The essay analyzes the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which signals an opening of European law towards a so-called ‘neo-institutional’ model. In this model, legal norms are bound by material principles and objectives, without regressing into dirigistic tendencies. The author focuses on the “duty of diligence” imposed on companies to prevent negative impacts on human rights and the environment along their chain of activities. This raises the question of the legal classification of this duty, which appears to oscillate between the duties of safety in legal transactions (Verkehrspflichten) and the more stringent logic of the duty to protect (Schutzpflicht), particularly when the protection of workers involved in the chain of activities is at stake. The essay then discusses the civil remedies, liability (Art. 29), and ‘remediation’ of impacts (Art. 12), as well as their interrelationships. The study of the Directive’s content is consistently accompanied by references to the recent Omnibus package, insofar as it is expected to affect the duties and protections provided by the Directive itself. Finally, the analysis extends to climate transition plans, which, intersecting with the phenomenon of climate change litigation, lead the interpreter to examine whether – and to what extent – the general interest in mitigating climate change can be pursued through the forms of private law.
Portonera, G., “Dovere di diligenza” e tutele civili nella Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence directive, <<JUS>>, 2025; (4): 242-288 [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/323558]
“Dovere di diligenza” e tutele civili nella Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence directive
Portonera, Giuseppe
2025
Abstract
The essay analyzes the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which signals an opening of European law towards a so-called ‘neo-institutional’ model. In this model, legal norms are bound by material principles and objectives, without regressing into dirigistic tendencies. The author focuses on the “duty of diligence” imposed on companies to prevent negative impacts on human rights and the environment along their chain of activities. This raises the question of the legal classification of this duty, which appears to oscillate between the duties of safety in legal transactions (Verkehrspflichten) and the more stringent logic of the duty to protect (Schutzpflicht), particularly when the protection of workers involved in the chain of activities is at stake. The essay then discusses the civil remedies, liability (Art. 29), and ‘remediation’ of impacts (Art. 12), as well as their interrelationships. The study of the Directive’s content is consistently accompanied by references to the recent Omnibus package, insofar as it is expected to affect the duties and protections provided by the Directive itself. Finally, the analysis extends to climate transition plans, which, intersecting with the phenomenon of climate change litigation, lead the interpreter to examine whether – and to what extent – the general interest in mitigating climate change can be pursued through the forms of private law.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



