Towards a Framework for Effective Regulatory Supervision of Sustainability Governance in Accordance with the EU CSDD Directive. A Comparative Study

H. J. de Kluiver
{"title":"Towards a Framework for Effective Regulatory Supervision of Sustainability Governance in Accordance with the EU CSDD Directive. A Comparative Study","authors":"H. J. de Kluiver","doi":"10.1515/ecfr-2023-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 203This article emphasizes that the wave of regulation focusing on sustainability, like the CSDDD, is fundamentally different in scope and character from traditional rulemaking. Given the wide-ranging objectives of the CSDDD and its open norms, companies and supervisory authorities will need to cooperate and have open and fair discussions to develop alternative instruments and best practices taking account of what can be reasonably required from companies in addressing complex issues in an even more complex world also in terms of feasibility and resources. This is fully in line with the CSDDD which explicitly recognizes that companies will have to balance diverging interests, and – as set out in Articles 6-8 CSDDD – will inevitably need to make choices and prioritize actions. Where traditionally regulatory supervisors focus on strict compliance, the CSDDD marks a fundamental change to process rules and goals to be achieved and therefore calls for a fundamentally different approach and oversight strategy by supervisory authorities. It is also demonstrated that extending liability rules for companies is not an effective policy instrument. This article compares developments in the UK, France, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands, and by identifying the lessons learned, concludes that a strategy as set out above seems best fit to realise the ambitious goals set by the CSDDD. Therewith a paradigm shift is in the making. Governments and regulatory supervisors would misinterpret the signs of the times if, in promoting the purposes of the CSDDD, they were to cling to traditional ideas of how supervisors should operate.204","PeriodicalId":54052,"journal":{"name":"European Company and Financial Law Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"203 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Company and Financial Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2023-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract 203This article emphasizes that the wave of regulation focusing on sustainability, like the CSDDD, is fundamentally different in scope and character from traditional rulemaking. Given the wide-ranging objectives of the CSDDD and its open norms, companies and supervisory authorities will need to cooperate and have open and fair discussions to develop alternative instruments and best practices taking account of what can be reasonably required from companies in addressing complex issues in an even more complex world also in terms of feasibility and resources. This is fully in line with the CSDDD which explicitly recognizes that companies will have to balance diverging interests, and – as set out in Articles 6-8 CSDDD – will inevitably need to make choices and prioritize actions. Where traditionally regulatory supervisors focus on strict compliance, the CSDDD marks a fundamental change to process rules and goals to be achieved and therefore calls for a fundamentally different approach and oversight strategy by supervisory authorities. It is also demonstrated that extending liability rules for companies is not an effective policy instrument. This article compares developments in the UK, France, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands, and by identifying the lessons learned, concludes that a strategy as set out above seems best fit to realise the ambitious goals set by the CSDDD. Therewith a paradigm shift is in the making. Governments and regulatory supervisors would misinterpret the signs of the times if, in promoting the purposes of the CSDDD, they were to cling to traditional ideas of how supervisors should operate.204
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据欧盟CSDD指令建立可持续治理的有效监管框架。比较研究
摘要203本文强调,与CSDDD一样,关注可持续性的监管浪潮在范围和特征上与传统规则制定有根本不同。鉴于CSDDD的广泛目标及其公开规范,公司和监管机构将需要合作,进行公开和公平的讨论,以制定替代工具和最佳实践,同时考虑到公司在更复杂的世界中解决复杂问题时在可行性和资源方面的合理要求。这完全符合CSDDD,CSDDD明确承认公司必须平衡不同的利益,并且——如CSDDD第6-8条所述——将不可避免地需要做出选择并优先采取行动。传统上,监管监管机构注重严格合规,CSDDD标志着流程规则和目标的根本改变,因此要求监管机构采取根本不同的方法和监督策略。研究还表明,扩大公司责任规则并不是一种有效的政策工具。本文比较了英国、法国、德国、挪威和荷兰的发展情况,并通过总结经验教训得出结论,上述战略似乎最适合实现CSDDD设定的雄心勃勃的目标。随之而来的是一种范式的转变。如果政府和监管监管机构在宣传CSDDD的目的时坚持监管机构应该如何运作的传统观念,他们就会误解时代的标志。204
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: In legislation and in case law, European law has become a steadily more dominant factor in determining national European company laws. The “European Company”, the forthcoming “European Private Company” as well as the Regulation on the Application of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS Regulation”) have accelerated this development even more. The discussion, however, is still mired in individual nations. This is true for the academic field and – even still – for many practitioners. The journal intends to overcome this handicap by sparking a debate across Europe on drafting and application of European company law. It integrates the European company law component previously published as part of the Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR), on of the leading German law reviews specialized in the field of company and capital market law. It aims at universities, law makers on both the European and national levels, courts, lawyers, banks and other financial service institutions, in house counsels, accountants and notaries who draft or work with European company law. The journal focuses on all areas of European company law and the financing of companies and business entities. This includes the law of capital markets as well as the law of accounting and auditing and company law related issues of insolvency law. Finally it serves as a platform for the discussion of theoretical questions such as the economic analysis of company law. It consists of articles and case notes on both decisions of the European courts as well as of national courts insofar as they have implications on European company law.
期刊最新文献
The Sanctions Principles-Based Regulation: A Blueprint for a New Approach for the EU Sanctions Policy (Part I) From London to the Continent: Rethinking Corporate Governance Codes in Europe Traditional and Digital Limits of Collective Investment Schemes Tax Reforms and the Decline of the London Stock Market: The Untold Story The Strategic Importance of Public Recapitalisation in Banking Resolution, What Ireland Can Tell
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1