Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Business & Human Rights 2025
Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor Brian Burkett Fasken
Global Practice Guides
Business & Human Rights
Contributing Editor Brian W. Burkett Fasken
2025
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Laidler Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Hannah Leinmüller Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2025 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken p.4
GERMANY Law and Practice p.61 Contributed by Littler
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.10
JAPAN Law and Practice p.74 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune Trends and Developments p.87 Contributed by Mori Hamada
Contributed by Claeys & Engels Trends and Developments p.30 Contributed by Claeys & Engels CANADA Law and Practice p.34 Contributed by Fasken Trends and Developments p.50 Contributed by Fasken CHILE Trends and Developments p.56 Contributed by VGC Abogados
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.94
Contributed by Walder Wyss Ltd Trends and Developments p.111 Contributed by Walder Wyss Ltd USA Law and Practice p.117 Contributed by Littler Trends and Developments p.135 Contributed by Littler
3
CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
Fasken has a business and human rights (BHR) practice that has been at the forefront of the evolving BHR landscape since the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011. As one of the largest law firms in Canada with an interna - tional reach, Fasken has adeptly navigated the complexities of BHR, leveraging expertise from various leading practice groups including la - bour, employment and human rights, corporate social responsibility, and others. Despite the
challenges posed by competing ideologies and political headwinds, Fasken remains at the fore - front of BHR law and is committed to providing exceptional counsel and advice. Recognised by Chambers Canada as the only law firm in Band 1 of BHR law, Fasken continues to lead in the BHR field, ensuring clients are well-informed and compliant with emerging standards and le - gal requirements. This dedication positions the firm as a trusted adviser in the dynamic BHR landscape.
Contributing Editors
Brian W. Burkett is a nationally recognised lawyer by Chambers Canada in the area of Business and Human Rights (Band 1) and is the 2021–22 recipient of the Chambers Canada Lifetime Achievement Award. For more than 20 years, Brian has been actively involved in the evolution of the ESG field, with a special focus on business and human rights (BHR) developments. Brian is a member of the Advisory Panel of the Access to Remedy Institute connected with the Center for Human Rights at the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA’s Center for Human Rights is focused on the development of the BHR field.
Claudia Feldkamp is a nationally recognised lawyer by Chambers Canada in the area of business and human rights. Her practice at Fasken includes advising Canadian businesses
operating in and abroad on how to manage the risk of human rights impacts on operations and supply chains, as well as guiding companies through mandatory reporting obligations. Claudia was the project co-chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Business and Human Rights Toolkit released in 2024. She holds a doctorate in law from Columbia University and an LLM in constitutional and EU law from the London School of Economics.
4
CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
Chris Pigott is a partner in Fasken’s litigation and labour groups based in Toronto. His international practice focuses on disputes and advisory work in labour, human rights, and public
law matters. Chris advises Canadian, foreign and multinational employers on business and human rights, international labour standards, and how best to manage the risk of human rights impacts in their operations and supply chains. Chris is counsel to the Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications (FETCO) in its capacity as the exclusive representative of Canadian employers at the International Labour Organization and on the international stage concerning global labour, employment, and human rights issues.
Fasken 333 Bay Street Suite 2400 Bay Adelaide Centre Box 20 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2T6, Canada Tel: +1 416 366 8381/+1 800 268 8424 Fax: +1 416 364 7813 Email: toronto@fasken.com Web: www.fasken.com
5
CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
The Global Evolution of Business and Human Rights Law The modern history of “business and human rights” began in 2005 when then-Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan appointed Professor John Ruggie, of Harvard University as the UN’s special representative on business and human rights. With this appoint - ment, the UN tasked Professor Ruggie, with identifying and elaborating standards for multi - national corporations and other business entities concerning human right issues, as well as with clarifying businesses’ role vis-à-vis governments in protecting against and remedying human rights abuses. In essence, the UN had asked Ruggie, to develop – from the ground up – a new global framework for addressing human rights in the context of international business. The 2008 “Protect, Respect, and Remedy” framework that Professor Ruggie, ultimately developed, and then operationalised in the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “UNGPs”), is now well established globally and a foundation for most of the legal and other initiatives related to corporate con - duct that implicates human rights. At the same time, the UNGPs did not “freeze” the principles, standards, and processes of the business and human rights landscape in place. On the contrary, the UNGPs were a launchpad from which a wide range of legal and other initia - tives concerning businesses’ human rights obli - gations have sprung. Alongside these develop - ments, we have witnessed a gradual evolution from an overriding reliance on voluntary human rights principles and related enforcement pro - cesses (“soft law”) to a greater place for the legal application and enforcement of human rights obligations on businesses around the world. These initiatives – both domestic and interna -
tional – now make up an increasingly important body of law and best practices that compel greater business respect and action when it comes to addressing the human rights impacts of their operations. International framework To date, neither the UN nor any other interna - tional organisation has put in place a treaty or other legal instrument of general application that imposes legal obligations concerning human rights matters on businesses. Instead, the inter - national framework consists of several interna - tional standards that set out voluntary principles and standards. UNGPs The most important of these international stand - ards are the UNGPs. The UNGPs were unani - mously adopted by the UN Human Rights council in June 2011. They are a body of principles that identify governments’ and businesses’ respec - tive obligations to prevent, address and remedy human rights impacts associated with business activity. The UNGPs apply to businesses of all sizes and structures, regardless of whether they are multinational in nature or operate in a single jurisdiction. The UNGPs are based on the three pillars of the “Protect, Respect, and Remedy” framework, as follows. • Under Pillar One (Protect), governments are responsible for passing laws and taking other actions to ensure that individuals and com - munities are protected against human rights abuses. • Under Pillar Two (Respect), businesses are required to ensure that they (and their agents) respect human rights in the course of their business activities. To do so, businesses
6
CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
must identify and adhere to the internationally recognised rights and standards that relate to their business operations. By way of example, in the area of labour rights, the UNGPs state that businesses should adhere to the prin - ciples and rights in the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s Fundamental Declaration, which are: (a) freedom of association and the effec - tive recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (b) the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the abolition of child labour; and (d) the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. The UNGPs go on to set out the policies and processes that a business should adopt in order to fulfil its duty to “respect” human rights. These include: (a) a corporate policy commitment to respect human rights; (b) a “human rights due diligence process” to identify, prevent and mitigate any negative human rights consequences that arise from the business’ activities; and (c) processes to remedy any adverse human rights consequences in this regard. • Under Pillar Three (Remedy), governments and businesses must put in place processes – both through legal and non-legal mecha - nisms – to effectively address and correct any negative human rights consequences. Although the UNGPs do not impose concrete legal obligations on governments or businesses, they have become the most widely accepted and “authoritative” global standard in the busi - ness and human rights arena.
Other international standards Today, the UNGPs exist alongside several other broadly adopted international standards that are either incorporated into the UNGPs themselves or aim to complement the UNGPs. These include the ILO’s Fundamental Declaration and Conven - tions, the ILO’s Tripartite Declaration Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, and the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enter - prises. There are also numerous standards that apply to specific industrial sectors. By way of example, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights play an important role in the global extrac - tive and energy sectors. National frameworks National governments around the world have implemented a mix of legal and voluntary stand - ards concerning business and human rights. National action plans Many governments have developed and adopt - ed national action plans (NAPs) on business and human rights. The move to implement NAPs was driven by the UN Working Group on Busi - ness and Human Rights, which is the UN body tasked with implementing the UNGPs. A NAP is domestic policy statement and agenda that seeks, through domestic state action, to protect against adverse human rights impacts by busi - ness. Even though NAPs are merely policy statements and do not themselves impose legal obligations, legislative action has emanated from a NAP in several countries. By way of example, the UK’s Modern Slavery Act and France’s Duty of Vigi - lance Law are connected to those countries’ NAPs. As of 2025, 34 national governments had
7
CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Brian W. Burkett, Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
launched NAPs, which are at various stages of development and implementation. Modern slavery legislation Several national governments have enacted leg - islation directed towards eliminating “modern slavery”, which is broadly defined as any form of forced or compulsory labour or human traf - ficking in a business operation or supply chain. Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK have each adopted a form of modern slavery legislation – although there are important differ - ences in the laws. Generally speaking, modern slavery legislation requires a business that oper - ates in the country to produce an annual report or “modern slavery statement” identifying: • which parts of their global operation or supply chain may carry a risk of modern slavery or other human rights abuses; • what steps the business took in the past year to address those risks; and • any actions taken to eliminate the risk of modern slavery or remedy any instances of modern slavery that have in fact arisen. Human rights due diligence legislation While modern slavery legislation generally only requires businesses to report on the human rights implications of their activities, mandatory human rights due diligence (mHRDD) legislation goes a step further by requiring businesses to take proactive, concrete measures to address and mitigate human rights risk in their opera - tion and supply chain. By way of example, in 2023 Germany enacted its Supply Chain Act, which requires businesses that meet certain size thresholds to take several actions, including: • establishing an internal risk management sys - tem to comply with the due diligence obliga - tions in the Supply Chain Act;
• designating or appointing an internal “human rights officer”; • conducting an annual human rights risk anal - ysis of their operations and the operations of their suppliers (both direct and indirect); • taking appropriate preventive measures to address any risks it identifies; and • taking remedial action if a violation of an obli - gation occurs or is imminent. Import bans on goods produced with forced labour A number of countries are taking action to com - bat forced labour in supply chains via trade rela - tionships or border enforcement action. This is often done in connection with modern slavery legislation: most of the above-mentioned coun - tries who have implemented modern slavery leg - islation have also enacted a complementary pro - hibition on imports produced in whole or in part with forced and child labour. These prohibitions allow domestic customs authorities to stop and seize goods at the border if they are suspected of having been produced with forced labour or child labour. Some countries that have not adopted tradition - al modern slavery or human rights due diligence legislation have also taken action at the border. Most notably, the USA enacted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in 2022. The leg - islation targets forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China by estab - lishing a rebuttable presumption that goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in that region are made with forced labour and therefore are prohibited from import into the USA. US Customs and Border Protection has broad authority to enforce the import ban and, between June 2022 and May 2025, took action in respect of approximately USD3.7 billion worth of goods.
8
CHAMBERS.COM
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
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos Claeys & Engels
Netherlands
Brussels Belgium
Germany
Luxembourg
France
Contents 1. Introduction p.12 1.1 Business and Human Rights: A Summary p.12 2. Legal Framework p.12 2.1 International p.12 2.2 National and Regional p.13 3. Corporate Liability p.21 3.1 Criminal and Civil Corporate Liability p.21 3.2 Director and Officer Liability p.21 3.3 Parent Company Liability p.22 4. Enforcement and Litigation p.22 4.1 Enforcement Activities p.22 4.2 Case Law p.23 4.3 Grievance Mechanisms p.24 5. Business and Human Rights in Action p.27 5.1 Best Practices p.27
10
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
Claeys & Engels is a highly regarded employ - ment law boutique in Belgium, consistently ranked Band 1 in Chambers and Partners for employment law. Their contributions include market-leading expertise in collective dismiss -
als, restructurings, and handling high-profile discrimination disputes. They also offer special - ist knowledge on various employment law top - ics, including data protection and cross-border matters.
Authors
Chris Engels is the founding partner and chairman of Claeys & Engels. Regarded as one of the leading employment law specialists in Belgium, he has notable experience advising
Julie Devos is a senior associate at Claeys & Engels and has been with the firm since September 2017. She advises national and international clients on all aspects of employment
employers on collective dismissals and the transfer of employees to offices in other jurisdictions. He also represents clients in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and voluntary separation plans. Chris is an expert in dismissal law and matters concerning European labour law. In 2017, Chris was nominated as the leading Thought Leader in Europe for Labour & Employment Law and is recognised as one of the foremost figures on the topic. He draws high praise for his work in dismissal law and labour matters across Europe.
law in the broad sense. She has a particular interest (and specialisation) in privacy and data protection (GDPR), well-being at work and discrimination. Julie assists employers in proceedings before the labour courts. She regularly speaks at internal and external seminars and has co-authored several publications, including books and several articles - and even recorded podcasts. Julie is a member of the ‘Data Privacy Expert Group’ within the international alliance of law firms Ius Laboris and a member of the Antwerp Bar.
Claeys & Engels Boulevard du Souverain 25 8th floor 1170 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 761 46 00 Email: info@claeysengels.be Web: www.claeysengels.be
11
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
1. Introduction 1.1 Business and Human Rights: A Summary Business and human rights (BHR) refers to busi - nesses’ responsibility to respect human rights in their operations, supply chains, and overall busi - ness conduct. This concept has gained promi - nence internationally, especially with the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and the evolving recognition of businesses’ roles in safeguarding human rights. In Belgium, as in many EU Member States, the legal framework relating to BHR is shaped by national legislation, EU directives and regula - tions, and international treaties and standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Belgium is a founding member of many inter - national and European organisations committed to protecting and promoting human rights. For instance, Belgium has been a member of the Council of Europe since its founding in 1949. It is also a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) (since 1919) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1961. Moreover, Belgium was one of the six founding countries of the European Economic Community in 1957, which later evolved into the European Union (EU). In recent years, the EU has intensi - fied its focus on critical issues such as climate change, child labour, and forced labour. Several legislative initiatives have recently been intro - duced, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sus - tainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Forced Labour Regulation (FLR).
At the national level, human rights are enshrined in the Belgian Constitution and in various laws prohibiting forced labour, child labour and human trafficking, among others. In response to recent EU directives, Belgium is also introducing new national legislation specifically addressing corporate sustainability, reporting, and due dili - gence. These developments will impose addi - tional obligations on many companies, particu - larly large enterprises, in the near future. In this context, Belgium’s second National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights of 2024 outlines the government’s strategy to encour - age companies to conduct human rights due diligence, with a particular focus on supply chain transparency and respect for workers’ rights. Belgium has a long-standing commitment to human rights, having signed, ratified, and adopt - ed several key international and European trea - ties, conventions, and agreements. Belgium is a signatory to the UN Universal Decla - ration of Human Rights (UNDHR) and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICE - SCR). 2. Legal Framework 2.1 International The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) outline the responsi - bilities of states and businesses to prevent and address human rights abuses linked to busi - ness activities. Belgium has endorsed these principles, reinforcing its commitment to ethical business conduct. It also adheres to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on
12
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
2.2 National and Regional 2.2.1 National Action Plan
Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guide - lines). Belgium supports the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterpris - es and Social Policy, which provides guidance on labour practices, including fair wages, safe working conditions, and the elimination of forced labour. Belgium has ratified several core ILO conventions protecting workers’ rights, includ - ing forced labour, child labour, discrimination, and freedom of association. These conventions form the backbone of global labour rights stand - ards and ensure that businesses uphold human rights in their employment practices. At the European level, Belgium is a member of the Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals within the jurisdiction of its member states. The European Social Charter (ESC) complements the ECHR by safeguarding social and economic rights, including the right to work, social protec - tion, and housing. The European Union also plays a central role. Legislation such as the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) requires large public- interest entities to report annually on environ - mental, social, and human resources matters. This directive has recently been revised under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Direc - tive (CSRD), which aims to enhance the qual - ity, scope, and comparability of sustainability reporting. Additionally, the Corporate Sustain - ability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) intro - duces obligations for companies to mitigate the negative impacts of their business activities on both the environment and human rights.
Influenced by the UN Working Group on Busi - ness and Human Rights, the Belgian federal and regional governments developed a Nation - al Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights (BHR) to implement the UN Guiding Prin - ciples on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Belgium adopted its first NAP on BHR in 2017. With this plan, the Belgian authorities aimed to concretise their commitment to promoting respect for human rights and embedding human rights within the framework of corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. In 2021, the federal and regional governments decided to draft a second NAP on BHR based on the findings of Belgium’s first National Base - line Assessment (NBA). This NBA evaluated the extent to which Belgium had implemented the UNGPs, including the actions from the first NAP, and identified areas where further action was needed. The second NAP on BHR, adopted in 2024, specifically addresses the three pillars of the UNGPs, namely: • the state duty to protect individuals when third parties, including companies, violate human rights; • the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and • the need to ensure access to effective rem - edies for victims of human rights violations. The plan comprises 16 chapters and 67 actions, encouraging Belgian companies, international companies operating in Belgium, and govern - ment agencies to respect and promote human
13
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
rights within their own operations and spheres of influence. The Belgian government has made efforts to ensure that the NAP is not merely a policy doc - ument but also a practical guide to improving corporate responsibility. 2.2.2 Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation Belgium has taken steps toward imposing legal obligations on corporations to conduct human rights-related due diligence, although the frame - work is still evolving, particularly in light of recent EU directives that must be transposed into national law. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) entered into force on 25 July 2024. This directive introduces a duty for com - panies to carry out appropriate human rights and environmental due diligence on their own opera - tions, those of their subsidiaries, and those of their business partners across the value chain. The CSDDD covers a narrower scope than the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which addresses the broader ESG (Envi - ronmental, Social, and Governance) pillars. Due diligence under the CSDDD focuses on a core set of potential human rights violations rather than the full range of social issues addressed by the CSRD. The CSDDD applies to the following categories of companies: • EU companies with more than 1,000 employ - ees and net worldwide turnover exceeding EUR450 million; • EU parent companies of a group meeting the same thresholds;
• franchise or licensing networks in the EU with a net worldwide turnover exceeding EUR80 million, of which at least EUR22.5 million is generated through royalties; and • non-EU companies that meet the same turno - ver thresholds within the EU. The directive establishes a due diligence process aligned with the OECD Guidelines for Multina - tional Enterprises, requiring companies to iden - tify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse human rights and environmental impacts. Com - panies must implement a risk-based system to monitor and address these risks throughout their chain of activities. If a company fails to comply, it may be held civilly liable for damages caused by its own actions or omissions, provided the failure was intentional or negligent. Affected individuals or entities have the right to seek full compensation. However, a company is not liable if the harm was caused solely by its business partners, who remain liable under applicable national law. Under certain conditions, a parent company may fulfil the due diligence obligations on behalf of its subsidiaries, provided this ensures effective compliance. However, the subsidiaries remain independently liable under the directive. In addition to civil liability, companies may face administrative sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance. Member states are required to establish proportionate, dissua - sive, and effective penalties. The CSDDD must be transposed into Belgian law by 26 July 2026, with a phased implementa - tion based on company size:
14
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
• 2027: companies with more than 5,000 employees and turnover exceeding EUR1.5 billion; • 2028: companies with more than 3,000 employees and turnover exceeding EUR900 million; and • 2029: companies with more than 1,000 employees and turnover exceeding EUR450 million. In February 2025, the European Commission introduced the Omnibus Simplification Package, which includes the “Stop-the-Clock” Directive (Directive (EU) 2025/794). This directive post - pones the transposition deadline to 26 July 2027 and defers the initial application phase for the largest companies to 26 July 2028. The second part of the Omnibus Package pro - poses substantive amendments to the CSDDD to simplify obligations, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while main - taining the EU’s sustainability objectives. This second directive is expected to be adopted by the end of 2025, after which member states will need to transpose the revised provisions. It is now up to the Belgian legislator to develop a national legal framework based on the directive. No draft legislation is available yet, so how Bel - gium will concretely implement this mandatory due diligence regime 2.2.3 Modern Slavery Legislation Belgium has a comprehensive legal framework addressing modern slavery, including child labour, forced labour, and human trafficking. Penalties for non-compliance include criminal sanctions, civil liability, and financial fines, with companies increasingly held accountable for human rights risks in their global supply chains.
Recent EU developments – particularly the Cor - porate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which still needs to be transposed into Belgian law – are expected to further strength - en Belgium’s legal tools for combating modern slavery and enhancing corporate accountability. Child Labour Belgium has ratified key ILO conventions on child labour, including Minimum Age Conven - tion No 138 and Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention No 182. These conventions require national laws to set a minimum age for employ - ment that is not lower than the age for complet - ing compulsory schooling and, in any case, not less than 15 years. Belgium has had legislation on child labour since 1889, which has been amended over time. Under Belgian law, employment of children under 15 years is prohibited. For those aged 15-18, there are restrictions on the type of work, working hours, and conditions. Child labour is crimi - nalised under Article 134 of the Belgian Social Belgium adheres to the EU legal framework on forced labour, which prohibits compelling indi - viduals to work under threat, coercion, or decep - tion. Belgium also enforces the EU Conflict Miner - als Regulation, requiring companies importing tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold from conflict- affected or high-risk areas to conduct due dili - gence to ensure their supply chains are free from human rights violations, including forced labour. On 19 November 2024, the EU Council adopted the Forced Labour Regulation (FLR), which pro - hibits forced labour products from being placed Criminal Code. Forced Labour
15
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
on or exported from the EU market. The regula - tion defines forced labour in accordance with ILO Convention No 29 as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” The FLR applies to any product made using forced labour at any stage of the supply chain, including extraction, harvesting, production and manufacturing. It also applies to online plat - forms. The regulation is binding on all businesses, regardless of size. However, enforcement authorities are instructed to consider the size and resources of companies, particularly SMEs, when conducting evaluations and investigations. Importantly, this regulation does not impose obli - gations regarding due diligence. The European Commission made this decision to avoid over - laps with existing legislation. The FLR should be viewed as complementary to other regulations, such as the new EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and other rel - evant laws. Within the legal framework of the CSDDD, companies are required to establish a due diligence system. If this system indicates the presence of forced labour, the FLR will also apply. Companies must cooperate if the competent authority initiates a preliminary investigation into their products. They will be required to provide information and prove that their products are not made with forced labour. The method of proof does not necessarily have to involve a due dili - gence system. If a company provides sufficient evidence, no formal investigation will be initiat - ed. If not, a thorough investigation into the activi - ties within the supply chain will be conducted.
The regulation was formally adopted by the Council on 19 November 2024 and subsequent - ly published in the Official Journal of the Euro - pean Union on 12 December 2024. It officially entered into force on 13 December 2024 and will become directly applicable in all EU member states three years after entry into force, ie, from The Belgian Criminal Code criminalises human trafficking and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, including sexual exploitation (Article 433quinquies). This stems from the Anti-Human Trafficking Act of 10 August 2005, which trans - posed the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive into national law. The law covers both domestic traf - ficking and trafficking from abroad. 13 December 2027. Human Trafficking Belgium adopts a multidisciplinary approach through the Interdepartmental Coordination Unit for the Fight against Human Trafficking, which collaborates with social inspection services such as the National Social Security Office and the Federal Public Service Employment. These ser - vices conduct targeted inspections to combat forced labour. Social inspectors play a crucial role in informing and guiding victims of human trafficking, especially from third countries. Train - ing and awareness campaigns are essential to recognise and protect potential victims. The revised EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, which introduced stronger rules, entered into force on 14 July 2024. Member states have two years (until July 2026) to transpose these into national law. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the legal framework in Belgium. Additionally, on 1 December 2024, the Act of 3 May 2024 containing provisions on sex work under employment contract entered into force.
16
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
Belgium is the first country in the world to give sex workers full worker status (official employ - ment contract, access to social security, etc). 2.2.4 Transparency and Reporting Requirements In Belgium, (large) companies are subject to sev - eral public reporting obligations relating to BHR, particularly in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), non-financial reporting, and transparency. These obligations stem primarily from EU legislation and corresponding national laws aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Belgium transposed the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) into national law via the Act of 3 September 2017 on the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups. Under the NFRD, large entities of public inter - est (eg, listed companies, banks, and insurers with more than 500 employees) are required to disclose information about their operations’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) impacts. However, the European Commission found that the information disclosed under the NFRD was often incomplete or inconsistent. The NFRD has been revised and replaced by the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The European Commission introduced the CSRD to enhance the scope and depth of sustainability reporting requirements. This direc - tive mandates that companies publish their sus - tainability information in a standardised format and ensures that it is independently audited. Similar to the NFRD, the CSRD applies to large entities of public interest. However, the CSRD
broadens the scope of the previous directive by extending the reporting obligations to: • large companies, even if they are not consid - ered as public interest entities; and • listed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), excluding micro-enterprises. The definitions of micro, small, medium-sized and large enterprises refer to existing concepts in accounting law. Sustainability reporting is consolidated at the highest level within the European Union. Sub - sidiaries can then refer to the consolidated information of their parent company. The new requirements also target companies based out - side the EU that have activities within the EU and that meet the same size criteria. The CSRD requires companies to report both from the perspective of the risk and impact of ESG factors on the company and from the per - spective of the company’s ESG impact. The information must be provided from the point of view of the enterprise itself. However, it should also gradually reflect its value chain, ie, its prod - ucts and services, business relations, and sup - ply chain. Once the company has fulfilled its reporting obli - gations, the report itself must be audited by an independent and licensed auditor. The CSRD had to be transposed into national law by 6 July 2024. However, Belgium and sev - eral other member states missed the deadline, prompting the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings.
17
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
Partial Transposition of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) On 28 November 2024, the Belgian House of Representatives adopted a partial transposition law under an urgency procedure. This law aims to establish a framework that obliges companies to include and publish sustainability informa - tion in their annual reports based on European sustainability standards. This includes the infor - mation needed to understand the company’s impact on sustainability issues (ESG) and how sustainability issues influence the company’s development, performance, and situation. It also introduces measures to ensure the accuracy of the published information. In addition to corporate obligations, the law imposes a number of obligations in terms of consultation with the social partners within the company. Sustainability information must be shared with the works council at least fifteen days before the meeting to discuss it. This dis - cussion must occur within three months of the end of the financial year. A report of the meeting must be shared with shareholders at the annual general meeting. If no works council exists, the responsibility shifts to the committee for preven - tion and protection at work or, in its absence, to the trade union delegation. The Act of 2 December 2024 on the disclosure of sustainability information by certain companies and groups and the assurance of sustainability information, containing various provisions, was published in the Belgian State Gazette on 20 December 2024 and entered into force on 30 December 2024. Omnibus Simplification Package In February 2025, the European Commission introduced the Omnibus Simplification Package to streamline sustainability-related legislation
and reduce regulatory burdens. This package includes two legislative proposals: the so-called “Stop-the-Clock” Directive (EU) 2025/794, which postpones key compliance deadlines under the CSRD, and a second proposal introducing sub - stantive amendments to the CSRD framework. On 16 April 2025, the “Stop-the-Clock” Directive was published in the Official Journal of the Euro - pean Union. The directive postpones the CSRD reporting obligations by two years for companies in “wave 2” (originally required to report in 2026 for financial years starting on or after 1 Janu - ary 2025) and “wave 3” (originally due in 2027 for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026). These companies will now report in 2028 and 2029, respectively. Reporting timelines for “wave 1” companies and non-EU companies (due in 2029) remain unchanged. With the deferral mechanism now in force, atten - tion shifts to the proposed substantive revisions to the CSRD. These amendments aim to sim - plify reporting obligations, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while preserving the EU’s overarching sustainability objectives. The Commission intends for this second directive to be adopted by the end of 2025, after which member states will be required to transpose the revised provisions into national law. 2.2.5 Indigenous Rights Legislation In Belgium, legislation specifically addressing the human rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of business activities is not as prominent as in other areas of business and human rights, such as labour rights or environmental protec - tion. However, Belgium’s international commit - ments, particularly under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and its broader corporate responsi -
18
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
bility frameworks have indirect implications for business conduct relating to the rights of Indig - enous Peoples. As a member of the United Nations and the European Union, Belgium has expressed sup - port for the principles of UNDRIP, although this support is more aspirational than legally bind - ing at the national level. Nevertheless, these principles are relevant when Belgian companies operate in countries where Indigenous Peoples’ rights may be at risk, such as in cases of land dispossession or resource extraction. Belgium also adheres to the UN Guiding Princi - ples on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), which require companies to respect human rights and conduct due diligence to avoid caus - ing or contributing to human rights abuses. These principles include Indigenous Peoples’ rights, particularly regarding land rights and free, prior, and informed consent. Additionally, as an OECD member, Belgium follows the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which explicitly call on businesses to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. These guidelines encourage companies to engage in meaningful consultation and obtain consent for projects that may affect Indigenous lands and communities. 2.2.6 Other The principles of equality and non-discrimination are fundamental to human rights and essential for addressing disadvantages across various domains. In Belgium, multiple anti-discrimina - tion laws, many of which are based on EU direc - tives, are designed to protect individuals from discrimination based on various grounds.
Belgian law prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on numerous grounds, includ - ing sex, age, ethnic or national origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, and disability. The key legislative instruments include the (General) Anti-discrimination Act of 10 May 2007, the Gender Act of 10 May 2007 and the Racism Act of 30 July 1981 (as revised in 2007). These laws regulate the burden of proof in dis - crimination cases and provide for lump-sum compensation, typically equivalent to six months of salary. Recent amendments also allow for cumulative damages in cases of multiple dis - crimination. GDPR In addition, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – which came into effect on 25 May 2018 – intersects with human rights, particularly in the area of privacy and individual rights. The GDPR is directly applicable in Bel - gium and is supplemented by the Belgian Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of natural per - sons regarding the processing of personal data. The GDPR imposes strict rules on organisa - tions regarding collecting, storing, and process - ing personal data. Personal data includes any information related to an identified or identifiable natural person, such as names, dates of birth, (email) addresses, etc. Under the GDPR, organisations must have a val - id legal basis for processing personal data and must transparently inform data subjects about how their data will be used. Data subjects have several rights, including the right to access and copy their data, request rectification, and seek erasure of their information. Additionally, organ - isations must implement appropriate technical
19
CHAMBERS.COM
BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
and organisational measures to ensure the secu - rity of personal data and prevent data breaches. Companies (data controllers) can be fined signif - icantly for non-compliance with the GDPR, and the Belgian Data Protection Authority actively enforces these provisions. 2.2.7 Soft Law on Business and Human Rights Belgium, in line with international standards and EU legislation, has published a range of guid - ance documents, policy guidelines, and state - ments on BHR, particularly in relation to corpo - rate responsibility, due diligence, and human rights protection. The cornerstone of Belgium’s soft law approach is its National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights, which outlines concrete steps for implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) at the national level. It focuses on integrating human rights due diligence into the operations of Bel - gian companies, including ensuring respect for labour rights, land rights, and other human rights across supply chains. The second action plan dates from 2024. In the context of the NAP on BHR, various resources and practical tools have been devel - oped to help organisations understand how to integrate human rights into their operations. One key resource is the “Toolbox Human Rights” , which offers a user-friendly set of tools designed to guide organisations and their stakeholders in fulfilling their human rights obligations related to their activities. Moreover, Belgium is often referred to as a country of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Although SMEs are often not the primary
target of the various initiatives in the domain of BHR, they are frequently part of the value or supply chains of large companies. Therefore, the Belgian federal government has published a free online guide to due diligence for SMEs. This guide is available in Dutch, French and English. It clearly and practically explains the due diligence process to an SME audience. Belgium has also implemented government pro - curement policies that integrate BHR expecta - tions for suppliers, particularly in relation to human rights due diligence, ethical sourcing, and environmental sustainability. The Public Procurement Act of 17 June 2016 governs the procurement of goods, services, and works by public authorities and includes sustainability and human rights criteria in procurement procedures. Failure to meet BHR expectations in procure - ment processes can result in several conse - quences for suppliers, such as exclusion from public tenders, contract termination and repu - tational damage. 2.2.8 Regulatory Change In recent years, Belgium has taken significant steps to strengthen its legal and regulatory framework concerning BHR. These develop - ments reflect both Belgium’s national commit - ment to human rights and its alignment with broader EU legislation and international stand - ards. As outlined in the previous sections, significant legislative changes are imminent, particularly in response to new EU regulations (directly appli - cable in Belgium) and directives (which require transposition into national law). Several of these new laws are not yet in force and will be implemented in phases over the
20
CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142Powered by FlippingBook