INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
Corporate liability for human rights abuses Victims of alleged human rights abuses and their advocates are increasingly turning to national courts to challenge corporate conduct in foreign jurisdictions. One of the main issues with which these courts have had to grapple is whether a domestic court in the multinational company’s home country can adjudicate a civil dispute concerning human rights abuses that allegedly occurred abroad in the multinational company’s foreign operation or its global supply chain. In relation to this, courts have been asked to impose liability on the parent company for the alleged wrongdoing of a subsidiary or contractor in another jurisdiction. Although the courts’ ultimate findings in these cases invariably turn on the facts, courts in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK have concluded that – at least in some cases – they may adjudicate claims related to a domestic company’s alleged violations of human rights in another jurisdiction. The claims that have been brought to date have usually been based on tra - ditional legal principles concerning intentional or negligent harm (eg, tort and negligence law). However, an increasing number also allege breaches of customary international legal prohi - bitions on slavery and related internationally rec - ognised human rights violations. The Supreme Court of Canada, for example, has found that – in certain factual circumstances – a Canada- based company could be held liable for such legal violations in a foreign jurisdiction. As a con - sequence of these developments, many North American and European-based multinationals must now assume that a domestic court’s juris - diction does not end at the border.
Emerging developments – what lies ahead? The trajectory of business and human rights in the global legal framework since 2011 is, on one level, a story of slowly but steadily increasing legal obligations and normative expectations for businesses’ human rights-related impacts. It is not clear today, however, whether that path will continue. Growing economic uncertainty, geo - political tensions, and domestic political turmoil in some major countries suggest that the push to increase corporate obligations in this area could diminish. Most recently, in April 2025, the Council of the European Union approved the “stop the clock” proposal that postpones the implementation of the EU’s ambitious Corporate Sustainabil - ity Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). These far-reaching EU initiatives would have greatly increased the human rights-related obli - gations on businesses active in the EU. Their postponement – and a related drive to simplify and relax some of the standards set out in the instruments – is a significant development in today’s business and human rights landscape. It remains to be seen whether it marks just a brief pause in the EU’s efforts to strengthen busi - nesses’ human rights obligations or whether it heralds a broader global change in direction.
9
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook