User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Duty of Vigilance Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The following provides guidelines on translated pages. It is based on the template in the Brumadinho dam disaster article.
  • "Machine translation like Deepl or Google Translate is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia."
  • "Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article."
  • "You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary (using French): Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr: Loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d'ordre; see its history for attribution."
  • "You should also add the template {{Translated page}} to the talk page."
  • "For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation."

The November 6, 2019 iteration of this sandbox article is based on a Google translation of Loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et entreprises donneuses d'ordre which was created and developed by User:V.caila on September 30, 2019 with contributions from User:Shev123, User:Tortliena, User:Jules78120, and User:IBG2018.

Duty of Vigilance Law Law No. 2017-399 is a French law on the duty of care of parent companies and ordering companies, also known as the duty of vigilance law, obliges large French companies to develop, publish and implement appropriate measures. identifying risks and preventing violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, human health and safety, and the environment. It was definitively adopted in March 2017.[1]

Background[edit]

According to a February 2019 report commissioned by the Policy Department of the European Union, the "use of judicial mechanisms to hold companies to account for human rights abuses in third countries is receiving increased attention."[2]: 5  The report listed 35 relevant cases in of EU-Based companies accused of human rights abuses in third countries.[2]: 5 


The Due Diligence Act was drafted in response to various human and environmental disasters involving multinational companies "at the other end of the world" where the civil parties have been unable to obtain redress for disasters caused by these companies.[3] Examples include the 1984 Bhopal disaster in Bhopal, India,[4][5][6][7] the Chevron scandal in Ecuador related to the Lago Agrio oil field,[8][9][10][11] the sinking of the MV Erika,[12] oil spills in Nigeria including the 2010 ExxonMobil oil spill and the Mobil Nigeria oil spill, the explosion of the AZF plant in France, and more recently, the rupture of the Brumadinho dam in Brazil. The collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in 2013 played a political accelerating role in the regulation of multinational enterprises. The tragedy, which left 1,188 people dead and more than 2,000 wounded, revealed the poor working conditions of suppliers and subcontractors of major European and North American textile groups, as well as the difficulty of the responsibility of the companies giving orders.[13][14][15][16][17] The splitting of companies into subsidiaries and the increasing use of outsourcing, represent a major obstacle for people affected by harmful economic activities to obtain justice.

Following the tragedy of Rana Plaza, a first bill was tabled in October 2013. A second proposal was tabled in February 2015, on the initiative of Dominique Potier and Philippe Noguès.[18] According to a March 27, 2015 article in Le Monde, the draft law was the subject of a long legislative process of three and a half years, having encountered numerous oppositions from the economic sectors, which claimed in particular, that this law posed a threat to the competitiveness of the French companies and hampered entrepreneurial freedom.[3]

According to its authors, "the objective of this bill is to establish a duty of care of parent companies and contractors to their subsidiaries, subcontractors and suppliers. This is to empower transnational corporations to prevent the occurrence of tragedies in France and abroad and to obtain reparations for victims in the event of damage to human rights and the environment ".[19]

Two days after the plenary vote in the French National Assembly on 21 February 2017, a group of 60 deputies and 60 senators appealed to the Constitutional Council. On March 23, 2017, the Constitutional Council validates most of the law.[20] On March 27, 2017, it became law.

Legislative process[edit]

The bill was tabled between November 2013 and April 2014.[3]

It passed into law in March 2017.[21]

Goals[edit]

The duty of care law creates a new obligation for large French companies: to prevent and provide reparation for human rights violations and environmental damage caused by their activities and the activities of their subsidiaries, subcontractors or suppliers with whom is maintained an established commercial relationship.

Scope[edit]

The law concerns companies established in France that employ at least 5,000 employees in France or 10,000 in the world.[22]


It applies to the company itself (parent companies or client companies); companies that they control directly or indirectly; and subcontractors and suppliers with whom an "established commercial relationship" is maintained.

The law of due diligence covers all sectors of activity and a wide field of application: all are concerned "serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety of people and the environment "(Article 1).[23]

Measures[edit]

Due diligence companies now have a legal obligation to publish in their annual report and effectively implement a vigilance plan, in order to identify and prevent the risks of human rights abuses and corruption. 'environment. According to Article 1 of the Due Diligence Act, the plan must include "A risk map for their identification, analysis and prioritization; Procedures for regularly assessing the situation of subsidiaries, subcontractors or suppliers with whom it has an established commercial relationship with regard to risk mapping; Appropriate actions to mitigate risks or prevent serious harm; A warning and collection mechanism for reports relating to the existence or realization of risks, drawn up in consultation with the representative trade union organizations in the said company; and a device for monitoring the measures implemented and evaluating their effectiveness."[24]

The law provides two judicial mechanisms to ensure its application including In the event that an enterprise fails to establish, publish or implement a vigilance plan, Article 1 provides that "any person with an interest in acting" (such as human rights the environment, the unions, the affected populations) can put it on notice to respect its obligations. At the end of three months, as from the formal notice, if the company still does not respect its obligations, it is possible to seize the judge to enjoin it to do it, if necessary under financial penalty. According to Article 2 of the law, the civil liability of the company can be engaged in case of breach of its obligations, that is, if the establishment and implementation of the plan are defective. Victims must then be able to demonstrate to the judges that violations and damages have occurred and are the result of a breach of due diligence. The company may be required to pay damages to the victims, but only in the case of a lack of a plan, an insufficient plan or failures in its implementation.

First cases on the basis of the duty of care[edit]

In June 2019, Total was the subject of two formal notices for non-compliance with the duty of care. The oil company was first called to order for the lack of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its vigilance plan and a second time for its activities in Uganda. In the first case, 14 local authorities, supported by associations Our Affair to All, the Eco Mayors, Sherpa and ZEA, have called on Total to review its vigilance plan and align with the Paris Agreements in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.[25]

According to the French and Ugandan NGOs behind the second formal notice (Friends of the Earth France, Friends of the Earth Uganda / NAPE, AFIEGO, CRED, NAVODA and Survival), Total would not have taken specific measures in its vigilance plan to prevent the risks of human rights and environmental violations caused by its mega-petroleum project in the Murchison Falls protected natural area on the shores of Lake Albert in Uganda, and the construction of a 1445 km long pipeline through Uganda and Tanzania.[26] On October 23, 2019, the associations summon Total in summary before the tribunal de grande instance of Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine) for breach of the law on due diligence.[27][28]

In July 2019, Teleperformance was put on notice by Sherpa and UNI Global Union to take appropriate measures to prevent human rights abuses in its subsidiaries, particularly in Colombia.[29]

Application[edit]

The associations have published various studies and reports to ensure the effective implementation of the law.

Friends of the Earth France and ActionAid France - Peoples Solidarity published in 2017 three case studies of law enforcement in the report "End of the run for multinationals? From a pioneering law in France to a treaty at the UN."[30]

In 2018, Sherpa, a French law association, that provides legal assistance and does research on human rights violations, financial crimes, development, and globalization.[31] with sponsorship from ActionAid France, Friends of the Earth France, Amnesty International, Ethique Etiquette—member organizations of FCRSE, published a "Reference Guide for Vigilance Plans" in 2018.[32]

Mighty Earth, France Nature Environment and Sherpa published in 2019, a report on the duty of vigilance and deforestation in 2019.

In the report "Year 1: businesses must do better", several NGOs (ActionAid France - Peoples Solidarity, Friends of the Earth France, Amnesty International, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Collective Ethics on the Label and Sherpa) establish a number of recommendations to governments and an analysis of major business plans in the arms, agri-food, textile, extractive and banking sectors.[33]

CCFD-Terre Solidaire has published a study dedicated to the agri-food sector, and made a number of recommendations for companies to prevent the risks of land and water grabbing, criminalization of human rights defenders, peasant rights, biodiversity and the environment.[34]

The CCFD-Terre Solidaire and Sherpa have put online the site plan-vigilance.org to identify companies subject to the duty of care and make available public vigilance plans published.[35]

International[edit]

France is the first country to have established a legal responsibility of transnational private actors for human rights and environmental violations caused along their value chain. The question of the regulation of multinational enterprises is not new, since it emerged in international organizations as early as the 1970s. In 1974, a "Commission on Transnational Corporations" was created within the Economic and Social Council of Europe. UN, to develop a code of conduct governing the activity of transnational corporations, before being dismantled in 1992. The OECD member countries, anxious to demonstrate their ability to promote corporate responsibility through voluntary standards and not -contractors, publish a first version of the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 1976. They were then revised in 2011. At the end of the 90s, there is a shift in the discourse of the United Nations: we go from 'a logic of supervision to a logic of self-regulation of companies. In 2000, the United Nations launched the Global Compact, an initiative to promote corporate social responsibility through the introduction and promotion of ten principles relating to human rights, labor rights, the environment and the fight against corruption. This initiative is non-binding and relies on the voluntary commitment of companies. Between 1997 and 2003, the United Nations Subcommittee on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights conducted a major effort to develop human rights standards for multinational enterprises from all UN Treaties: "Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Businesses with Respect to Human Rights" were rejected by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2004. In 2005, John Ruggie was appointed Special Representative of the United Nations united on the issue of human rights, transnational corporations and other businesses. In 2008, he published the report "Protect, Respect and Repair" which sets the theoretical framework on the duty of vigilance of multinational companies.

This report sets out three principles including the obligation to protect the human rights of the state, the responsibility of companies to respect human rights, and effective access to redress through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms.

This report will lead to the adoption in 2011 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Draft international treaty under negotiation at the UN[edit]

In 2014, the UN Human Rights Council created an intergovernmental working group, led by Ecuador and South Africa, to develop a legally binding international treaty on multinational enterprises and companies. human rights. Negotiations take place every year in October in Geneva.

The 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) was the first corporate human rights responsibility initiative unanimously endorsed by the United Nations.[36] In their chapter in the 2018 edited book, Business and Human Rights in Europe, the authors examined the concept of corporate human rights due diligence, as introduced by the UNGPs, with a focus on France's Duty of Vigilance Law. They examined how the European Union might introduce a similar obligation.[37] Cossart, one of the co-authors said that the Duty of Vigilance Law also requires that companies provide a Vigilance Plan.[38]


The European Union and the duty of care[edit]

In 2001, in the "Green Paper - Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility", the European Commission defines Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as: "the voluntary integration by companies of social, environmental and economic concerns in their activities and in their interactions with their stakeholders."[39] In 2011, the European Commission adopts a new definition of CSR, with an action plan for 2011-2014. CSR is defined as "the responsibility of companies vis-à-vis the effects they have on society."[40] The voluntary dimension disappears from the definition, and the approach is geared towards risk management.

In February 2019, the European Parliament publishes, through its human rights committee, a study on access to justice for people affected by the activities of European companies in third countries.[41]

The duty of vigilance in Europe[edit]

In 2019, the Netherlands passed the Child Labor Due Diligence Act.[42]

In Switzerland, a coalition of nearly 80 civil society organizations has gathered enough signatures to put forward in 2016 a grassroots initiative called "Responsible businesses - to protect people and the environment". After the rejection of this popular initiative by the Federal Council in 2017, the parliament proposed a counter-project based on the same principles but whose outlines still need to be discussed.[43]

In Germany, the government has committed to put in place a binding legislative instrument on the duty of vigilance of companies, inspired by French law and the Modern Slavery Act 2015.[44]

In Finland, Norway, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark, and Austria, the supervision of the activity of multinational enterprises concerning the respect of human rights and the environment is also debated.[45]

Further reading[edit]

  • Antal, Ariane Berthoin; Sobczak, Andre (2007). "Corporate Social Responsibility in France: A Mix of National Traditions and International Influences". Business & Society. 46 (1): 9–32. doi:10.1177/0007650306293391. S2CID 13113055.
  • Evans, Alice (October 2019). "Overcoming the Global Despondency Trap: Strengthening Corporate Accountability in Supply Chains" (PDF). Center for International Development (CID). Faculty Working Paper. Retrieved November 6, 2019.
  • Roux, Fanny (April 1, 2015), "Devoir de vigilance: récit du lobbying autour de la loi", Contexte

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ LOI n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre, 27 March 2017, retrieved 2019-09-30
  2. ^ a b Marx, Dr Axel; Bright, Dr Claire; Pineau, Nina; Lein, Mr Brecht; Schiebe, Mr Torbjörn; Wagner, Johanna; Wauters, Evelien (February 2019). "Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries". Policy Department, European Union: 135.
  3. ^ a b c Tonnelier, Audrey (27 March 2015). "Le 'devoir de vigilance' inquiète les entreprises: Une proposition de loi, examinée lundi par les députés, veut rendre les grands groupes responsables des pratiques de leurs sous-traitants". Le Monde. Retrieved 7 November 2019. Updated on 19 August 2019
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference MandavilliUnfolding was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Bhopal trial: Eight convicted over India gas disaster". BBC News. 7 June 2010. Archived from the original on 7 June 2010. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
  6. ^ Varma, Roli; Daya R. Varma (2005). "The Bhopal Disaster of 1984". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 25: 37–45. doi:10.1177/0270467604273822. S2CID 109281859.
  7. ^ "Madhya Pradesh Government : Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Bhopal". Mp.gov.in. Archived from the original on 18 May 2012. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
  8. ^ Romero, Simon; Krauss, Clifford (14 February 2011). "Chevron Ordered to Pay $9 Billion for Ecuador Pollution". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
  9. ^ "Chevron ordered to pay $8 billion by Ecuador court". Los Angeles Times. February 14, 2011.
  10. ^ "Ecuador Judge Orders Chevron to Pay $9 Billion". The New York Times. 14 February 2011.
  11. ^ Karan Nagarkatti; Gary McWilliams (7 September 2018). "International tribunal rules in favor of Chevron in Ecuador case". Reuters. Retrieved 6 April 2019. The tribunal unanimously held that a $9.5 billion pollution judgment by Ecuador's Supreme Court against Chevron "was procured through fraud, bribery and corruption and was based on claims that had been already settled and released by the Republic of Ecuador years earlier."
  12. ^ "The scandal of the Erika". BBC News. August 16, 2000.
  13. ^ Tansy, Hopkins (23 April 2015). "Reliving the Rana Plaza factory collapse: a history of cities in 50 buildings, day 22". The Observer. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 22 June 2017.
  14. ^ "Bangladesh building collapse death toll passes 500". BBC News. 3 May 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
  15. ^ "Bangladesh Dhaka building collapse leaves 87 dead". BBC News. 24 April 2013.
  16. ^ "80 dead, 800 hurt in Savar high-rise collapse". bdnews24.com. 24 April 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
  17. ^ Ahmed, Farid (25 April 2013). "Bangladesh building collapse kills at least 123, injures more than 1,000". CNN. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
  18. ^ "Dossiers législatifs - LOI n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre | Legifrance". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  19. ^ "N° 2578 - Proposition de loi de M. Bruno Le Roux relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre". www.assemblee-nationale.fr. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  20. ^ "Décision n° 2017-750 DC du 23 March 2017". Conseil constitutionnel (in French). Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  21. ^ LOI n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre, 27 March 2017, retrieved 2019-09-30
  22. ^ "FAQ devoir de vigilance" (PDF). Sherpa (in français). 2017. Retrieved November 6, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  23. ^ "LOI n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre | Legifrance". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  24. ^ "LOI n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre | Legifrance". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  25. ^ "Dossier de presse "1.5° nous sommes les territoires qui se défendent"" (PDF). Notre Affaire à tous, Les Eco Maires, Sherpa, ZEA (in français). 18 June 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  26. ^ "Dossier de presse "Devoir de vigilance : Total, mise en demeure pour ses activités en Ouganda"" (PDF). Les Amis de la Terre France, Survie (in français). 25 June 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  27. ^ "Projet pétrolier en Ouganda : le groupe Total assigné en référé pour manquement à son devoir de vigilance". Franceinfo (in French). 2019-10-23. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  28. ^ "Six ONG assignent Total en justice pour ses activités "désastreuses" en Ouganda". SudOuest.fr (in French). Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  29. ^ "Droits des travailleurs et devoir de vigilance : le leader mondial des call centers Teleperformance mis en demeure". SHERPA (in French). 2019-07-24. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  30. ^ "Rapport : « Fin de cavale pour les multinationales ? D'une loi pionnière en France à un traité à l'ONU » - Les Amis de la Terre". www.amisdelaterre.org. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  31. ^ Sherpa Association Web Site Accessed December 3 2011
  32. ^ "Guide de référence pour les Plans de Vigilance" (PDF). Sherpa (in français). December 2018. Retrieved November 6, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  33. ^ "Rapport "La vigilance au Menu" : 5 risques humains et environnementaux à identifier par l'agro-industrie". CCFD-Terre Solidaire Comité Catholique Contre la Faim et pour le Développement – Terre Solidaire 4 rue Jean Lantier 75001 Paris France Tel1 44 82 80 00 N° SIREN 775 664 527 N° RNA (in French). Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  34. ^ "Rapport "La vigilance au Menu" : 5 risques humains et environnementaux à identifier par l'agro-industrie". CCFD-Terre Solidaire Comité Catholique Contre la Faim et pour le Développement – Terre Solidaire 4 rue Jean Lantier 75001 Paris France Tel1 44 82 80 00 N° SIREN 775 664 527 N° RNA (in French). Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  35. ^ "le radar du devoir de vigilance – liste des entreprises soumises au devoir de vigilance" (in French). Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  36. ^ Surya Deva, "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies", April 2012, "[1]", Retrieved July 3, 2012
  37. ^ Beau de Loménie, Tiphaine; Cossart, Sandra; Morrow, Paige (13 September 2018). "Chapter 12: From Human Rights Due Diligence to Duty of Vigilance: Taking the French Example to the EU". In Bonfanti, Angelica (ed.). Business and Human Rights in Europe: International Law Challenges. New York: Routledge. p. 288. ISBN 9780429443169. Retrieved 16 November 2019. {{cite book}}: Text "'" ignored (help)
  38. ^ Cossart, Sandra; Chatelain, Lucie (19 September 2019). "What lessons does France's Duty of Vigilance law have for other national initiatives?". Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC). Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  39. ^ Daugareilh, Isabelle (2016-06-30). Union Européenne. Capitalismes – éthique – institutions (in French). Presses universitaires du Septentrion. pp. 471–474. ISBN 9782757414132. Retrieved 2019-09-30. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  40. ^ Daugareilh, Isabelle (2016-06-30). "Union Européenne". In Presses universitaires du Septentrion (ed.). Dictionnaire critique de la RSE. Capitalismes – éthique – institutions (in French). pp. 471–474. ISBN 9782757414132. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  41. ^ "Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries" (PDF) (in français). February 2019. Retrieved November 6, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  42. ^ "Dutch child labour due diligence law: a step towards mandatory human rights due diligence | OHRH". ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  43. ^ "L'initiative en détail – Konzernverantwortungsinitiative". Initiative multinationales responsables (in French). Retrieved 2019-09-30.
  44. ^ "Responsabilité sociale : Berlin envisage de mettre au pas les multinationales allemandes", Le Monde (in French), 2019-07-29, retrieved 2019-09-30
  45. ^ "Evidence for mandatory HRDD legislation (Updated May 2019) - European Coalition for Corporate Justice". corporatejustice.org. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Duty_of_Vigilance_Law&oldid=1062786883"