abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2020年7月15日

著者:
Mina Aryobsei & Marius Scherb, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Commentary: Germany takes a step closer to mandatory human rights supply chain due diligence

The proposed criteria for a Due Diligence Act are based on the requirements of the UN Guidelines for Business and Human rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. It would require companies that are based in Germany and have more than 500 employees (approximately 7,280 corporates) to analyse whether their activities have a potential or actual adverse effect on internationally recognised human rights. As well as a comprehensive risk analysis, the companies would be expected to take adequate prevention measures and provide access to remedies...

Under the Due Diligence Act, any violations of the requirements would create a cause of action and provide the basis for damage claims brought by private parties before the German courts. However, the liability risk for companies would be limited in several ways. The companies would only be liable if the damage was foreseeable and avoidable if appropriate due diligence had been carried out. The burden of proof will be on those bringing the claims and liability is limited to essential legal interests such as life, body, health, freedom, property and the general right of personality...

Above all, the Due Diligence Act creates an obligation to take steps to prevent adverse human rights impacts rather than an obligation to prevent all such impacts—even where adverse impacts arise, a company will not be liable if it has taken adequate steps to identify and prevent this risk. Adequacy downstream in the supply chain will be measured, in particular, on the proximity to the suppliers and the company’s ability to influence such supplier’s behaviour...

Siehe auch Kommentierung des inoffiziellen Eckpunkte-Entwurfs durch Norton Rose Fulbright

タイムライン

プライバシー情報

このサイトでは、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。お客様は、以下の方法でプライバシーに関する選択肢を設定することができます。変更は直ちに反映されます。

ウェブストレージの使用についての詳細は、当社の データ使用およびクッキーに関するポリシーをご覧ください

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

クッキーのアナリティクス

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

本サイトにおけるお客様のプライバシーに関する選択

このサイトでは、必要なコア機能を超えてお客様の利便性を高めるために、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。