The Changing Face of Corporate Liability – New Hard Law and the Increasing Influence of Soft Law

Abstract

The first frameworks defining standards of human rights protection specifically for business enterprises were non-binding “soft law” like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In recent times, a “hardening” of corporate human rights law has taken place. Several acts of “hard law” have been implemented at a national and EU level. This article provides an overview of the most important ones. The “hard law” provisions differ in their scope: some obligate companies to report on human rights, others stipulate concrete obligations to conduct human rights due diligence. Another way of tackling the issue of human rights compliance has been demonstrated by the prosecution of companies in the United States. While procedural guidelines abstractly stipulate an effective compliance system to be a mitigating factor, the US Department of Justice regularly defines concrete compliance obligations in deferred or non-prosecution agreements. This development could lead to comprehensive liability for negligence due to organisational and monitoring deficiencies. But who defines the standards? This article examines how the changing practice of human rights compliance may have “feedback effects” on hard law, particularly by changing the scale of negligence. Regarding the lack of effectiveness of some due diligence measures, especially in the “certification industry”, it is then asked how legislation may proactively exert influence by defining effective CSR instruments necessary to prevent civil and criminal liability. Using the example of German law, a proposal is made to implement an obligation of human rights due diligence in “hard law” and, simultaneously, set up an independent expert commission that drafts guidelines specifying the necessary measures for different kinds of companies.