Direct Parental Negligence Liability: An Expanding Means to Hold Parent Companies Accountable for the Human Rights Impacts of Their Foreign Subsidiaries

Author(s):  
Nora Mardirossian
2021 ◽  
pp. 230-253
Author(s):  
Sandra Cossart ◽  
Lucie Chatelain

Sandra Cossart and Lucie Chatelain review strategic human rights and environmental cases against multinationals in France. By reference to actual cases they outline the legal bases, jurisdiction, and procedure for corporate criminal liability for offences overseas. They discuss cases arising from consumer complaints for misrepresentations by multinationals about human rights standards in supply chains. Regarding tort law, they explain the corporate veil and other hurdles and the potential for claims against parent companies and attempts made to utilise French labour law by employees of foreign subsidiaries. They explain the ground-breaking Law on the Duty of Vigilance of parent and instructing companies, the potential for civil liability in the event of failure to comply with the requirements for a vigilance plan, and judicial enforcement mechanisms. They outline procedural barriers to claims against multinationals, including with regard to access to evidence, collective actions, legal standing of NGOs, and costs rules.


This book reviews the current position in this field, which has developed over the past 25 years, designed to hold multinationals to account, legally, for human rights abuses in the Global South. The authors are practising lawyers who have litigated and led prominent cases of legal significance in this field. Although the focus is on the Global North, where most of the cases have been brought—United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, and Germany—there is also a chapter on South Africa. The cases cited include claims against parent companies for harm caused by subsidiary operations, claims for corporate complicity in violations perpetrated by States, and claims arising in a supply chain context. Whilst other books have included consideration of the legal aspects of many of the cases, the focus here is on the interrelated strategic and practical, as well as legal, considerations on which viability and prospects of success depend. In addition to questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, and theories of liability, obstacles to justice concerning issues such as access to information, collective actions, witness protection, damages and costs, and funding regimes (including a specific chapter on litigation funding), and issues relating to public pressure and settlement, are discussed. Although most of the authors act for victims, there is a substantial chapter providing the perspectives of business. Since this area of litigation has developed concurrently with, and has formed part of, the rapidly mushrooming field of business and human rights, the contextual relevance of the UNGPs is considered.


2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasmus Kløcker Larsen

On 12 September 2013 what may be the first foreign direct liability claim in Sweden was filed in the County Court of Skellefteå, a court action reflective of a growing wave of civil liability suits in European jurisdictions to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations and environmental damages. This article examines the feasibility of foreign direct liability claims in Sweden, focusing on enabling conditions with regards to jurisdiction, collision rules and applicable law, substantial legal basis, procedural and practical circumstances, and the theories by which parent companies can be held liable for negligence in supervising acts of subsidiaries and contractors. It is demonstrated that foreign direct liability claims on environmental damage are indeed possible in Sweden, albeit with considerable constraints, primarily of a procedural and financial character. The conclusion provides some cautious remarks on the merits of the claim against Boliden and the reform options available to a Swedish government committed to improving the access to justice for victims of violations perpetuated by Swedish companies, their subsidiaries and contractors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (12) ◽  
pp. 2621-2637
Author(s):  
Alice Medioli ◽  
Stefano Azzali ◽  
Tatiana Mazza

PurposeAlthough tax-motivated income shifting has been widely explored, no studies have as yet analyzed the association between ownership structure and management decisions about income shifting. The ownership structure of multinational groups is characterized by different levels of minority interests, and our aim is to establish whether income shifting is explained by the aim of expropriation of minorities, as well as taxation avoidance.Design/methodology/approachWe collect data on a sample of European parent companies located in five countries and their foreign subsidiaries, and run a multivariate regression based on the Huizinga and Laeven (2008) model.FindingsOur results support the idea of minority expropriation, finding evidence of ownership-motivated income shifting. We also find that the level of minority protection affects ownership-motivated income shifting, and that, when both are present, expropriation is statistically significant.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the study looks at a wide range of subsidiaries, a limitation may be that it examines only firms having parent companies in five European countries. Further research would overcome this limitation and extend the literature and take into account other income-shifting contextual variables. Our results may lead regulators to pay more attention to the protection of minority interests.Practical implicationsThis research offers insights to companies and investors, and should help them to make better-informed decisions and evaluate the best contexts for investments.Originality/valueThis study enriches the literature on income shifting by revealing that it can be caused by factors other than the desire to avoid taxation. It suggests that ownership structure is crucial.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-116
Author(s):  
Tara Van Ho

In Vedanta v. Lungowe, the United Kingdom Supreme Court determined that civil claims for negligence brought by Zambian claimants against an English parent company (Vedanta) and its Zambian subsidiary (Konkola Copper Mines plc (KCM)) for damages experienced in Zambia can proceed in English courts. While framed as a domestic tort law case, the decision is significant for international efforts aimed at holding businesses accountable for their “negative impacts” on human rights. Writing for a unanimous Court, Lord Briggs's judgment hinged narrowly on the right of victims to access substantial justice. More broadly, Lord Briggs suggested that parent companies that hold themselves out in public disclosures as overseeing the human rights, environmental, social, or labor standards employed by their subsidiaries assume a duty of care to those harmed by the subsidiary. This suggestion has the potential to transform current corporate approaches to human rights due diligence and accountability.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Rouas

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) can contribute to economic prosperity and social development in the countries where they operate. At the same time, their activities may directly or indirectly cause harm to humans and to the environment. However, MNEs are rarely held accountable for their involvement in human rights abuses and environmental damage. In recent years, activists have challenged corporate impunity by introducing innovative claims seeking to hold parent companies directly liable for the harm caused by their group’s activities. They have also strategically used this type of litigation to trigger corporate accountability reforms at international, regional, and national levels. Using national litigation experiences as a starting point and focusing on European civil-law countries, the book evaluates the extent to which litigation against MNEs has been effective in achieving access to justice and corporate accountability. It also considers whether ongoing regulatory developments, such as the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence norms and the negotiations for a business and human rights treaty, can contribute to the realisation of access to justice and corporate accountability in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document