{"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
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.