Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:39:39.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Duty of Care of the Parent Company: A Comparison between French Law, UK Precedents and the Swiss Proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2019

Dalia PALOMBO
Dalia PALOMBO*
Affiliation:
LSE Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science-Law, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Business Ethics, University of St. Gallen, Swizerland.
*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2017, France established a due diligence statutory obligation for French parent companies to monitor extraterritorial human rights and environmental abuses committed by their off-shore affiliates. Switzerland is also considering adopting a similar law for Swiss parent companies. These obligations are comparable to the duty of care that, according to recent case law, British parent companies owe towards their subsidiaries’ neighbours. This article compares and contrasts the newly introduced French due diligence statutory obligation, the UK precedents, and two alternative Swiss legislative proposals on the due diligence and duty of care of parent companies.

Keywords

duty of caredue diligence obligationhuman rightsmultinational enterprisesFranceSwitzerlandUK
Type
Scholarly Articles
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 2019 , pp. 265 - 286
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Note that part of this article is also reproduced in the forthcoming book Dalia Palombo, Business and Human Rights The Obligations of the European Home States (Hart Publishing, 2019). I would like to thank Professor David Kershaw, Professor Florian Wettstein and Mr. Daniel Leader for their extremely useful comments on various versions of this article. I also would like to thank Professor Anita Ramasastry and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. However, please note that the views of the author are her own.

References

1 Vazquez, Carlos Manuel, ‘Direct vs Indirect Obligations of Corporations under International Law’ (2005) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 927 Google Scholar; Ratner, Steven R, ‘Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 111 Yale Law Journal 443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, e.g., OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011); Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’ (2011) 29 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Skinner, Gwynne, ‘Rethinking Limited Liability of Parent Corporations for Foreign Subsidiaries’ Violations of International Human Rights Law’ (2015) 72 Washington and Lee Law Review 1769 Google Scholar.

4 The term ‘affiliate’ includes both subsidiaries and/or supply chains.

5 Stiglitz, Joseph E, ‘Multinational Corporations: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities’ (2007) 101 Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muchlinski, Peter, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deva, Surya, ‘Human Rights Violations by Multinational Corporations and International Law: Where from Here’ (2003) 19 Connecticut Journal of International Law 1 Google Scholar.

6 Vanderkerckhove, Karen, Piercing the Corporate Veil (Kluwer/Aspen, 2007) 1–23 Google Scholar; Gamble, Andrew and Gavin, Kelly, ‘The Politics of the Company’, The Political Economy of the Company (Hart Publishing, 2001) 29–34 Google Scholar; Leebron, David W, ‘Limited Liability, Tort Victims, and Creditors’ (1991) 91 Columbia Law Review 1565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blumberg, Phillip I, ‘Limited Liability and Corporate Groups’ (1985-1986) 11 Journal of Corporation Law 573 Google Scholar.

7 Dam, Cees van, European Tort Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2013) 169–224 Google Scholar.

8 Beisinghoff, Niels, Corporations and Human Rights: An Analysis of ATCA Litigation against Corporations (Peter Lang, 2009) 13–41 Google Scholar; Vazquez, note 1; Ratner, note 1.

9 Kershaw, David, Company Law in Context: Text and Materials (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2012) 776–781 Google Scholar; Leebron, note 6; Blumberg, note 6.

10 Vanderkerckhove, note 6, 3–9; Hansmann, Henry and Kraakman, Reinier, ‘Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts’ (1991) 100 The Yale Law Journal 1879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kershaw, note 9, 3–46; Leebron, note 6.

11 See, e.g., UK cases Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34; Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SC 90 (HL); Adams and Others v Cape Industries Plc and Another [1990] Ch 433; DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Bronze Investments Ltd v Same DHN Food Transport Ltd v Same [1976] W.L.R. 1 852; Jones and Another v Lipman and Another [1962] W.L.R. 1 832; Gilford Motor Company, Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.

12 Vazquez, note 1; Ratner, note 1; van Dam, note 7 169–224.

13 Meeran, Richard, ‘Tort Litigation against Multinational Corporations for Violation of Human Rights: An Overview of the Position Outside the United States’ (2011) 3 City University of Hong Kong Law Review 1 Google Scholar; Menno T Kamminga, ‘Transnational Human Rights Litigation against Multinational Corporations Post-Kiobel’, What’s Wrong with International Law?: Liber Amicorum A.H.A. Soons (Brill-Nijhoff, 2015); Jägers, Nicola and Heijden, Marie-Jose van der, ‘Corporate Human Rights Violations: The Feasibility of Civil Recourse in the Netherlands’ (2008) 33 Brooklyn Journal of International Law Google Scholar; Wesche, Philipp and Saage-Maaß, Miriam, ‘Holding Companies Liable for Human Rights Abuses Related to Foreign Subsidiaries and Suppliers before German Civil Courts: Lessons from Jabir and Others v KiK ’ (2016) 16 Human Rights Law Review 370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Enneking, Liesbeth, Foreign Direct Liability and Beyond: Exploring the Role of Tort Law in Promoting International Corporate Social Responsibility and Accountability (Eleven International Publishing, 2012 Google Scholar); Enneking, Liesbeth, ‘Crossing the Atlantic – The Political and Legal Feasibility of European Foreign Direct Liability Cases’ (2009) 40 George Washington International Law Review 903 Google Scholar.

14 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters 2001 (OJ L012).

15 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (recast) 2012 (OJ L351).

16 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) 2007 (OJ L199).

17 Hartley, Trevor C, ‘Choice-of-court Agreements, Lis Pendens, Human Rights and the Realities of International Business: Reflections on the Gasser Case’, Le droit international privé : esprit et méthodes : Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde (Dalloz-Sirey, 2005)Google Scholar; Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 63.

18 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), art 4; Bach, Ivo, ‘Art 4 Rome II’, Rome II Regulation: Pocket Commentary (Sellier, 2011)Google Scholar; von Hein, Jan, ‘Article 4 General Rule’, Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws (Kluwer/Aspen, 2011)Google Scholar.

19 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), art 7.

20 von Hein, Jan, ‘Article 7 Environmental Damage’, Rome Regulations: Commentary of the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws (Kluwer/Aspen, 2011)Google Scholar; Fuchs, Angelika, ‘Art. 7 Rome II’, Rome II Regulation: Pocket Commentary (Sellier, 2011)Google Scholar.

21 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), art 16, 26.

22 Arif Yascha, ‘Overriding Mandatory Provisions and Administrative Authorisations According to the Rome II Regulation’ (2011) 11 The European Legal Forum 113; Mattei, Alberto, ‘Prospects for Industrial Relations: Overriding Mandatory Provisions in the Transnational Labour Market’ in Blampain, Roger (ed), Labour Markets, Industrial Relations and Human Resources Management: From Recession to Recovery (Kluwer Law International, 2012)Google Scholar; Van Den Eeckhout, Veerle, ‘Corporate Human Rights Violations and Private International Law. The Hinge-Function and Conductivity of PIL in Implementing Human Rights in Civil Proceedings in Europe: a Facilitating Role for PIL or PIL as a Complicating Factor’ (2012) 2 Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 178 Google Scholar; Dickinson, Andrew, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Oxford University Press, 2008) 625–641 Google Scholar; Rogerson, Pippa, Collier’s Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Cambridge University Press, 2013) 424–433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nollkaemper, André, ‘Public international law in transnational litigation-prospects and problems in the courts of the Netherlands’, Liability of Multinational Corporations under International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2000) 277–279 Google Scholar; Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), rec 32.

23 Cassel, Doug, ‘Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence’ (2016) 1 Business and Human Rights Journal 179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For different approaches, see Skinner, note 3; Cossart, Sandra, Chaplier, Jérôme and de Lomenie, Tiphaine Beau, ‘The French Law on Duty of Care: A Historic Step Towards Making Globalization Work for All’ (2017) 2 Business and Human Rights Journal 317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Enneking, Foreign Direct Liability and Beyond, note 13; Enneking, ‘Crossing the Atlantic – The Political and Legal Feasibility of European Foreign Direct Liability Cases’, note 13; McCorquodale, Robert, ‘Waving Not Drowning: Kiobel Outside the United States’ (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 846 Google Scholar.

25 Enneking, ‘Crossing the Atlantic – The Political and Legal Feasibility of European Foreign Direct Liability Cases’, note 13; Enneking, Liesbeth, ‘The Future of Foreign Direct Liability? Exploring the International Relevance of the Dutch Shell Nigeria Case’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanger, Andrew, ‘Crossing the Corporate Veil: The Duty of Care Owed by a Parent Company to the Employees of its Subsidiary’ (2012) 71 The Cambridge Law Journal 478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldhaber, Michael D, ‘Corporate Human Rights Litigation in Non-U.S. Courts: A Comparative Scorecard’ (2013) UC Irvine Law Review 127 Google Scholar.

26 Cassel, note 23; Skinner, note 3; Cossart, Chaplier and Lomenie, note 23.

27 Lubbe and Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals [2000] UKHL 41.

28 Lungowe & Ors v Vedanta Resources plc & Anor [2016] EWHC TCC 975; Lungowe & Ors v Vedanta Resources plc & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1528; Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) [2019] UKSC 20.

29 Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell plc & Anor (Rev 1) [2018] EWCA Civ 191; Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell plc & Anor [2017] EWHC TCC 89.

30 AAA & Ors v Unilever plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1532; AAA & Ors v Unilever plc & Anor [2017] EWHC 371.

31 Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA civ 525.

32 Thompson v the Renwick Group plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635.

33 C-281/02 Andrew Owusu v NB Jackson [2005] ECR I (CJEU); CJS Knight, ‘Owusu and Turner: The Shark in the Water?’ (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 288.

34 Forum non-conveniens is still relevant with respect to foreign companies including subsidiaries of UK parent corporations.

35 Lungowe v Vedanta [2016], note 28; Lungowe v Vedanta [2017], note 28; Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28.

36 AAA v Unilever [2017], note 30, paras 77–78.

37 Okpabi & Royal Dutch Shell plc [2017], note 29.

38 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and Others [1990] HL A.C. 2 605 633.

39 Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28, para 44.

40 Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2018], note 29; AAA v Unilever [2018], note 30.

41 Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28, para 51.

42 Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2.

43 Ibid.

44 Petrin, Martin, ‘Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape plc’ (2013) 76 The Modern Law Review 603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bullimore, Tim, ‘Sins of the Father, Sins of the Son’ (2012) 28 Professional Negligence 212 Google Scholar; Palombo, Dalia, ‘Chandler v Cape: An Alternative to Piercing the Corporate Veil beyond Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell’ (2015) 4 British Journal of American Legal Studies 453 Google Scholar.

45 Caparo v Dickman, note 38. See also Jane Stapleton. ‘Duty of Care and Economic Loss: A Wider Agenda’ (1991) Law Quarterly Review 249.

46 David Newton Sealey v ArmorGroup Services Ltd [2008] EWHC (QB) 233.

47 Petrin, note 44; Sanger, note 25; Palombo, note 44; Bullimore, note 44; Chandler v Cape plc, note 31, paras 62–66.

48 Christian Witting, ‘Duty of Care: An Analytical Approach’ (2005) 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33.

49 Chandler v Cape plc, note 31, paras 72–81.

50 Thompson v the Renwick Group plc, note 32, para 38; Grušić, Uglješa, ‘Responsibility in Groups of Companies and the Future of International Human Rights and Environmental Litigation’ (2015) 74 The Cambridge Law Journal 30 Google Scholar.

51 Loi 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre 2017 (JORF) 2017–399.

52 In French devoir de vigilance, see R-C Drouin, ‘Le Développement Du Contentieux à l’encontre Des Entreprises Transnationales : Quel Rôle Pour Le Devoir de Vigilance?’ (2016) Droit social 246.

53 The threshold of 10,000 employees is reduced to 5,000 when the companies directly or indirectly controlled by the parent company are all incorporated in France.

54 Périn Pierre-Louis, ‘Devoir de Vigilance et Responsabilité Illimitée: Qui Trop Embrasse Mal Étreint’ (2015) Revue trimestrelle de droit commercial et de droit économique 215.

55 Loi 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre 2017–399, L 225-102-5.

56 Delpech Xavier, ‘Bientôt Un Devoir de Vigilance à La Charge Des Sociétés Mères et Des Donneurs d’ordre’ (2015) Dalloz Actualité; Drouin, note 52; Pierre-Louis, note 54; Stéphane Brabant and Elsa Savourey, ‘A Closer Look at the Penalties Faced by Companies’ (2017) Revue Internationale de la Compliance et de l’Ethique des Affaires 50.

57 ‘Conseil National Session de Printemps 2015 Neuvième Séance 11.03.15 15h00 14.3671’ (2015), https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetrieb/amtliches-bulletin/amtliches-bulletin-die-verhandlungen?SubjectId=35082 (accessed 6 June 2016).

58 Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil des Etats, ‘16.077 Droit de la société anonyme (projet 2)’; Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil national, ‘16.077 Droit de la société anonyme’.

59 ‘Responsible Business Initiative’, http://konzern-initiative.ch/initiativtext/?lang=en (accessed 26 April 2018).

60 RK-N: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative ‘Für verantwortungsvolle Unternehmen – zum Schutz von Mensch und Umwelt’, Indirekter Gegenentwurf 2018 6.

61 Cossart, Chaplier and Lomenie, note 23.

62 Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil national, note 58; Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil des Etats, note 58.

63 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.

64 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters 2007 (OJ L339).

65 Lungowe v Vedanta [2017], note 28, paras 122–126; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2017], note 29, paras 50–61.

66 Loi 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre, L 225-102-5.

67 von Hein, Jan, ‘Article 16 Overriding Mandatory Provisions’, Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws (Kluwer/Aspen, 2011)Google Scholar; Fuchs, Angelika, ‘Art. 16 Rome II’, Rome II Regulation: Pocket Commentary (Sellier, 2011)Google Scholar; Dickinson, note 22.

68 Kuipers, Jan-Jaap and Migliorini, Sara, ‘Qu’est-Ce Que Sont Les Lois de Police? Une Querelle Franco-Allemande Après La Communautarisation de La Convention de Rome’ (2011) 19 European Review of Private Law 187 Google Scholar; Chng, Kenny, ‘A Theoretical Perspective of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Conflict of Laws’ (2018) Journal of Private International Law 130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Étienne Pataut, ‘Le devoir de vigilance – Aspects de droit international privé’ (2017) Droit social 833.

70 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), art 4(3) ‘Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply. A manifestly closer connection with another country might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question’.

71 RK-N: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative, note 60.

72 Chandler v Cape plc, note 31, para 80.

73 Lubbe and Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals, note 27; AAA v Unilever [2018], note 30; AAA v Unilever [2017], note 30; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2018], note 29; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2017], note 29; Lungowe v Vedanta [2016], note 28; Lungowe v Vedanta [2017], note 28; Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28.

74 Palombo, note 44.

75 Loi 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre; Drouin, note 52.

76 ‘Responsible Business Initiative’ note 59.

77 Cossart, Chaplier and Lomenie, note 23; Brabant and Savourey, note 56.

78 David Newton Sealey v ArmorGroup Services Ltd, note 46; Caparo v Dickman, note 38; Petrin, note 44; Bullimore, note 44.

79 Thompson v the Renwick Group plc, note 32; Chandler v Cape plc, note 31.

80 ‘Responsible Business Initiative’, note 59; RK-N: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative note 60.

81 Lubbe and Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals, note 27; AAA v Unilever [2018], note 30; AAA v Unilever [2017], note 30; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2018], note 29; Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2017], note 29; Lungowe v Vedanta [2016], note 28; Lungowe v Vedanta [2017], note 28; Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28.

82 Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28 paras 6-14 and 42-62.

83 Xavier, note 56; Drouin, note 52; Pierre-Louis, note 54; Brabant and Savourey, note 56; Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28 paras 6-14 and 42-62.

84 ‘Responsible Business Initiative’,; RK-N: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative, note 60.

85 Vedanta v Lungowe [2019], note 28.

86 Commission des affaires juridiques du Conseil des Etats, note 58.

87 OECD, note 2; ‘National Contact Points for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – OECD’, http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/ncps.htm (accessed 1 June 2016); Davarnejad, Leyla, ‘In the Shadow of Soft Law: The Handling of Corporate Social Responsibility Disputes under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ (2011) Journal of Dispute Resolution 351 Google Scholar; John Gerard Ruggie and Tamaryn Nelson, ‘Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Normative Innovations and Implementation Challenges’ (2015) 66 Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper; Santner, Ashley L, ‘A Soft Law Mechanism for Corporate Responsibility: How the Updated OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Promote Business for the Future’, (2011) 43 The George Washington International Law Review 375 Google Scholar.

88 Alston, Philip (ed), Non-State Actors and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Karavias, Markos, Corporate Obligations under International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.