

Avoid trying to resolve grand problems in one thesis. The best research proposals tend to focus on discrete and well-confined subject areas.

Relying upon a comparison to provide the intellectual component of the proposal, whether that is a comparison between different institutions, different bodies of law or different countries. Comparative research proposals are worthy if properly thought out. If the comparison is between different legal systems for instance, in the submission it needs to be made clear why that comparison could be a useful one and what can be learnt from the comparison. For instance, you may be undertaking research in the UK and from Botswana, but that does not mean that there are any valid reasons why comparing the UK to Botswana is actually worthwhile in your subject area.

Relatedly, you should consider the research expertise of supervisors at the University of Sheffield, and the value that studying at Sheffield adds to your research. Generally a PhD submitted in a UK university should contribute to knowledge about the UK, or about global/international issues. If you want to research another country of jurisdiction, you need to provide a credible reason for why Sheffield is a good place to undertake that study, as opposed to an institution in that country.

Make sure that your methodology is as clear and specific as you can make it at this early stage. Proposals that say, “I will use qualitative methods” are unlikely to succeed because they suggest an ignorance of the diversity of qualitative methods. Ideally, you should be able to say something about: 

the methods you will use (e.g. surveys, documentary analysis, interviews, observation, ethnography, audio-visual methods...); 

the target populations of your research (eg, a study of criminal courts might seek to recruit judges, lawyers, ushers, defendants, police officers, or other actors. Which groups do you want to participate in your research, and why? The answer to this question should bear some relation to your research aims); and, 

If possible, the approximate number of participants you want to recruit for each method (for instance, you might want to conduct 10-15 interviews with each of two groups of participants, or to survey 500 people) and how they will be accessed/recruited. Try to be realistic about how long empirical research takes, and how many research participants it is possible to study.

How these chosen methods are likely to illuminate the research questions of the proposed research

Ethical considerations of the research in relation to things like informed consent, anonymity, the safeguarding of researchers and participants

It may not be possible to say much at this stage, but the more details you can provide, the clearer it will be that you have thought seriously about your research project, and the easier it will be for the School of Law to evaluate its feasibility.

Positive steps to take

When we make an offer we will do so on the basis of various considerations. Making an effort to foreshadow those considerations in your application is a good idea. It is advisable to submit a supporting statement alongside the research proposal. Issues to consider include:

Why did you choose to apply to the University of Sheffield?

Can you provide any evidence to suggest that you are capable of completing an extensive piece of research and have the character to undertake three years of study, on a relatively low income and with only supervisory support?

Does the research proposal fit into one of the areas in which the Law School has a speciality ? Often a proposal only needs minor adaptation to fall within an area the School can supervise, but to improve your chances of success it is worthwhile reviewing the academic profile of the various staff in the Law School before you submit an application.

If you are able, it would be helpful to have a look at some past PhD theses in your own area of interest which have been successfully submitted at a UK university. Most UK universities have copies in the library of all past successful PhDs, either as physical copies or in an online repository. 

The online application form requires you to provide some standard information about yourself and your past academic performance. Please ensure that this information is correct and that you provide evidence to support your qualifications.

The references that your referees provide are important sources of information for us. Wherever possible, it is helpful to provide (where possible) a reference from at least one academic who is aware of your research potential and has read some of your work.

Search for PhD opportunities at Sheffield and be part of our world-leading research.

• Faculty of Social Sciences
• School of Law
• Research degrees

Writing a research proposal

As part of the process of applying for a research degree, you will need to prepare an outline of your proposed research. 

Please see our guidance on what to include below, including word count:

*Word count excludes footnotes. 

• A-Z Databases
• Training Calendar
• Research Portal

Law: Proposal and Dissertation Writing

Structure of the proposal.

• Conventions of Scholarship
• Dissertation Writing
• Getting started
• Generate Research Ideas
• Brainstorming
• Scanning Material
• Suitability Analysis
• Difference between a topic and a research question
• Literature Review
• Referencing

Faculty Librarian: Law

A proposal should proceed along the following steps:

(1) a clear problem statement is formulated;

(2) the significance of the problem is explained;

(3) a clear research question is formulated;

(4) an answer or solution to the problem is suggested;

(5) the originality of the answer or solution is indicated through a literature survey;

(6) the way in the which the argument will be substantiated in the bulk of the dissertation is outlined;

(7) the method used (and its suitability) to answer or solve the problem is explained;

(8) any definitional issues are clarified; and

(9) a bibliography of materials used is supplied.

• Step 1: Problem Statement
• Step 2: Significance of the Problem/Issue
• Step 3: Research Question
• Step 4: Argument/Answer
• Step 5: Originality of Argument(Literature Survey)
• Step 6: Substantiating the Argument (Chapter Outline)
• Step 7: Methodology
• Step 8: Defining Concepts (Optional)
• Step 9: Bibliography

A proposal commences with a clear problem statement.

• What is the problem that intrigues you?
• What is the issue that you want to deal with?
• What is the question that you want to answer?
• It is often useful to state in your first paragraph as clearly and succinctly as possible what is the problem that you are addressing. Once that is done, the problem is unpacked.
• What is the background to the problem?
• What are the logical building blocks in law and practice that lead to the problem?

These building blocks are very important because they are again reflected in the chapters, where argument is substantiated. Vital to a successful dissertation is a narrowly defined problem. As a research paper is confined to 18 000 words, the issue must be much more limited than that for a mini-dissertation (30 000), full thesis (50 000) or a doctoral dissertation (100 000).

As you will be spending a considerable amount of time on the dissertation, you have to justify this endeavour to yourself, your supervisor and your examiners. Moreover, if the problem is significant, the solution or answer to the problem will be equally important. The significance of the problem may lie in a number of areas. In the case of divergent judgments on an issue, the conflict creates confusion and conflict in practice. The importance could lie in poor service delivery because of badly designed governance structures. Overall, the aim is to state the importance of the research that you will be doing.

Given the problem outlined and having shown its significance, a research question must be formulated that it captures the problem statement. What is the issue or problem that you want to answer? This is a short, concise statement that hones the problem statement into one or more questions.

Very important is that this research question must have a legal focus. It is the legal question you want to answer. Although sub-questions may include issues of development, etc., the main focus must be on some form of law/regulation,etc.

This should also be a measurable question. Indicating your research question as "Examining the effectiveness of insider trading legislation" is not feasible. How will you measure the effectiveness of this legislation?

Having done the reading of the relevant materials you have by now developed a tentative argument or an answer to the problem. You need to state upfront how you will be addressing the problem, what will be the answer or solution. This argument is what binds the dissertation together – providing the central measuring rod in deciding whether any material is relevant or not.

When you start off the proposal writing, you will have some idea of what the answer / argument will be. However, as you develop and substantiate the argument in the various chapters through your thorough engagement with the materials, you may find that the argument is refined, adapted, or changed. This is totally acceptable and even expected. Therefore, while the proposal signals the commencement of the dissertation (and is chapter 1 of the dissertation), it may also be last piece that you write in order to reflect the refinement and reshaping of the argument that occurred along the way.

The criterion by which you will be measured is whether your dissertation has added or contributed to knowledge on the topic. What is the point of the dissertation if the problem has already been solved or the issue addressed?

You must demonstrate the originality of the argument by showing how it compares with the existing literature on the issue. This is done by reading extensively around the issue to determine what other authors have written. In some cases, when you have described the literature on the topic (who wrote and what did they say – not a listing of article or book titles!), you may conclude that no one has yet addressed the particular issue, and therefore, you will provide a unique contribution. Even if you find that the issue has been addressed, you may conclude that it was wrongly or inadequately done. You may argue, for example, that the academic interpretation of a line of court judgments was wrong. The academic enterprise is about challenging accepted views and doctrines.

The focus in the literature survey is on “literature”, namely what other scholars have written. This is not the place to describe the Constitution, legislation or court cases.

The main purpose of the literature survey is to:

(A) Indicate what has been written on the subject and

(B) What will your contribution be? ie, What has not been covered by the literature? How will you contribute?

The bulk of the dissertation is devoted to substantiating the argument. This is done through breaking down your argument into its basic components and devoting a chapter to each component. In the proposal the chapters are outlined, showing how each form part of the argument and contributes to the answer or solution. This is not done by just providing chapter headings. You have to indicate whatthe purpose is of each chapter and what will be argued in that chapter. The emphasis falls on the logical flow of the argument and how each chapter contributes to that flow.

This should be done by way of a brief paragraph description of what will be covered in each proposed chapter.

Having outlined how the argument will be substantiated in the various chapters, you have to show how you will go about this task. What are the materials that you will rely on? What is the methodology that you will follow? If you are analysing court judgments, your primary source of information are case reports. A further primary source of information is legislation, official documents, policies, notices, etc. A secondary source is what other authors have written about the same cases or legislation in the relevant field. As all these materials are found in a library or the internet you may refer to it as a desktop study.

You may want to use empirical data in substantiating your argument. There are a variety ways of collecting such data. Official sources may be used. Newspapers may also be referred to. You may even venture out and collect your own data by, for example, conducting interviews, or inspecting court records. In the case of interviews you need ethical clearance from the University’s Senate Research Committee.

If you are going to do a comparative research, you must explain why, indicate your comparators (comparative countries, etc.) and you must explain why you are using these specific comparators.

In the context of your proposal (and later in chapter 1 of the dissertation), it may be necessary to define some key concepts that will be used in the chapters. This is done to provide the necessary clarity when confusion and ambiguity may be present.

All the materials referred to in the proposal must be listed alphabetically in the bibliography. Use the following main headings:

• Laws, regulation and other legal instruments
• Other government publications: policies, reports, etc.
• Books, chapters in books, articles, reports, internet sources
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Conventions of Scholarship >>
• Last Updated: Oct 6, 2023 3:12 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwc.ac.za/c.php?g=1352878

UWC LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICES

• Skip to main content

We use cookies

Necessary cookies.

Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.

Analytics cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website. We use Google Analytics. All data is anonymised.

Hotjar and Clarity

Hotjar and Clarity help us to understand our users’ behaviour by visually representing their clicks, taps and scrolling. All data is anonymised.

Privacy policy

School of Law

Writing a research proposal.

• Our research students

Preparing your research proposal is the important first step to becoming a postgraduate research student at the School of Law.

The focus of your proposal will be slightly different depending on whether you wish to do a PhD or an LLM by research, but the principles of what to include and who to contact for advice are the same.

Speaking to a potential supervisor

Before you write your detailed research proposal, you may wish to contact a member of  our research staff  with knowledge of the subject area. They who should be able to advise you whether or not your proposed topic is feasible. 

This can be done prior to a formal application. 

If you are not sure who is the best person to contact, an initial enquiry can be made to our Postgraduate Administrator,  Susan Holmes .

What to include in your proposal

A proposal for an LLM by research or a PhD should not exceed 15 pages in length and is unlikely to be less than 8 pages in length.

Check the limit specified by the funding body to which you are applying.

It should include the following:

A working title

The research context.

This is the background against which your research will be carried out.

It should be a brief introduction outlining the general area of study and identifying the subject area within which your study falls. You should also refer to the current state of knowledge (i.e. what research has been done to date) and any recent debates on the subject.

You need to reference this in the same way as you would do if you were writing an essay e.g. any articles or books you refer to should have a footnote with the full details of author, title, publication date, etc.

The research issue, aims or questions

Outline the contribution that your research will make. It is normally best to do this in the form of specific aims or research questions or issues.

The importance of your proposed research

Demonstrate how your research fills a gap in existing research, by showing that it hasn’t been done before.

Explain why your research is important. It is not enough to say that this has not been studied previously, you need to explain why it is important or interesting enough to be studied.

‎Research methods

Here you need to explain how you will obtain the information necessary to write your thesis.

• Explain whether you will use secondary and/or primary sources
• Give some detail on exactly how you will obtain your information

For most law students, you will probably rely on documentary sources – information that already exists in some form e.g. journal articles, case reports, legislation, treaties, historical records.

In this case you need to say a little about how you will access these (bearing in mind that as a student of the University you will be provided with access to legal databases including Westlaw and LexisLibrary).

If yours is a comparative or international study, you will need to explain how you will obtain the relevant international materials and whether or not this will involve travel.

Some studies, however, might involve empirical research – information that is gathered through direct interaction with people and processes such as interviews, questionnaires, court observation or analysis of private records.

If you plan to undertake empirical research, you need to explain why this is an appropriate research method and give details of your planned methodology (e.g. who you hope to interview, how many interviews you will carry out).

In this section, you should also explain any special skills you have that will assist you in obtaining information, for example, if you plan to look at French law and you can read or speak French.

You should provide a very approximate timetable for the research.

For example, the timetable for a research LLM thesis comparing French law and Scots law might be:

• months 1-3 reading theoretical material and developing theoretical framework
• months 4-6 reading and analysing French materials
• months 7-9 reading and analysing Scottish materials
• months 9-12 writing up the thesis

Research proposals for a PhD

When choosing a subject for your thesis, consider the requirements for a relevant degree and whether you can stick within the time and word limits. A PhD thesis must be from 70,000 to 100,000 words including footnotes.

Consider how your study will demonstrate originality. It is not enough simply to reproduce existing knowledge. There are many ways in which you can do this – it does not necessarily require you to study something that has never been studied before in any way, shape or form. For example, you could:

• Study something that has never been studied before
• Bring new insights to an existing area of legal thought
• Work between disciplines eg. by applying philosophical, psychological or sociological analysis to legal issues
• Bring together areas of legal thought that have not been brought together before eg. use concepts from property law to analyse sexual offences
• Analyse new case law/new legislation in a particular area of law
• Identify new problems with existing case law/legislation in a particular area of law
• Undertake an empirical study to see if the law is achieving its objectives

You also need to make sure your topic is not too broad.  It is inappropriate to write a thesis that reads like a textbook.  This is not sufficiently advanced work and your treatment will be too superficial.  You need to choose something that will give you the scope both to describe and critically analyse the law.  For example, a thesis on “the law relating to criminal defences inScotland” or “a review of EC law governing the enforcement of European law in national courts of member states” would be too broad.  You would have to narrow down your topic to consideration of one particular aspect of the topic (e.g. one specific defence or one specific aspect of European law).

Recent and current PhD thesis topics have included: 

• Peacekeepers as enforcers? A legal analysis of the attribution of enforcement powers to UN peacekeeping operations in the new millenium
• The impact of the World Trade Organisation on the formulation of the anti-monopoly law of the People’s Republic ofChina
• Access to employment and career progression for women in the European labour market
• Consent to medical treatment and the competent adult
• Migratory things on or beneath land: a study of property and rights of use
• The effect of the constitutional relations betweenScotlandandEnglandon their conflict of laws relations: a Scottish perspective
• Persuasion: a historical-comparative study of the role of persuasion within the judicial decision-making process
• Law reform proposals for the protection of the right to seek refugee status in the European Community
• Historicizing the criminalization of youth

Research proposals for an LLM by research

For an LLM by research, your study should still be critical rather than simply describing the law in a particular area.

The field of study is likely to be significantly narrower than for a PhD, as it has a 30,000 word limit.

Recent and current LLM by research thesis topics have included:

• Sustainable development and urban governance in planning law
• Domestic abuse and Scots law
• Criminal liability for individuals who fail to prevent harm
• Legal and scientific evidence of torture
• The responsibility of international organisations: efforts of the international law commission

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Useful Steps to Write A Law Research Proposal

Sign up now.

Law students face serious academic pressure in law school. And they have plenty on their plate. Not only are classes and lectures overwhelming, but they also need to contend with vast research papers, assignments, and essays. As a result, most find themselves unable to complete their work.

Unfortunately, academic writing is something every law student needs to do. But they either lack the writing skills, are unsure of what steps to follow, or have too much pressure to deal with. After all, writing even a simple law research proposal is more challenging than it initially seems. And without the right guidance, students will face the most trouble. If only there were a guide to learn how to write one. Fortunately, Law Essay Teacher is here to help!

Law Research Proposal Guidance

Law Essay Teacher is here to guide every student. We deeply understand law students’ problems they face with writing a law research proposal. And with the volume of classes and assignments piled on, it’s no wonder many fail to meet their submission dates. However, thanks to our writers and experts, we have a list of useful steps to write a law research proposal. Our team understands the concepts, structure, and more. So, it’s easy to follow along and write your own. But before we begin understanding each one, let’s first ensure you clearly understand the task!

Law Essay Teacher Answers – What is a Law Research Proposal?

Understanding and defining a law research proposal is the first step. Before you begin your task, you must outline and clarify each requirement. So, let’s start. A law research proposal is a clear summary of the research you propose. It defines the central issues and questions students intend to address. And it outlines an area of study your research targets. But the research proposal also refers to the current state of knowledge or recent debates, literature, etc. To effectively craft this piece of writing, students need to define and express the originality of their work. However, that’s not simple to accomplish.

The proposal also ranks as the most important document students submit during the application process. It provides an opportunity for them to display their aptitude for higher-level research. Students demonstrate their abilities to communicate complex concepts both critically and concisely. Thus, it’s a vital part of your final grade.

Now that we’re clear on a law research proposal let’s move on to the next step!

Understanding Law Research Proposal Structure – Steps for Writing

Learning to write a law research proposal is tough. But if you understand each step of the structure and format, you won’t have too much trouble. Here is what you can follow to ensure your research proposal stays on track:

Research Proposal Overview:

Research proposals usually include some of the following key elements:

• Background and research topic/issue context outline
• Topic reasons/Why the issue is important/Rationale
• Literature review of key data related to the topic/Issue
• Intended research methodology outline
• Ethical issues discussion
• Explanation of disseminated findings
• Research timescale

1.      Title

The first step to writing your research proposal is the title. But this is a tentative title for the intended study. Here students will explain their initial project pitch by focusing on what they want to do and why. However, title revisions are common during research. And students can change it as they see fit if the admission is accepted. So here is what your title needs to contain:

• Topic Introduction
• Background and Context
• Problem Statement and Research Question Outlines

2.      Abstract

Next in line comes the Abstract section of the research proposal. Here students should include a clear statement of research intentions. Think of it as a table of contents for the reader. However, students should not exceed 100 words in the abstract section of the research proposal. Simply use a few sentences to set out the problem or central questions you will address. In the end, use the abstract as a way to guide your reader.

3.      Research Context – Literature Review

The third step focuses on the research context – alternatively known as a literature review. Here students explain and expand on the background. Thus, indicating where they will conduct their research. Students need to display their familiarity with current literature. After all, their work will not positively impact grades without a deep understanding. Therefore, it should briefly include an overview of the general area of study. However, students should not forget to highlight the scope of their research. So, they should summarize the current state of knowledge or recent debates on the topic.

If you’re unsure how literature reviews work, we have many samples for writing.

4.      Research Questions

In the fourth section, students will set out and focus on central aims or research questions. These will help guide the flow of the research. But it’s important to reflect on each question before you begin writing. Once the concepts are clear, students can start describing the approach or practical steps they will take in the methodology. Again, keeping your research proposal short is a good idea. So, reflect positively on the research questions to ensure your project is concise and narrow.

Prioritizing a couple of the main questions may be a helpful solution for students. Then, it is possible to derive further secondary questions that support your direction. In addition, keep in mind how you intend to approach each question’s answer. For example, will it be empirical, theoretical, or doctrinal?

5.      Research Methods

The methodology section of your research proposal isn’t too hard. It follows the previous step of focusing on research questions. But here, students will explain the how instead of the why. Thus, defining how they will conduct research. However, there are many ways to tackle research. For example, students can focus on the research type, the population and sample, and more. In addition, methods can also include fieldwork, interviews, and data from library archives. So, it’s vital to narrow down how your approach will tackle the job.

The majority of research is library-based. So, if your proposed work follows the same direction, you can explain and cite your key resources. These can include law reports, journal articles, etc. Similarly, students can provide details about interviews, interviewees, sample size, and problems for fieldwork or collecting empirical data. But do not forget to explain how your analysis will focus on research findings.

6.      Significance of Research

As students draw closer to the conclusion of the proposal, they need to explore the implications their research leaves behind. This cements the originality of their intended study. It’s important to explain what your research contributes. For example, you should explore how it builds on and adds to the current state of field knowledge.

Your results may allow the improvement of processes in the field and help inform future policy objectives. In addition, some findings can strengthen theories and models, or you can challenge popular scientific assumptions. Thus, they may create a base for further or future research.

7.      Bibliography

The end of your research proposal includes a bibliography or reference list. This section identifies all relevant works for the topic. In addition, it’s vital to properly cite every source you use with full publication details for the best results. After all, citations and references show what literature supports your research. It can include sources you consulted. But it can also include sources you did not use or cite in your proposal.

The proposal should include a short bibliography identifying the most relevant works for your topic.

Other Questions for Writing a Law Research Proposal

Now that you understand the research proposal structure, what else can you focus on? Law Essay Teacher has answers to a few more common student questions.

How Low is a Law Research Proposal?

The length of a standard law research proposal can vary depending on the requirements of your institution. However, they are generally around 2000 to 2500 words. Please consult with your institution for an accurate word count limit.

Are There Any Tools to Learn How to Write a Research Paper or Proposal?

Learning how to write a research paper or proposal isn’t easy. But they are both similar in what they include. Therefore, using the information above is a good place to start. However, if you need additional assistance with research papers, proposals, or law dissertation help, we have examples and writing experts to aid your grades.

smith - AUTHOR

Recent post.

June 13, 2022 June 13, 2022

11 Tips to Enhance Your Legal Writing Skills

May 13, 2022 June 15, 2022

Facts about Law School Degrees You Won’t Hear Anywhere

May 6, 2022 May 9, 2022

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Browser does not support script.

• Working paper series

PhD Programme in Law: FAQs

The opportunity to undertake advanced legal research at one of the world's best law schools.

If your question is not answered below, please contact us .

FAQs for Visiting Research Students can be found further down this page.

1. When can I apply to the PhD?

Applications open in October for the following academic year. We encourage you to apply as early as possible, to ensure that all the required materials have been received by the PhD selectors by the application deadline. 

2. Is there a deadline for applying?

The deadline is 1 December 2023.

3. How do I apply?

Full details of how to apply are provided on the Graduate Studies page.

4. Research proposal guidance

The strength of an applicant’s research proposal is one of the primary ways by which we identify promising candidates. Your proposal should be no more than 1,500 words in length. You should state your research topic as accurately as possible, and should address the following questions in the proposal:

1. What is your general topic?

2. What questions do you want to answer?

3. What is the key literature and its limitations?

4. What are the main hypotheses of the work?

5. What methodology do you intend to use?

6. What are your case studies, if any, and what are your case selection criteria?

MPhil/PhD applications that are received without a research proposal that addresses these questions will not be considered.

Your research proposal must be your own work. We recommend that you proofread your proposal carefully before you upload it, and that you make sure to upload the final corrected version. Please ensure that each page of your research proposal bears your name in a header or footer. Finally, you must stick to the word limit, as the PhD selectors are not required to read documents that exceed the word count.

5. How do I apply for funding from LSE?

LSE Law School aims to ensure that all students have adequate funding for their studies, typically through the award of an LSE PhD Studentship. There is no separate application process for LSE PhD Studentships, as funding awards are considered alongside admission to the doctoral programme. Further information on funding opportunities at LSE more generally is available from the Financial Support Office.

6. What are the admission requirements?

Our normal minimum entry requirement is a completed LLM degree or other masters-level qualification, awarded with an average mark of 70% (distinction/first class honours) or equivalent. Exceptionally, we may admit students who do not meet this requirement, where there is strong, alternative evidence of your suitability for our PhD programme.

Although we accept applications from students who have not yet completed their LLM or equivalent degree by the application deadline, we give priority within the admissions process to students who have already obtained the required grade by this date. Strong candidates who are currently completing their LLM/other masters degree may therefore wish to defer their application until they have received the requisite grade. Offers of admission and funding that are made to applicants who are currently undertaking their LLM/other masters degree are made on a “conditional” basis, meaning that the offer cannot be confirmed until the minimum entry requirement has been achieved. Conditional offers must be confirmed by the end of July of the year of entry at the latest. This means that current master students who will not have their final grades/transcript by the end of July (including students on the LSE LLM degree) are not eligible to apply to the PhD programme, unless they already hold another masters degree with the requisite grade.

It must be emphasised that meeting the minimum entry requirement does not guarantee entry. The PhD programme is heavily over-subscribed, meaning that the large majority of applicants who meet this requirement each year do not receive a place. We select students based on a variety of factors, including past academic performance, motivation for doctoral study, the viability of the applicant’s research proposal and its anticipated contribution to legal scholarship, the availability of suitable supervisors, and the diversity of the incoming PhD cohort, including diversity of subject-areas.

7. Can I apply if I do not have a law degree?

The LSE PhD programme in Law provides students with the opportunity to undertake innovative advanced legal research. Students without a law background may apply to the PhD programme, but they must demonstrate a high level of academic competence in areas closely related to their proposed research. Each application is considered on its own merits. 

8. Is there an interview as part of the admission process?

Yes, in most instances we hold a brief interview with shortlisted applicants as part of the admissions process. This is typically conducted by an applicant’s potential supervisors, it takes place virtually (e.g. over Zoom), and it lasts about half an hour. The purpose of the interview is to further assess both the applicant’s motivation for doctoral study and the feasibility of the proposed research project. No preparation is required for the interview, although we recommend that you look over the material that you have submitted with your application beforehand.

9. What is the application process and fees?

See Application Process & Fees . BAME applicants of UK nationality may wish to apply through the ACE PGR Initiative .

10. Can I do the PhD part-time?

Yes. The programme can be taken over an 8-year period. However, part-time students must reside in the UK, attend weekly seminars (especially in their first year), and meet with their supervisors regularly. Applicants should indicate in their personal statement that they wish to be considered for part-time study. Such applicants may also wish to contact one or more potential supervisors in advance, to gauge their willingness to take on a part-time PhD student, as not all supervisors wish to do so. 

11. Is there a residency requirement?

Yes. You must live in London or within easy reach.  This applies to full time and part time students.

12. Do I need to approach an academic member of staff to supervise before applying?

No. Applicants may wish to approach potential supervisors at the Law School to gauge their availability in a particular year and/or their willingness to supervise a specific research topic. The research interests of Law School academic staff can be found at https://www.lse.ac.uk/law/people . Co-supervision with staff members from other LSE departments or research centres is also possible, though more unusual. You should indicate in your application if you have discussed your proposed research with any member of LSE academic staff and the name of that person. Potential supervisors are unable to give detailed feedback on draft research proposals.

However, you are not required to contact potential supervisors before applying, and doing so provides no advantage in the admissions process. If your application is successful, two academic members of staff will be appointed to supervise you. 

Visiting Research Students

13. Is there a deadline for applying?

There is no deadline to apply for the Visiting Research Student Scheme but you are encouraged to apply as far in advance of your proposed visit as possible.

14. How do I apply for funding from LSE?

We do not offer funding to Visiting Research Students. You are required to have sufficient personal or other sources of funding for the duration of your visit. 

15. Can I visit the Law School on a part-time basis?

It is not possible to apply for the Visiting Research Student scheme as a part-time student.

16. Is there a residency requirement?

Yes. You must live in London during the programme.

17. Am I entitled to supervision?

Yes. All Visiting Research Students are allocated a supervisor.

PhD Home page

PhD Programme structure

PhD Applications, fees and funding

FAQs Your questions about the PhD programme

PhD completions Browse our completed PhDs

Careers Our careers information and resources

Visiting research students How to apply as a visiting student

PhD Academy A dedicated space for PhD students

LSE Life Academic, personal, professional development

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Law Research Proposal
• Samples List

An research proposal examples on law is a prosaic composition of a small volume and free composition, expressing individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue and obviously not claiming a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.

Some signs of law research proposal:

• the presence of a specific topic or question. A work devoted to the analysis of a wide range of problems in biology, by definition, cannot be performed in the genre of law research proposal topic.
• The research proposal expresses individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue, in this case, on law and does not knowingly pretend to a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.
• As a rule, an essay suggests a new, subjectively colored word about something, such a work may have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary, critical, popular scientific or purely fiction character.
• in the content of an research proposal samples on law , first of all, the author’s personality is assessed - his worldview, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of an research proposal in law is to develop such skills as independent creative thinking and writing out your own thoughts.

Writing an research proposal is extremely useful, because it allows the author to learn to clearly and correctly formulate thoughts, structure information, use basic concepts, highlight causal relationships, illustrate experience with relevant examples, and substantiate his conclusions.

• Studentshare
• Research Proposal

Examples List on Law Research Proposal

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

University of Bristol Law School

How to write a phd proposal.

We are delighted to consider applications for PhD research. We have a fantastic, diverse and energetic student body who are making the most of fabulous resources for postgraduate students. We welcome you to join us.

In order to help you with your application, the information below aims to give some guidance on how a typical research proposal might look.

Please be aware that if you are applying for   ESRC funding  then the proposal  must be no longer than 1,300 words ,  and if you are applying for  University of Bristol Postgraduate Research Scholarship  then the proposal  must be no longer than 1,000 words (incl. footnotes).

Your aim here is to showcase your ability to carry out postgraduate research. PhD research often travels and what you apply to study for may differ from your ultimate PhD. It is perfectly acceptable for research to move over time in response to findings or changes in preference/supervision.

Please note:  we do not generally have the expertise to supervise PhD proposals that are exclusively in a jurisdiction outside UK, EU or international law. We have many expert supervisors in comparative, international and regional law but if your proposal is only to study the law in your home country, we may not be able to offer you supervision even if you meet the admission requirements.

Title. A short, indicative title is best.

Abstract. This is a succinct summary of your research proposal that will present a condensed outline, enabling the reader to get a very quick overview of your proposed project, lines of inquiry and possible outcomes. An abstract is often written last, after you have written the proposal and are able to summarise it effectively.

Rationale for the research project. This might include a description of the question/debate/phenomenon of interest, and the context(s) and situation in which you think the research will take place; an explanation of why the topic is of interest to you; and an outline of the reasons why the topic should be of interest to research and/ or practice (the 'so what?' question).

Issues and initial research question. What legal or governance question(s) do you intend to investigate? (This may be quite imprecise at the application stage); what might be some of the key literatures that might inform the issues (again, indicative at the application stage); and, as precisely as you can, what is the question you are trying to answer? A research proposal can and should make a positive and persuasive first impression and demonstrate your potential to become a good researcher. In particular, you need to demonstrate that you can think critically and analytically as well as communicate your ideas clearly.

Intended methodology. How do you think you might go about answering the question? At Bristol we supervise an incredibly wide range of PhDs, including doctrinal, theoretical, empirical, historical, comparative or policy-focused work. Even if your methods are, for example, doctrinal, please do make this clear and give some indication why you think this is the best methodology for your proposed study. If you have a key theorist in mind, do please outline this in your application, together with some understanding of any critiques that have been raised. If you are planning to do empirical work, do please give some indication of what your methods might be (quantitative (surveys, statistics etc); qualitative (interviews, ethnography etc)

Expected outcomes and impact. How do you think the research might add to existing knowledge; what might it enable organisations or interested parties to do differently? Increasingly in academia (and this is particularly so for ESRC-funded studentships) PhD students are being asked to consider how their research might contribute to both academic impact and/or economic and societal impact . This is well explained on the ESRC website if you would like to find out more.

Timetable. What is your initial estimation of the timetable of the dissertation? When will each of the key stages start and finish (refining proposal; literature review; developing research methods; fieldwork; analysis; writing the draft; final submission). There are likely to overlaps between the stages.

Why Bristol? Why –specifically - do you want to study for your PhD at Bristol? How would you fit into our research themes and research culture (please see the ’10 reasons to study for a PhD at Bristol’ section on the website for more information). You do not need to identify supervisors at the application stage.

Bibliography. Do make sure that you cite what you see as the key readings in the field. This does not have to be comprehensive but you are illustrating the range of sources you might use in your research.

Scholarships

A  number of scholarships  are available to study for a PhD at Bristol. You can see more information regarding scholarships on our  fees and funding  page. If you have any questions about which scholarship to apply for and how your research might fit in please contact the PGR Director, Yvette Russell   [email protected] .

Tips on writing a successful application

• How to recruit?
• Internship calendars
• Post an offer
• How to give
• Ways to give
• 2019-2024 campaign
• News and publications
• Annual Report
• Build your brand
• Work with our students
• Become a partner
• Our corporate partners

Turning the EU's technocratic procedures into national political issues. Proposals for tackling both the European rule of law and the democratic deficit

On March 26, Arnaud Van Waeyenberge, Professor of Law at HEC Paris, faced the highest authorities of the European Union at a COSAC plenary session to present solutions for improving the protection of the rule of law, based on his recent research. His speech was a strong plea for greater involvement of national parliaments in mechanisms to protect the rule of law, as this can also help strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the European Union.

When Arnaud Van Waeyenberge declared in December 2023, at an academic conference he was organizing in Brussels, that he was confident the results of his research on the rule of law in the EU would be heard by European decision-makers, perhaps he hadn't quite imagined the impact they would have.  

Four months later, on March 26, at a COSAC (Conference of Parliamentary Committees for EU Affairs of the Parliaments of the European Union) plenary session in the European Parliament, he presented solutions for a more effective protection of the rule of law to the highest representatives of the European Union among whom: the First Vice-President of the European Parliament, Othmar Karas, the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Koen Lenaerts, members of the European Parliament and parliamentarians from the 27 member states.

Led by a consortium of European researchers, Arnaud Van Waeyenberge's research project (MEDROI) aims to overcome the ineffectiveness of legal mechanisms for protecting the rule of law. He showed that where the political and judicial approach to enforcing the rule of law had failed in recent years, the mechanism that had so far been most successful was economic sanctions on the one hand, and what he called a techno-managerial strategy on the other.

Both the general recommendations of this research and the specific solutions he presented to COSAC were aimed at enhancing the deployment of these techno-material mechanisms while overcoming their main shortcomings, namely: a reduction in the very notion of the rule of law, a lack of legal clarification and a problem with the political legitimacy of these mechanisms.

When the Belgian EU Presidency turns to research as a response to the crisis in the rule of law

It was at the invitation of the Belgian Presidency of the EU that Arnaud Van Waeyenberge was heard within the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for EU Affairs of the Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC)

Since January 2024, Belgium holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, and it has made the defense of the rule of law, democracy, and unity one of its top priorities .

The success of a rotating presidency of the European Union involves crucial political stakes for a member state and for the dynamics of the European project. This is all the more true when it is exercised by a founding member, which is the heart and soul of European institutional life. In this respect, the fact that the Belgian Presidency is turning to Van Waeyenberge's work to advance its political agenda shows the high impact potential of his findings.

How can national parliaments be involved in protecting the rule of law?

Addressing an assembly - the COSAC - whose role is to enable national parliaments to contribute actively to the European democratic process, by promoting cooperation within the EU's institutional framework, Van Waeyenberge chose to address a specific question: How can national parliaments become more involved, at Union level, in the upholding of the rule of law?

Over the years, the EU has endeavored to address the crisis in the rule of law by deploying various mechanisms. However, the involvement of national parliaments in these mechanisms has often been marginal or entirely absent. This is a missed opportunity, considering the wealth of experience, expertise, and legitimacy that national parliaments bring to the table, stressed Professor Van Waeyenberge.

A point that deeply resonated with the the COSAC’s members who’s mission is to strengthen the involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs, contribute to the European democratic process, fostering dialogue, oversight, and cooperation within the EU institutional framework. reinforces the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, fostering a more inclusive and participatory governance system.

Leveraging European Commission's reports on the rule of law

One avenue for enhancing national parliaments' involvement lies in the strategic utilization of the report on the rule of law released by the European Commission since 2019 to examine developments across all Member States, in four key areas for the rule of law: the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and freedom, and other institutional issues related to checks and balances.

The latest COSAC report indicates that the 2023 report on the rule of law has been scrutinized and debated in all national parliaments, a development worthy of commendation. Building on this foundation, there is potential for national parliaments to play a more proactive role both upstream and downstream in the process.

Upstream, national parliaments could engage more actively when the Commission gathers information for the report. As attacks on the rule of law in the Union often come from the executive, rather than relying solely on the executive branch, national parliaments could ensure their participation or oversight, thereby providing a clearer and more comprehensive perspective on the situation. For instance, in the case of Belgium, parliamentary involvement could have shed greater light on the failure to implement court rulings regarding refugee reception, a crucial issue given scant attention in the 2023 report.

Furthermore, national parliaments could undertake systematic follow-up on the European Commission's recommendations, transforming them into political issues at the national level. COSAC could serve as a platform for sharing best practices among assemblies, fostering greater coherence in addressing rule of law concerns.

Secondly, the national parliaments representatives through could also contribute to improve the methodology and the scope of the rule of law report. Methodologically, a more nuanced approach that considers the intensity, seriousness, and systemic nature of violations is warranted. Recommendations should also be accompanied by implementation deadlines to enhance their efficacy. Regarding scope of the reports, it is imperative that the rule of law report encompass all values outlined in Article 2 of the EU Treaty, recognizing their interconnectedness. Additionally, a country-by-country approach may overlook transnational issues such as corruption and organized crime, necessitating a broader perspective.

Addressing the european crisis of values

In his conclusion, Van Waeyenberge underlined that clarity regarding the legal status of the rule of law mechanism is crucial.

By empowering national parliaments and refining existing mechanisms, the European Union can bolster its commitment to upholding the rule of law across its member states.

"Responding to a crisis of values with technocratic and economic mechanisms has undoubtedly proved to be quite effective, but it raises fundamental questions about the political philosophy underpinning the European project," said Arnaud Van Waeyenberge.  

After this hearing, strengthening the role of national parliaments in safeguarding the rule of law within the European Union is one of the serious options currently on the table for European leaders to strengthen the legitimacy of the EU. Let's take a look at what European parliamentarians have to say as the European election campaigns get underway.

Related Content

To learn more about Arnaud Van Waeyenberge research project "The New EU Instruments For The Protection Of The Rule Of Law: Towards A Techno-managerial Strategy?" (MEDROI), watch:

HEC Paris x Red Spinel research seminar: Conditionality and the Rule of Law in the European Union - Seminar, March 29

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Makena Kelly

A Breakthrough Online Privacy Proposal Hits Congress

Congress may be closer than ever to passing a comprehensive data privacy framework after key House and Senate committee leaders released a new proposal on Sunday.

The bipartisan proposal, titled the American Privacy Rights Act, or APRA, would limit the types of consumer data that companies can collect , retain, and use, allowing solely what they’d need to operate their services. Users would also be allowed to opt out of targeted advertising, and have the ability to view, correct, delete, and download their data from online services. The proposal would also create a national registry of data brokers , and force those companies to allow users to opt out of having their data sold.

“This landmark legislation gives Americans the right to control where their information goes and who can sell it,” Cathy McMorris Rodgers, House Energy and Commerce Committee chair, said in a statement on Sunday. “It reins in Big Tech by prohibiting them from tracking, predicting, and manipulating people’s behaviors for profit without their knowledge and consent. Americans overwhelmingly want these rights, and they are looking to us, their elected representatives, to act.”

Congress has tried to put together a comprehensive federal law protecting user data for decades. Lawmakers have remained divided, though, on whether that legislation should prevent states from issuing tougher rules, and whether to allow a “private right of action” that would enable people to sue companies in response to privacy violations.

In an interview with The Spokesman Review on Sunday, McMorris Rodgers claimed that the draft’s language is stronger than any active laws, seemingly as an attempt to assuage the concerns of Democrats who have long fought attempts to preempt preexisting state-level protections. APRA does allow states to pass their own privacy laws related to civil rights and consumer protections, among other exceptions.

In the previous session of Congress, the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committees brokered a deal with Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, on a bill that would preempt state laws with the exception of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Biometric Information Privacy Act of Illinois. That measure, titled the American Data Privacy and Protection Act , also created a weaker private right of action than most Democrats were willing to support. Maria Cantwell, Senate Commerce Committee chair, refused to support the measure, instead circulating her own draft legislation. The ADPPA hasn’t been reintroduced, but APRA was designed as a compromise.

“I think we have threaded a very important needle here,” Cantwell told The Spokesman Review . “We are preserving those standards that California and Illinois and Washington have.”

APRA includes language from California’s landmark privacy law allowing people to sue companies when they are harmed by a data breach. It also provides the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and private citizens the authority to sue companies when they violate the law.

The categories of data that would be impacted by APRA include certain categories of “information that identifies or is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual or device,” according to a Senate Commerce Committee summary of the legislation. Small businesses—those with $40 million or less in annual revenue and limited data collection—would be exempt under APRA, with enforcement focused on businesses with $250 million or more in yearly revenue. Governments and “entities working on behalf of governments” are excluded under the bill, as are the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and, apart from certain cybersecurity provisions, “fraud-fighting” nonprofits.

Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called the draft “very strong” in a Sunday statement , but said he wanted to “strengthen” it with tighter child safety provisions.

Still, it remains unclear whether APRA will receive the necessary support for approval. On Sunday, committee aids said that conversations on other lawmakers signing onto the legislation are ongoing. The current proposal is a “discussion draft”; while there’s no official date for introducing a bill, Cantwell and McMorris Rodgers will likely shop around the text to colleagues for feedback over the coming weeks, and plan to send it to committees this month.

Lauren Goode

Karen Williams

William Turton

You Might Also Like …

In your inbox: The best and weirdest stories from WIRED’s archive

Jeffrey Epstein’s island visitors exposed by data broker

8 Google employees invented modern AI. Here’s the inside story

The crypto fraud kingpin who almost got away

It's shadow time! How to view the solar eclipse, online and in person

Vittoria Elliott

David Kushner

Matt Burgess

Amanda Hoover

• Contributors

The Shareholder Activism of Anti-Discrimination Proponents

Scott Shepard is General Counsel and Director, Stefan Padfield is Deputy Director, and Ethan Peck is an Associate of the Free Enterprise Project (FEP) at The National Center of Public Policy Research (NCPPR). This post was prepared for the Forum by Mr. Shepard, Mr. Padfield, and Mr. Peck.

FEP and Its Goals

The authors of this piece represent the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research (FEP), which has for nearly 20 years represented the interests of the center/right majority of Americans against ESG efforts that became more coordinated, better funded and more aggressively left-partisan in each of those years. ESG advocates have long pretended that they are not partisan but rather are “doing well by doing good” – making money for everyone doing lovely things with which no rational person might disagree. That was never a very convincing conceit, but became more demonstrably absurd each year.

In fact, each prong of the ESG lobby’s claim has been shattered. These days, the two primary goals of ESG are to force (or, in the cases of giant investment houses BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, using other people’s money to force) companies to adopt the equity-based discrimination under discussion here and carbon reduction and elimination on a politically generated schedule without regard to technological, economic or geopolitical considerations. These have long and obviously been obsessions of the hard left, and have been embraced by the current administration as its premiere “whole of government” initiatives. They are hardly nonpartisan positions, and their value to companies is nowhere supported by objective and complete research conducted under appropriate controls and circumstances.

They also turn out to hinder firm performance. This should have been obvious without the need for years of road testing throughout the American (or anybody’s) economy. Making personnel decisions on the basis of surface characteristics rather than talent, hard work, a proven track record and other genuinely relevant factors (in short, according to merit) is definitionally a move away from hiring the best person for the job. And moving from reliable and affordable energy sources and production practices to unreliable, unaffordable sources and methods that cannot be maintained at the required scale given current or legitimately foreseen technologies is, frankly, about as dumb as it gets – for the companies, anyway; those in on the green grift have done rather well for themselves, as have the model generators, calamity predictors and power grabbers at various levels of government and international organizations and NGOs.

But as profitable as ESG is for its proponents, it has proven in recent years to be costly to shareholders. Money has gushed away from ESG-labeled funds as their high costs and either poor returns or Potemkin nature ( e.g. “greenwashing”) have been revealed. Some major players like BlackRock have stopped offering them entirely, embarrassed by the living proof of ESG-inferiority. They continue, though, to use investor assets to push ESG in private meetings with companies, despite their failure to disclose that. Because of this, all of their funds are to a significant extent ESG funds despite not being labeled as such. Meanwhile, they continue to offer no funds for which the assets will be dedicated to “forcing behaviors” that are nondiscriminatory and that support using the most affordable and reliable energy available and conducting the analysis to determine relative costs only with regard to objective and complete research, rather than under climate-extremist assumptions that have only negligible grounding in fact. Nor do they use non-ESG-labeled funds to oppose ESG, or even withhold the power of those vast assets from their pro-ESG behavior-forcing activities, in favor of a position of business neutrality with regard to the left-wing goals of ESG.

For it is this aim of corporate neutrality that motivates the efforts of FEP and a growing coterie of like-minded investors, organizations, officials and institutions fighting ESG. Our and their goals are not to push companies to reverse the polarity of company partisanship. Rather, we simply wish to get companies away from any sort of partisanship – back to the business of their core businesses, and on the sidelines of general politics and policy questions. In other words, back to neutral, and to their fiduciary duties. Neutral companies acting in fidelity to fiduciary duty might reasonably spend shareholder assets to pursue limited and constrained ends that are of clear and direct benefit to those shareholders, as by fighting a specific regulation that will, if promulgated, directly and adversely affect the company’s value without recourse to any absurd cogitation of emanations, penumbras and fanciful predictions of the future. But that would be all.

After all, corporate executives are munificently remunerated by those shareholders. If Brian Moynihan or Bob Iger want to spend some of their own extravagant dosh to campaign in favor of the New Bigotry under discussion here or any other of the partisan pillars of ESG, they are welcome to do so. They are neither welcome nor authorized to spend other people’s money – the money of the companies’ owners – to achieve them. That’s as thorough an instance of self-dealing as could reasonably be envisaged, and while the courts haven’t quite gotten to the question yet, it is and should be held to be a willful breach of fiduciary duty of the sort that pries open their personal assets for the payment of damages.

What Our DEI Proposals Request

Particularly since the triggering events of 2020, FEP has put forward a growing series of shareholder proposals addressing those corporate DEI programs. Most seek audits and reports about whether a company’s DEI policies violate civil rights and nondiscrimination laws, while others expand the focus to include the effects of DEI on merit-advancement and therefore on company performance, in addition to the civil rights implications. More recently – in light of the SFFA decision and the growing list of companies that are demonstrating the real-world truth of  ‘get woke, go broke’ – our proposals have more directly focused on the financial and reputational risks DEI discrimination carries with it. All address the many ways that DEI is harmful to companies and shareholders.

How Companies Respond to Our Proposals

Whether in public opposition statements or in private negotiations (a standard feature in the proposal-review process), companies’ responses to our DEI-related proposals have broadly fallen into one of three categories:

• Doubling-down
• A paradoxical mixture of denial and doubling-down

The first two are fairly straightforward. Some companies simply deny that they’re doing exactly what they’re doing, or that there could possibly be any material risks arising from their active embrace of discrimination on suspect-classification grounds. Or, as we include specific instances in our proposals and raise them in discussion, they may admit that they are doing what they’re doing but insist (or, more likely, pretend) that it’s impossible that any illegality could be at issue or that any adverse public reaction may arise in response to racist, sexist and orientation-discriminatory programs and practices. This response, always ludicrous, has become frankly untenable post- SFFA , resorted to only by the most obtuse of firms.

The second category is the frank and usually heated defense of equity that’s more explicitly representative of CRT ideology – a declaration that “empowering of the disempowered” is wise, good, urgent and cheered by all correct-thinking people, and that we are clearly monsters, supremacists and racists for opposing discrimination on the basis of race. But those sorts of engagements are fading as more lawyers and fewer “diversity officers” have been attending discussions with us.

The most infuriating and nonsensical – but perhaps the most common, oddly enough – of company responses is the third one, a coy mixture of the first two. Companies both assure us that DEI is not actually happening in the way that’s explicitly acknowledged and celebrated on their websites, in an attempt to dispel our concerns, but also reassert their deep pride in all the progress that their DEI programs are making in exactly the way that they explicitly proclaim on their websites – which demonstrate their discriminatory purpose and results.

For example, Apple’s Inclusion & Diversity webpage states: “We’re working toward a future in technology that’s more diverse”; “We’re expanding representation in leadership”; “We’re prioritizing equity and representation within our teams”; “The Inclusion & Equity at AppleCare (IEAC) program… create[s] an even more inclusive environment” and “Over the past year, we filled more open leadership roles than ever with women globally and Black candidates in the United States. We remain committed to continuing to grow leadership representation.”

So Apple states that its goal is more “equity,” explains how its DEI programs are responsible for achieving those goals, and then celebrates that it has achieved those goals. If true, that’s likely illegal given that hiring and promoting on the basis of race and sex is illegal. So out of concern, we submitted a shareholder proposal to Apple last year to audit if the company really does discriminates in the way that it advertises.

Apple advised shareholders to vote against our audit and report, and its statement in opposition to our proposal then denied that such a policy – which is openly flaunted on its website – was being implemented: “The proponent mischaracterizes Apple ’ s commitment to inclusion and diversity by suggesting that our policies promoting these goals are discriminatory. Apple does not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind.” Then later in the opposition statement, Apple added, “We ’ re building on our long-standing commitment to make our Company more inclusive and diverse and to promote equitable pay for all employees. We ’ re supporting underrepresented communities with initiatives that combat inequity, expand access to opportunity, and foster belonging through community.”

Of course, this makes our point for us: you’ve got programs, including “equity” programs, that take some or all of race, sex and orientation into account when distributing their benefits. And those undescribed programs appear to apply to employees and other stakeholders against whom that suspect-category discrimination may very well be illegal. You crow endlessly about these programs. How about doing a little audit and report about that ? And about the effects of DEI on “non-diverse” stakeholders who have the same civil rights as the “diverse”?, (Especially given the number of audits and reports you have done knowing that those audits would push you to increase the degree to which you offer things on the basis of race, sex or orientation.)

Instead, while Apple asserts proudly and very publicly that both its DEI goals and DEI achievements are of monumental importance to the company, it refuses to reveal to us and to the public the specifics of how this program works or give any substantial explanation for how those achievements were made and how they’re so confident that all of this is not in violation of civil rights law. For example, the company doesn’t disclose every relevant organization it gives to for the purposes of DEI (only that it does give to such organizations and that it’s a saint for doing so), what its inclusion and diversity trainings for employees specifically entail or any material from the trainings (only that it does hold such trainings and that it’s a saint for doing so), or the specific legal advice and reasoning that the company has relied on to make its claim that its DEI program is legal. It’s a bizarre combination of very transparent and also not at all. Apple shouts its DEI program from a rooftop, but then when asked to detail the specifics of its DEI program (or submit the program to an audit) it has nothing, just more shouts from the rooftop.

So Apple is discriminating – and it is getting its desired results in hiring, retention and promotion consistent with having discriminated in those spheres – but it refuses to address the content of those programs at all, much less conduct a comprehensive review of them. This is not an admission of guilt per se , but it sure is the behavior of an organization that has something to hide, knows full well that it does, and fully and willfully intends to defy its disclosure and risk-avoidance duties – not to mention its obligations under the civil rights laws – for as long as it can brazen it out.

Another common paradoxical response from companies is claiming that they don’t have race, sex and orientation quotas (acknowledging that such quotas are illegal), but then proudly proclaiming achievement of their “goals” of hiring more women, ethnic minorities and LGBT people. What’s the functional difference between a quota and a goal? Companies refuse even to contemplate the question – again suggesting a full awareness of a material risk that they refuse to address with the fullness that fiduciary duty requires.

Of course, in this context, there isn’t a difference between “quotas” and “goals,” but the woke have made a habit of using esoteric meanings of words to advance a political agenda. “Diversity” and “inclusion” are perfect examples of this linguistic manipulation, which makes attempting to have a genuine conversation with a company’s “Chief Diversity Officer” about the very real legal risks of DEI almost impossible. Paraphrased, it goes something like this:

“You can’t hire or promote employees because they’re black or because they’re female.” “We don’t do that.” “Then why does your website say that you do?” “What we’re striving for is to increase representation amongst historically marginalized communities.” “That’s illegal – it’s illegal to have race and sex quotas.” “But we don’t have quotas.” “What’s the difference between ‘goals to increase representation’ and a quota?” “Our program doesn’t violate civil rights. We are deeply concerned about civil rights, which is why we have goals to advance equity.” “But ‘equity’ – which is forcibly redistributing outcomes and opportunities on the basis of race and sex – is by definition in violation of civil rights.” “That’s not our view.” “It’s the Supreme Court’s view. This is exactly why your DEI program needs to be audited.”

There is yet another paradoxical position, still, that companies hold with respect to their DEI programs. When we inform companies during negotiations that hiring based on race, sex and orientation comes at the expense of merit, they always answer the same way: “we hire the best candidates, we just also consider other factors in addition to merit.” Of course, not hiring by merit alone literally means that you’re not hiring the best candidate, and includes an admission of suspect-classification consideration that raises the very risks that our proposal has focused on, but somehow doesn’t lead to the logical conclusion that we have identified a problem and a duty to which they will apply themselves directly, honestly and openly.

Bigoted Stereotyping

Another very common response that we receive from corporations is that they need to hire “diverse” employees in order to appeal to their “diverse” customers. For example, at Progressive’s shareholder meeting in 2022, we asked CEO Tricia Griffith how the company “could justify valuing surface characteristics over merit,” to which she responded:

In order to [succeed], we need to anticipate and understand our customers. So we need to reflect our customers. We think it ’ s very important to have a fair and inclusive work environment, reflect the customers we serve and for our leaders to reflect the people they lead.

In other words, she said that the company can only be successful if white people sell insurance to white people, black people sell insurance to black people, women sell insurance to women, and so on. First of all, that’s the opposite of racial unity, but also to assume that someone is destined to think or act a certain way because of their immutable characteristics, or that the company needs to proactively silo its employees and customers into groups determined by race, sex and orientation in order to succeed, is the most egregious sort of reductivist racism and sexism.

Shocking an admission as it is, this is unfortunately not an uncommon view for corporations to hold – we get this response all the time in private negotiations with companies. And while they insinuate that members of a group are destined to think a certain way, they also use DEI to repress diversity of thought and ensure that their employees actually conform to their bigotry of the mind. One way they do this is with Employee Resource Groups.

Employee Resource Groups, (ERGs, as they’re often called, though the title sometimes varies by company) are something we frequently bring up in these discussions with companies as an example of potentially illegal discrimination. We ask companies why they have ERGs for blacks, women, LGBT people, Latinos, Asians and more, but not ones for men, whites or straight people – or ones for parents or the religious or employees who believe that the company should hire by merit rather than by the surface characteristics of the groups who are permitted to have ERGs. It’s not that we think that those should exist – we think that no ERGs that separate people by immutable characteristics should – but the fact that favored “diverse” categories are represented, while the despicable “non-diverse” are excluded, is evidence of the systemic discrimination within the company. When we press companies on this blatant and very public fact (check pretty much any corporate website for yourself), they almost always predictably answer that “a white person can join our black ERG or a man can join our women ERG” as allies of those groups and those ERG’s demands. But of course, that’s entirely missing the point.

In reality, these ERGs are just lobbying groups within the company for left-wing causes. The women’s ERG is not actually just a women ERG but a feminist ERG (which is an important distinction), and the black ERG is not actually just a black ERG but a Black Lives Matter (BLM) ERG. This is why a white person supportive of BLM would be more welcome in the black ERG than a black person critical of BLM. For example, when Amazon donated $10 million “to organizations in support of justice and equity” in the wake of the George Floyd riots of 2020, it was the company’s “Black Employee Network” that selected the organizations – all of which just happened to be left-wing proponents of CRT-based “social justice” – that received the funds.

But, of course, as mentioned earlier, companies appear to falsely, idiotically and prejudicially assume that because you’re black or because you’re a woman or because you’re gay, then you’re destined to think a certain way and must embrace the victimhood mentality and identity that they ascribe to you. Which is yet another reason why DEI is also bigoted against the people it purports to help.

These ERGs often pressure the company into donating to left-wing groups. For example, it’s very common for LGBT ERGs to have partnerships with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Trevor Project, GenderCool or other groups that promote the genital mutilation of teens and the eradication of girls’ and women’s sports and bathrooms. The recent share price collapses of Disney, Bud Light and Target revealed that capitulating to the ultra- and ever-increasingly-woke demands of these groups has a disastrous impact on shareholder value. (All this while companies not only fail to allow ERGs for their religious employees, but also refuse to match donations by believers to religiously minded charities, demoting them to a category that otherwise includes only fraternities and sororities and political campaigns – which aren’t charitable donations at all – while donations to groups like HRC or BLM aren’t deemed political.)

These ERGs are just another way that identity is weaponized to promote the starkly political, partisan and often extremist left-wing agenda that characterizes all of ESG. ERGs are established along racist, sexist and orientationist lines and are denied to the disfavored groups that the companies are actively discriminating against, an odd choice for allocating the community support and lobbying power that spring from an ERG. This is a back-door way for the company to stack discrimination on discrimination, by using discriminatory rules to create lobbying groups designed to generate demands for yet more discrimination, which is then happily acceded to by the company that has set up the system in the first place. Very conveniently for companies, in negotiations with us, they often lean on ERGs as the excuse for all this – that their implementation of DEI or giving to organizations that advance DEI is merely out of their desire to cater to the requests of their employees.

All of this poses serious and potentially vast financial risks to companies in addition to being inherently discriminatory and in violation of civil rights. Perhaps the capping discrimination is the companies’ discrimination on race, sex and orientation grounds of what constitutes and how to measure material risks themselves.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Supported By:

Subscribe or Follow

Program on corporate governance advisory board.

• William Ackman
• Peter Atkins
• Kerry E. Berchem
• Richard Brand
• Daniel Burch
• Arthur B. Crozier
• Renata J. Ferrari
• John Finley
• Carolyn Frantz
• Andrew Freedman
• Byron Georgiou
• Joseph Hall
• Jason M. Halper
• David Millstone
• Theodore Mirvis
• Maria Moats
• Erika Moore
• Morton Pierce
• Philip Richter
• Marc Trevino
• Steven J. Williams
• Daniel Wolf

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows

• Lucian Bebchuk
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Stephen M. Davis
• Allen Ferrell
• Jesse Fried
• Oliver Hart
• Howell Jackson
• Kobi Kastiel
• Reinier Kraakman
• Mark Ramseyer
• Robert Sitkoff
• Holger Spamann
• Leo E. Strine, Jr.
• Guhan Subramanian
• Roberto Tallarita

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Renewal Package From the State of California to the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Assigning Environmental Responsibilities to the State

Notice, request for comments.

This notice announces that FRA has received and reviewed a renewal package from the State of California (State) acting through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and California High- Speed Rail Authority (Authority) requesting renewed participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (Program). Under the Program, FRA may assign, and the State may assume, responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and all or part of FRA's responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under any Federal environmental laws with respect to one or more railroad projects within the State. FRA has determined the renewal package to be complete, and developed a draft renewal MOU with CalSTA and the Authority outlining how the State will implement the Program with FRA oversight. The public is invited to comment on the State's request, including its renewal package and the proposed renewal MOU, which includes the proposed assignments and assumptions of environmental review, consultation, and other activities.