🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang

🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

____

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "De l'obligation de compliance à l'obligation de vigilance : le rôle du juge (From the obligation of compliance to the obligation of vigilance: the role of the judge)", in Round table De la compliance au devoir de vigilance. Une nouvelle responsabilité des entreprises (From Compliance to the Vigilance duty. A new responsibility for businesses," Lettre des juristes d'affaires, Oct. 2025.

____

📝read the article reproducing the entire discussion (in French)

____

► Summary of my contribution:  In this debate, the terms of which have been reproduced in the journal, I was asked to explain how the legal system had evolved, first by establishing Compliance Law, built on systemic ambitions to prevent sectoral disasters (banking, finance, energy), ambitions that constitute "Monumental Negative Goals", and then evolving on the one hand "Monumental Positive Goals", namely the protection of human beings involved willingly or unwillingly in these systems, on the other hand, outside even sectors with clearly defined boundaries, such as environmental or digital ambitions. The duty of vigilance extends this regulatory law and gives concrete form to the "compliance obligation" to which companies are subject. It is important to maintain a sense of proportion in the conception of the responsibility attached to it so as not to lose everything. Companies are bound by the goals but must remain free in their choice of means, and in particular be encouraged to use contractual techniques. This measure is entrusted to the judge because, due to the Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, it is at the heart of this new branch of Law, which is developing independently of fluctuations in the regulations.

During the discussion, I was asked for my opinion on the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeal on 17 June 2025, known as La Poste case. I pointed out that the comments had often focused only on the developments regarding risk mapping, whereas this ruling first establishes the principle that the vigilance plan is the work of the company's decision-making bodies and is not co-constructed, as consultation is a process of discussion and taking in consideration, which is not the same thing, with the judge himself pointing out that they must not interfere in management.

In the discussion, I emphasised that if we were to highlight the essence of what would be a "new responsibility", it would primarily concern a new probative dimension that the company must implement in Ex Ante. The implementation of the CSRD, even if it has been excessively standardised, is in line with this, and this probative culture must be developed.

____

⛏️Further reading on the subject :

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation, 2026

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Vigilance, the front line and integral part of the compliance obligation, 2025

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in Order and keep the sense of Reason, 2025

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2024

________

____

____

► Article summary : The 

________

🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter en vidéo MAFR Surplomb

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Appréhender la CSRD à travers sa ratio legis", synthèse de CSRD : une nouvelle grammaire pour l'économie de la durabilité, colloque organisé par le Centre de recherches Louis Josserand sous la direction de Luc-Marie Augagneur, Faculté de Droit, Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3, 8 avril 2025, 

____

Cette conférence constitue l'intervention de synthèse du colloque. C'est pourquoi elle a été construite à partir d'une méthode qui lui est propre à savoir la recherche et le respect de ce qui a justifié l'adoption de la CSRD, tout en s'appuyant sur chacun des propos qui ont été présentés lors de cette journée pour en rendre compte et les mettre en perspective de cette idée. 

____

🧮consulter le programme complet de cette manifestation

____

🪑🪑🪑Participent notamment également à cette manifestation :

🪑Jean-Christophe Roda

🪑Luc-Marie Augagneur

🪑Gilles Martin

🪑Grégoire Leray

____

► Résumé de l'intervention : 

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb / Overhang

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Vigilance, the cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, November 2023, updated in February 2025

____

📝 This Working Paper is the basis of the article, "Vigilance, the  cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation Vigilance" (Vigilance, the cutting edge and a full part of the Compliance Obligation), published  in 📘Compliance Obligation

____

► Summary of this Working Paper:  The "duty of vigilance" unleashes all the more radical and passionate positions, sometimes among Law professors, because it has not been precisely defined. One word is used for another, either inadvertently or deliberately, deliberately if it can attract this or that element from one legal corpus and import it into another.  The very exercise of definition is therefore required in practice. There are specific obligations of vigilance that come under such and such a body of regulations and are imposed on such and such a category of operators to fulfill such and such a function. These are precise circles which are not confused and must not be confused. This is superimposed on what the French 2017 law so-called "Vigilance law", which is much more encompassing since it applies to all large companies in the operation of the value chains they have set up. The European 2024 directive is in the same way. But there is no general duty or obligation of Vigilance. Such a claim would be based on confusing or shifting each of these 3 levels, which must be avoided because no positive law does support this (I).

If the duty of vigilance is attracting so much attention, whether or not the European CS3D is fully effective, it is because Vigilance is the "cutting edge" of Compliance Obligation (II). Vigilance requires companies, by consideration of their power and without reproaching them for it or demanding that it be reduced, to detect risks of damage to the environment and climate, but also to human rights, because they are in a position to do so in order to prevent them from turning into disasters. In this respect, the  Vigilance duty makes clearer the exact legal nature of the Compliance Obligation.

Moreover, Vigilance appears as the Total Part of the Compliance Obligation (III). Indeed, although it is restricted to one area, the value chain, and to two types of risk, deterioration of the environment and deterioration of human rights, it expresses the totality of the Compliance Obligation by means of tools that the 2017 French "Vigilance law" had itself duplicated from the 2016 so-called "Sapin 2 law": to preserve systems today, but above all tomorrow, in order they do not collapse (Negative Monumental Goals), or even consolidate them (Positive Monumental Goals), so that the human beings who are willingly or unwillingly involved in them are not crushed by them but benefit from them. This is why large companies are subject to the Obligation of Compliance and Vigilance, particularly in the humanist conception that Europe is developing.

The result is a new type of Litigation, of a systemic nature, for which the Courts have spontaneously become specialised, and for which the procedures will have to be adapted and the office  of the Judge shall have to evolve.

_____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'esprit des Lois en matière de vigilance" ("Spirit of Law in Vigilance (Due Diligences) matters"), in Haut Conseil du Commissariat aux Comptes (H3C), Réalités et défis de la CSRD - Perspectives du devoir de vigilance, Paris, 14 June 2023.

____

🎥watch the video of a part of the speech (in French)

____

🧱read the description of the speeches of other speakers of this panel (in French)

____ 

The speech took place during the third-round table devoted to the Perspectives du devoir de vigilance (Perspectives of the duty of vigilance), the first round table having been devoted to the lessons that the DPEF can provide for the CSRD, and the second to the transposition work of the CSRD.

🧮See the full programme of this annual event (in French)

____

► English summary of the speech: In consideration of and in addition to what has been said, explained and even affirmed by other speakers, I have emphasised that 'vigilance" laws is not a 'regulation' like any other, but the leading edge of a very vast movement, Compliance Law, in which the 2017 French law is the driving force. For its application, the Judge, who is at the centre because of the will of the Legislator, is already taking into consideration the CS3D, the twin text of the CSRD.

The texts must not be seen in isolation. If we isolate them from each other, they become almost incomprehensible, their meaning appearing uncertain, even threatening: we need to understand the spirit of these texts, which are indeed new, because they aim to provide answers to the new world we have entered. We must all rejoice in this political ambition, which is taking a legal form, and work to make it efficient: Legislators, companies, auditors, Regulators and Judges.

If we do not stop at the letter, which would be to reduce Compliance to conformity, whereas Compliance Law, particularly Vigilance, is the extension of Regulation, finds its meaning in the Goals, we see that the French law of 2017, known as the "Vigilance law", which copies all the techniques of the French law known as "Sapin 2", gives goals simple to understand to the companies subject to the Legislator's will: detect and prevent environmental and human rights abuses in the value chains.

The logic is therefore Ex-Ante.

This Ex-Ante logic is retained by the CS3D directive.

The Judge is central to it. But the responsibility which the NGOs will ask him to trigger is itself an "Ex Ante responsibility", the Compliance trials being like "accountability" trials, to ensure that companies act in accordance with the Goals set by the Legislator.

This is transforming the role of the Judge, who must find effective solutions for the future. The discussion and the adversarial principle will become more important. Mediation will be encouraged. Stakeholders and the company will have to work together, and this method, which was intended by the Legislator for drawing up the vigilance plan, will be continued in the supporting legal proceedings.

This will also transform the company, and the role played by those who accredit the information on the company's actions and long-term strategies: auditors therefore have a central role to play.

________