IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v17y2023i4p891-908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foreign corporate accountability: The contested institutionalization of mandatory due diligence in France and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Maria‐Therese Gustafsson
  • Almut Schilling‐Vacaflor
  • Andrea Lenschow

Abstract

In the recent past, European states have adopted mandatory due diligence (MDD) laws for holding companies accountable for the environmental and human rights impacts of their supply chains. The institutionalization of the international due diligence norm into domestic legislation has, however, been highly contested. Our contribution analyzes the discursive struggles about the meaning of due diligence that have accompanied the institutionalization of MDD in Germany and France. Based on document analysis and legal analysis of laws and law proposals, we identify a state‐centric, a market‐based, and a polycentric‐governance discourse. These discourses are based on fundamentally different understandings of how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should be translated into hard law. By outlining these discourses and comparing the related policy preferences, we contribute with a better understanding of different ways in which MDD is institutionalized, with important consequences for the possibilities to enhance corporate accountability in global supply chains.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria‐Therese Gustafsson & Almut Schilling‐Vacaflor & Andrea Lenschow, 2023. "Foreign corporate accountability: The contested institutionalization of mandatory due diligence in France and Germany," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 891-908, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:4:p:891-908
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12498
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:4:p:891-908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.