Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights the relationship between human rights due diligence (HRDD) and corporate liability has been a source of legal uncertainty. In order to clarify this relationship, this article compares and contrasts civil liability provisions aiming at implementing HRDD. It explains the legal liability mechanisms in the draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights and in domestic mandatory HRDD legislation and initiatives such as the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative. It compares these developments with the emerging case law on parent company and supply chain liability for human rights abuses. It explores the potentially perverse effects that certain civil liability provisions and court decisions might have on companies’ practices. Finally, it makes recommendations for the design of effective liability mechanisms to implement HRDD.

As recently stakeholders complain about the use of conflict minerals in consumer products that are often invisible to them in final products, firms across industries implement conflict mineral management practices. Conflict minerals are those, whose systemic exploitation and trade contribute to human right violations in the country of extraction and surrounding areas. Particularly, supply chain managers in the Western world are challenged taking reasonable steps to identify and prevent risks associated with these resources due to the globally dispersed nature of supply chains and the opacity of the origin of commodities. Supply chain due diligence (SCDD) represents a holistic concept to proactively manage supply chains reducing the likelihood of the use of conflict minerals effectively. Based on an exploratory study with 27 semi-structured interviews within five European industries, we provide insights into patterns of implementation, key motivational factors, barriers and enablers, and impacts of SCDD in mineral supply chains. Our results contribute to both theory and practice as we provide first insights to SCDD practices and make recommendations for an industry-wide implementation of SCDD. Altogether, this study provides the basis for future theory testing research in the context of SCDD and conflict mineral management.

The implementation of mandatory corporate due diligence has been a growing trend in recent years. Viewed as having the potential to prevent corporate abuse, mandatory due diligence can be presented as the mechanism to substantially improve responsible corporate behaviour in practice. In 2022, the European Commission proposed a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The proposal presents obligations for companies regarding any actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts, as well as liability for violation of such obligations. It aims to streamline due diligence obligations across Member States and create a level playing field. Since then, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament have agreed their negotiating positions. This paper explores the proposed CSDDD, including amendments, and analyses the challenges and prospects for mandatory due diligence. It explores whether the CSDDD could result in a genuine transformation of corporate practices to prevent corporate harms, or whether developments are similar to the incremental changes already seen over the years. It is argued that while the CSDDD could be another step in the right direction, significantly more needs to be done to prioritise rights holders above corporations and demonstrate a real change in responsible business practices.

Purpose This paper aims to explain how companies can benefit from their human rights due diligence process to identify opportunities for sustainable development goals (SDGs) activities in an operationalisation of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR). Design/methodology/approach Combining PCSR, SDGs and business and human rights (BHR) literature, the paper develops an extension of the risk-based due diligence process described by the BHR literature, helping companies identify societal needs to which they may contribute in accordance with PCSR through engaging in the SDGs. Findings Companies can benefit from resources they already invest in due diligence to identify their adverse human rights impacts, by drawing on the insights gained on broader needs, including human rights, to which they may contribute. This can help them develop appropriate interventions to address local needs and advance their moral legitimacy through assisting in SDG-relevant fulfilment of human rights. Research limitations/implications The paper provides theory-based guidance on how companies can assess their capacity for contributing societal value through human rights-oriented SDG interventions. Future empirical research may explore how companies apply the extended due diligence process to assess needs and determine relevant actions. Practical implications The paper offers a principle-based analytical approach for integrating the “do no harm” imperative of BHR theory with PCSR’s call for business assistance in the delivery of public goods and the SDGs’ call for business action to “do good’. Social implications This paper enables enhanced business implementation of the SDGs in line with PCSR and human rights theory, especially the emergent field of business and human rights. Originality/value This study gives theory-based guidance for companies for SDG contributions based on innovative combination of literatures.

This article considers the practices of companies worldwide in attempting to implement human rights due diligence (HRDD) as envisaged by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Based on empirical research conducted through surveys and interviews, it analyses corporate practices in this area. It examines the responses of companies with reference to the core elements of implementing HRDD: identifying actual or potential human rights impacts; taking action to address these impacts; and tracking or monitoring the effectiveness of actions. In addition, the article places these practices in the context of the legal developments in the field of HRDD. The research shows the difference that dedicated HRDD – in comparison with non-human rights specific processes – can make in terms of identifying adverse human rights impacts of both the company as well as of those which are part of its business relationships.

Purpose The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (GSCDDA), as a comprehensive regulation for due diligence in supply chains, will exert profound pressure on companies’ sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). This study aims to examine the affected stakeholders’ polarizing expectations stemming from the GSCDDA, the resulting impacts on SSCM and how these findings compare with theoretical SSCM developments. Design/methodology/approach From 5,490 GSCDDA posts on X (formerly “Twitter”), the authors extracted 556 qualitative posts illustrating the GSCDDA discourse and analyzed them from a stakeholder perspective. The posts were classified according to the dimensions of stakeholder groups and expectations (i.e. challenges and opportunities). The authors then synthesized the posts across these dimensions and compared the identified expectations with the SSCM literature. Findings Seven stakeholder groups were identified, along with nine challenges (e.g. legal flaws) and four opportunities (e.g. increased transparency). The synthesis of both components revealed highly discussed and conflicting expectations. The theoretical SSCM developments partly differ from the discourse, indicating discernible gaps between theory and practice Practical implications Identifying key stakeholder groups supports building synergies between GSCDDA implementers and stakeholders to tackle their challenges and reinforce opportunities. Originality/value Due to the growing prevalence of supply chain due diligence regulations, it is essential to consider the legal implications for SSCM. This study explores the link between due diligence concepts and SSCM, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to analyze how legal pressure shapes stakeholders’ expectations on companies’ SSCM.

The process of planning the implementation of a construction investment is usually preceded by a decision on the purchase of land property, which in turn is typically accompanied by a process known as technical due diligence (TDD). During this process, the feasibility of the planned construction project is verified. The preliminary design concept of the building, prepared at the request of the buyer – a potential investor, is analysed in detail. Legal, technical, environmental, social, or economic obstacles that may prevent the planned investment may already be apparent at the stage of issuing the early finding TDD report. In such cases, purchase negotiations are then typically broken off immediately. In the absence of such obstacles, a final TDD report is issued, containing recommendations for the implementation of the project. There is a lack of research in the scientific literature on the preparation of TDD reports for land properties. This article develops a proprietary algorithm for the TDD process based on the authors’ professional experience and interviews with experts. This algorithm is adapted to the TDD process for land property acquisition. The purchase of a plot of land, along with the preparation of a TDD report, marks the initial step in the planning process for construction investment, which can significantly impact its success.

PurposeBy January 1, 2023, the German supply chain due diligence act (SCDDA) has become effective. This represents a strong governmental intervention into global operations and supply chain management (SCM). Hence, its frame conditions and implications are worth being studied.Design/methodology/approachExpert interviews with managers reveal factors of risks and opportunities as well as performance impacts and implementation issues.FindingsA conceptual framework and research avenues are outlined.Research limitations/implicationsPathways for SCM research and interdisciplinary studies are suggested.Practical implicationsPractitioners may gain a deeper understanding of relevant factors for managing supply chains (SCs) that are exposed to the new act.Social implicationsUnderstanding implications of the act may help improve social SC sustainability.Originality/valueThis study offers an initial empirical exploration and a first conceptualization of the expected consequences of the German SCDDA.

After the endorsement of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, 15 March 2024 marked another milestone for transnational corporate governance. That day, a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union (EU) voted in favour of the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) setting human rights and environmental obligations for large companies in their global value chains. 1 The CSDDD is the first region-wide due diligence legislation, yet it is also a political compromise among EU member states, which civil society and business have been watching closely. This piece explains the main elements of the CSDDD and outlines some of its implications beyond the EU.

One of the most enduring debates in the context of the anti-money laundering legislation pertains to the width of its “regulatory net” vis-à-vis the constantly evolving financial ecosystem. This holds particularly true in light of the accelerated pace at which financial innovation occurs, resulting in new industry players, digital services and innovative technology-enabled operational models. A sector where technology advancement brought about major novelties is most certainly the payment one. In the quest to promote competition and ensure a better user-experience, in fact, the EU legislator opened up for new services and providers, like the account information service and the payment initiation service providers. The provision of the latter raised a host of regulatory questions relating to the correct fulfillment of AML requirements, specifically regarding the customer due diligence obligation. The aim of this article is to analyze whether and how payment initiation service providers have to carry out the customer due diligence obligations. The major challenging issues (e.g. who the “customer” is for the purposes of the AML legislation and, consequently, how the relationship with such customer should be qualified) will be examined in light of the current regulatory framework and the new Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (“AMLR”).