...The question of whether multinational corporations should be held accountable for human rights violations [remains a very] controversial debate within the international community [where] only states are traditionally bound by…human rights obligations…

The problems arose…when companies started spreading their activities worldwide…as a consequence, the adjudicative process by domestic courts was rendered complex, unpredictable and mutually conflicting. 

[In March 2017,] the French Parliament enacted the Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law…[which forces] parent companies [to] establish [and enforce] a Vigilance Plan “to identify and assess their existing and potential adverse impacts, to prevent or mitigate these impacts, and to track and report on the outcomes of their actions in a transparent way”. 

[In case of non-compliance,] individuals and communities are empowered to go before French civil. This legal instrument operates both as an ex-post judicial mean and…as a deterrent against negligent or harmful...

The French Law is more stringent [than the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights], as it explicitly covers directly or indirectly controlled subsidiaries, subcontractors and suppliers. 

This may put an end to complex corporate structures that are created ad hoc to minimize liabilities, but it also imposes the obligation to constantly monitor the entire company’s supply chain…

Although some issues still need to be tackled according to business and human rights experts (especially the effective access to French courts by foreign individuals), the Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law certainly provides a good legal framework for corporate self-assessment over their entire supply chain…