The Changing Face of Corporate Liability – New Hard Law and the Increasing Influence of Soft Law

The first frameworks defining standards of human rights protection specifically for business enterprises were non-binding “soft law” like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In recent times, a “hardening” of corporate human rights law has taken place. Several acts of “hard law” have been implemented at a national and EU level. This article provides an overview of the most important ones. The “hard law” provisions differ in their scope: some obligate companies to report on human rights, others stipulate concrete obligations to conduct human rights due diligence. Another way of tackling the issue of human rights compliance has been demonstrated by the prosecution of companies in the United States. While procedural guidelines abstractly stipulate an effective compliance system to be a mitigating factor, the US Department of Justice regularly defines concrete compliance obligations in deferred or non-prosecution agreements. This development could lead to comprehensive liability for negligence due to organisational and monitoring deficiencies. But who defines the standards? This article examines how the changing practice of human rights compliance may have “feedback effects” on hard law, particularly by changing the scale of negligence. Regarding the lack of effectiveness of some due diligence measures, especially in the “certification industry”, it is then asked how legislation may proactively exert influence by defining effective CSR instruments necessary to prevent civil and criminal liability. Using the example of German law, a proposal is made to implement an obligation of human rights due diligence in “hard law” and, simultaneously, set up an independent expert commission that drafts guidelines specifying the necessary measures for different kinds of companies.     

企业刑事合规的程序应对

在刑事合规的制度设计中,程序法承载了治理犯罪、保护权利、提升经济效率等多项重要职能。当前,全球范围内企业合规的刑事程序运行呈现出如下发展态势:立案管辖范围扩张,侦(调)查措施更加灵活多样,检察官主导实现多样化的诉讼激励,刑事合规的司法审查逐步加强,律师充分参与刑事合规得到保障。我国刑事合规的理论研究逐步兴起,实践中企业合规试点单位进行了相应的刑事程序改革与探索。随着刑事合规的全面深入发展,我国刑事诉讼程序应从立案、侦查、起诉、审判、辩护等多个环节进行系统、科学改造,以满足企业合规对刑事程序的实质需求。     

涉罪企业合规有效性标准研究——以A公司串通投标案为例

只有被证明是有效的合规计划,才能作为对涉罪企业从宽、免除处罚的事由,但合规有效性标准从合规诞生之日起就是个难解之题.从合规有效性标准的发展历程来看,经历了从技术性指标向文化指标转变的过程,合规有效性的核心标准是合规成为企业文化.与其问企业是否完成了合规计划的实施,不如问企业文化走向何方.奠定于卢曼的社会系统论基础之上的...     

有效合规管理的两种模式

自我国监管部门引入合规监管方式以来,有效合规管理大体形成了两种相对独立的制度模式。其中,日常性合规管理是企业在行政监管部门的指导和监督下,以预防相关合规风险为主要出发点,建立常态化的合规管理体系;合规整改则是企业在行政机关、司法机关的执法压力下,或在国际组织采取制裁措施的情况下,以减轻处罚或者取消制裁为目标,针对业已暴露的违法、违规或犯罪行为,采取有针对性的合规整改措施。在确保企业有效防控合规风险方面,这两种合规管理模式各有其制度结构和公司治理功能,也存在着各自的优劣得失。在企业合规管理体系的建构方面,这两种模式既可以相互转化,也可以相互补充和完善。     

Competing Normative Frameworks and the Limits of Deterrence Theory: Comments on Baker and Griffith's Ensuring Corporate Misconduct

This essay reviews the contributions to deterrence theory that Tom Baker and Sean Griffith make in Ensuring Corporate Misconduct (2010) and argues that their work highlights the limits of deterrence theory for shaping corporate conduct. Baker and Griffith extend the deterrence framework to account for the mediating effect of third‐party institutions, like insurers, on deterrence calculations, and they suggest how corporate governance decisions, such as what type of insurance coverage to purchase, encode signals about corporations' compliance motivations and capacity. Although these insights might prove useful for enhancing the efficacy of deterrence regimes aimed at white‐collar crime and other types of corporate misconduct, they suggest the difficulty of shaping corporate conduct that is influenced not only by the norms embodied in securities law, but also by the alternative normative system of shareholder value maximization. I discuss the failure of deterrence theory to address adequately noncompliant behavior that springs not solely from material self‐interest, but from adherence to an alternative set of norms, and I explore the possibility of viewing corporate compliance as a norm‐change project.     

意大利企业合规制度的全面解读及其启示

意大利是较早建立企业合规体系,法治经验相对成熟的国家。第231号法令跨越意大利《宪法》第27条的障碍,规定了判断企业责任的主客观标准,将企业责任建立在组织性罪过基础之上。企业免责的唯一途径是构建有效合规计划。如果企业能够证明在犯罪发生之前已采用并有效地实施了组织、管理和控制模式,则可以免除责任。该法令实施20年来,通过持续性革新,将反腐败合规计划由公共机构扩展至私营企业,规定合规计划中辩诉交易的适用条件,引入配额制的经济制裁手段,实现了自我完善。我国的企业合规改革刚刚起步,应当重视企业刑事合规的法治化,明确单位犯罪的归责基础,单位犯罪治理应当由事后惩治模式向事先预防的企业合规模式转变,立法上应当增设配额罚金制和褫夺资格处罚,以建立相对完善的、符合我国国情的企业合规制度。     

企业合规制度中认罪问题研究

在企业合规制度中,涉罪企业认罪既是启动合规考察的前提条件,亦能体现检察机关提前采取“准刑罚”措施的正当性。围绕中小微企业这一类主要适用对象,企业认罪的实践困境包含直接责任人员未参与罪名合意、认罪真实性与自愿性难以保障、检察机关接触企业认罪较晚等。究其原因,主要为“认事”与罪名合意之人发生分离、合规不起诉的优待及于直接责任人员、公诉裁量权较大且外在监督不足等。同时,从试点情况看,企业认罪的具体表现形式为第三方组织审查和建议采取何种合规计划、合规考察合格后检察机关是否不起诉等提供了参考和依据。面对诸多实践困境,应从赋予两类代表人员相关性权利、对直接责任人员慎用不起诉、逐步完善企业合规规则、强化公诉裁量权的外部“风控”因素四方面加以改进。     

企业合规本土化中的“双不起诉”

"放过企业、严惩个人"是欧美国家企业合规不起诉的理念,但在我国企业合规改革试点的典型案例中,既放过企业又放过个人的"双不起诉"现象出现了,这引发了对企业合规不起诉公正性和正当性的质疑。"双不起诉"出现的主要原因在于,我国未严格区分企业刑事责任和个人刑事责任,未厘清企业合规不起诉制度与认罪认罚从宽制度的关系。随着企业合规改革试点的持续推进,有必要对"双不起诉"引发的质疑作出回应,区分企业和个人的刑事责任,对小微企业的合规不起诉给予足够的本土关怀,厘清企业合规不起诉制度与认罪认罚从宽制度的关系,推动我国企业合规本土化深入发展。     

合规计划的效度之维——逻辑与实证的双重展开

基于对传统企业犯罪预防模式的反思,以及企业责任形式的转变,尤其是文化责任、结构性疏忽的采用,企业合规计划（CorporateComplianceProgram）得以产生并蓬勃发生;对于合规计划的效度问题,实证研究缘于方法论的缺陷,难以达成一致结论;从实证转向逻辑思辨,合规计划对于企业及其职员过失犯罪具有显著作用,而对于故意犯罪,则应区分犯罪主体;对于一般企业职员及中层管理人员的故意犯罪具有一定作用,但对于企业高层职员则难见成效;基于对合规计划及其成效的分析,文章提出选择性借鉴的观点,增加激励机制,严厉刑罚,同时避免合规计划的过度适用引起的诸多问题。     

论企业合规检察主导的中国路径

通过对企业合规检察面向的谱系梳理可以发现,无论是对合规总体宏观的理论论证、试点决策、规范制定,还是就合规具体试点的推进方式、进度调控和领域调整,检察主导已成为中国企业合规的鲜明特色.企业合规检察主导的内生动力和深层根源涉及三个方面:主体认知自觉,即新形势下对检察工作省思后的创新探索和职能延伸;法理依据证成,基于对合规"...     

Legal Ambiguity and the Politics of Compliance: Affirmative Action Officers' Dilemma

Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action mandates, like many other laws regulating organizations, do not clearly define what constitutes compliance. Thus compliance depends largely on the initiative and agenda of those persons within organizations who are charged with managing the compliance effort: in the case of civil rights, "affirmative action officers." This paper draws on case studies of affirmative action officers to suggest that the political climate within which affirmative action officers work, together with the officers' interpretations of the law, their role conceptions, and their professional aspirations have important implications for the nature and extent of organizational compliance with law. We conclude that compliance should be understood as a process that evolves over time rather than as a discrete event or non-event.     

涉案企业合规刑行衔接的初步研究

涉案企业合规改革的推行和深化,离不开行政监管部门的全面配合.检察机关在涉案企业合规改革探索过程中,也较为注重发挥行政监管部门的作用,并尝试利用现有的制度空间解决好与行政监管部门的衔接配合问题.但由于行政监管部门并没有配合刑事执法机关参与办理企业合规案件的法定义务,加上衔接配合的规则和程序粗陋缺失,刑行衔接程序出现不畅问...     

美国企业法人在宪法上的权利考察

美国宪法实施以后，法人的宪法地位问题很快就提到了联邦最高法院。进入二十世纪以后，美国法人的宪法权利进一步扩展，法人又拥有了免于双重危险、陪审团审判、政治言论自由等一系列权利。在美国之外，法人的宪法权利也有不同程度的发展。德国在宪法文本中直接规定了法人的宪法权利，日本宪法文本虽无关于法人的明文规定，但在理论和实践中法人都享有一定的宪法权利。法人的宪法权利一直伴随着争议，尤其是法人的政治言论自由更是引发了热烈的争论。赋予法人宪法权利体现了宪法适用的价值，是法人对抗法律侵权的手段，客观上促进了经济发展，但是法人对政治活动的参与也可能引发金钱政治的危险。     

论表决权信托——以小股东利益保护为背景展开的研究

公司控制权的存在,使控制股东可获得大于其股权比例的收益,转移、减少其相应的风险,实现其利益的最大化。表决权是争夺控制权的基本工具,中小股东的表决权往往只是一种抽象的存在,在控制权争夺中其表决权的作用不能充分实现,其利益容易受到损害。表决权信托通过对表决权的重新安排,为中小股东利益保护提供了一个较好的外部机制。     

The Profits of Recognition: A Praxeological Approach to Corporate Crime

This paper offers a methodological intervention into the study and understanding of regulation and compliance with respect to corporate crime. We advocate Pierre Bourdieu’s “praxeological” sociology as the bases for what we hold is an innovative model of regulation and compliance. The praxeological or relational approach offers structural analyses that take seriously the constructivist fixation with meaning, subjectivity, and perception without succumbing to the limitations of an interactionist conception of power. We first show theoretical affinities between the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Louis Althusser in order to highlight their shared concern with subject formation and their respective conceptions of “mis/recognition”. As this provides us with the theoretical basis of a more robust theory of regulation and compliance than is commonly found within the corporate crime literature, we argue that studies of corporate wrongdoing would benefit from rethinking the conceptions of compliance that currently shape corporate crime scholarship. We then demonstrate the benefits of this praxeological approach to regulation and compliance through discussion of the state’s efforts to discipline corporations through criminal law in Canada and the United Kingdom.     

How to Win Hearts and Minds: Corporate Compliance Policies for Sexual Harassment

Australian law provides incentives and encouragement for companies to develop their own sexual harassment policies. This paper reports on interviews with equal opportunity officers in Australia's financial services industry responsible for best practice sexual harassment policies. Their experiences evoke three scholarly critiques of corporate compliance as a regulatory strategy: (1) that corporate compliance programs are a means by which employees' lives are regimented and controlled by corporate governmentality, (2) or, even worse, that private management priorities subvert the principles of public‐regarding law while appearing to implement them, and (3) that even where law has some effect, regulatory strategies aimed at producing self‐regulatory compliance will provide insufficient deterrence to effect real change. The data however also show that the best of these best practice officers have themselves created complex strategies to resolve tensions between law and management, corporate goals, and normative pressures. In doing so, they have had to combine their personal, professional, and corporate commitments to "win hearts and minds" to antiharassment values by co‐opting management resources to compliance goals through strategic appeals to both "business case" arguments and the specter of public sanctions. This project of cooption depends on their own position and "clout" within the corporation.     

Corporations as Moral Agents: Trade-Offs in Criminal Liability and Human Rights for Corporations

This article argues that a common way of defending corporate criminal liability creates a dilemma: it provides a strong justification for giving human rights to corporations. This result follows from approaches to punishment and human rights which predicate each on the status of moral agency. In short, if corporations are moral agents in a sufficient sense to attract criminal liability, they are eligible holders of human rights. The article also discusses the doctrinal application of this philosophical claim. Drawing on US jurisprudence, it illustrates how the European Court of Human Rights might deploy corporate moral agency as a theoretical foundation for its otherwise weakly-reasoned attribution of human rights to corporations. If proponents of corporate criminal liability are dissatisfied with these conclusions, they face difficult policy trade-offs: they must abandon the doctrine, or adopt alternative approaches to punishment or human rights.     

论公司法与民法典的良性互动关系

《公司法》与《民法典》无缝对接、有机衔接、同频共振、相辅相成《民法典》中的基本原则普适于公司法律关系,诸项具体制度也可补充适用。《公司法》对特定事项有规定、而《民法典》无规定时,应适用《公司法》。两法对特定事项均有规定、但相抵触时,应优先适用《公司法》。两法对法人制度的规定详略不同、但不相抵触时,应优先适用《公司法》。两法在很多公司法案件中可兼容并用,协同共治,互不排斥。平等、自愿、公平、诚信、公序良俗、绿色、关怀弱势群体和禁止权利滥用共同构成民法八项基本原则。而公司法有其独特原则,如等价有偿、尊重与保障公司的生存权与发展权、慎重解散公司、坚持商业模式的包容性、促进公司的三重营利性、弘扬股权文化、鼓励公司社会责任和构建新型亲清政商关系原则。要尊重《公司法》的特别法地位,必须切实扭转司法实践中的“轻公司法化”现象。修改《公司法》和解释《民法典》应着眼于消除规范冲突,预防制度真空,铸造制度合力。     

公司法人财产权与公司治理

从探讨公司法人财产权和公司治理二者关系角度入手,对中国公司法中"法人财产权"的内涵与性质加以阐释和分析。法人财产权是一种综合性的权利,包括对实物财产享有的所有权和对其他财产享有的完整权利,法人财产权的确立与归属是公司治理的基础与保障,是公司治理权力分化与制衡的出发点及归宿,而科学有效的公司治理结构的建构与确立也维系着法人财产权的地位,是实现法人财产权的组织保证。新《公司法》删除了原《公司法》关于公司中的国有资产所有权属于国家的规定,为建立现代意义上的公司制度与科学合理的公司治理结构奠定了基础。     

Litigating Corporate Human Rights Information

This article analyzes trends in litigation brought against corporate actors regarding human rights information. Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements on packaging claiming that products are “ethically sourced” and investor-facing disclosures representing that an issuer's operations are environmentally friendly. It proceeds by outlining the sources of human rights-related disclosures as they arise under both legal and voluntary regimes. The article then addresses the case law. Recent years have seen an increase in lawsuits involving human rights information, or lack thereof, imparted by companies. Consumer protection or consumer fraud cases are being filed, alleging that companies have either provided false and misleading information or omitted information about corporate human rights impacts and mitigation efforts. Investors are filing similar claims. The article examines the trend and considers the role of this litigation both in holding companies to their word and in providing corporate accountability for the underlying human rights abuses that false or misleading human rights information may mask. It ultimately argues that, although success at trial in such cases remains elusive, litigation is a useful and potentially growing tool for holding companies to their word regarding human rights claims. It contextualizes this litigation, arguing that other means by which companies can be held to their word should be strengthened, including public enforcement and—potentially—new disclosure and due diligence laws.