IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhurj/v6y2021i3p550-558_7.html

Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?

Author

Listed:
  • KRAJEWSKI, Markus
  • TONSTAD, Kristel
  • WOHLTMANN, Franziska

Abstract

Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021.1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence.2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • KRAJEWSKI, Markus & TONSTAD, Kristel & WOHLTMANN, Franziska, 2021. "Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?," Business and Human Rights Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 550-558, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhurj:v:6:y:2021:i:3:p:550-558_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2057019821000432/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Imen Khanchel & Naima Lassoued & Rym Gargoury, 2023. "CSR and firm value: is CSR valuable during the COVID 19 crisis in the French market?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(2), pages 575-601, June.
    2. Mikko Rajavuori & Annalisa Savaresi & Harro van Asselt, 2023. "Mandatory due diligence laws and climate change litigation: Bridging the corporate climate accountability gap?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 944-953, October.
    3. Janine Allenbacher & Matthias Fertig & Jennifer Adolph, 2026. "What Does the Future Hold for Human Rights in Conflict-Affected Areas? A Delphi Study on MNEs’ Strategies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 204(3), pages 683-711, March.
    4. David Walters & Richard Johnstone & Phil James, 2025. "The challenge of improving work health and safety in global supply chains: Institutions and evidence of effectiveness," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 46(2), pages 423-447, May.
    5. Fatimazahra Dehbi & Olga Martin‐Ortega, 2023. "An integrated approach to corporate due diligence from a human rights, environmental, and TWAIL perspective," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 927-943, October.
    6. Schüßler, Elke & Lohmeyer, Nora & Ashwin, Sarah, 2022. "We can't compete on human rights: creating market-protected spaces to institutionalize the emerging logic of responsible management," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115506, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Maria‐Therese Gustafsson & Almut Schilling‐Vacaflor & Andrea Lenschow, 2023. "The politics of supply chain regulations: Towards foreign corporate accountability in the area of human rights and the environment?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 853-869, October.
    8. Madhura Rao & Nadia Bernaz & Alie Boer, 2024. "Holding Retail Corporations Accountable for Food Waste: A Due Diligence Framework Informed by Business and Human Rights Principles," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 679-689, September.

    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:cup:buhurj:v:6:y:2021:i:3:p:550-558_7. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhj .

    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.