[ad_1]
- Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter speaks out against the corporate responsibility initiative on behalf of the Federal Council.
- The state government supports the indirect counterproposal of Parliament.
- The group’s liability envisaged by the initiative would damage Switzerland as a business location and put jobs at risk, Keller-Sutter told a news conference in Bern.
On November 29, 2020, the electorate will vote on the popular initiative “For responsible companies: protect people and the environment”.
The initiative’s text requires Swiss-based companies to respect internationally recognized human rights and also comply with environmental regulations abroad.
The Federal Council recommends rejecting the initiative
The Federal Council also wants to protect the environment and human rights, said Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter. The group accountability initiative goes too far for the state government. It would harm Switzerland as a business location and put jobs at risk.
Furthermore, Swiss companies would be at a disadvantage compared to foreign competition, says Keller-Sutter. The Federal Council is in favor of Parliament’s indirect counterproposal. This could create legal certainty very quickly.
Comprehensive counterproposal
If the initiative is rejected, the counterproposal will take effect. According to Keller-Sutter, this is very extensive and even covers more areas of due diligence and reporting obligations than the initiative. The counterproposal is easier to implement than the initiative, but it also brings more bureaucracy.
According to Karin Keller-Sutter, a no to the initiative means a yes to the new reporting and due diligence obligations, as well as the new penalty regulation for fallible companies. However, it would only come into force if the popular initiative was rejected. The bill provides for fines of up to 100,000 Swiss francs.
Extended liability rules
Swiss-based companies would have to be liable for damages caused by subsidiaries or suppliers abroad if the initiative were accepted. Around 80,000 companies would be affected by this new form of responsibility. It’s a classic own goal, Keller-Sutter said, because the form of responsibility hasn’t been coordinated internationally.
The vast majority behave in accordance with the law.
Companies are already liable for the damages they cause themselves. In the event of a dispute, a federal point of contact seeks friendly solutions, which is correct and natural. The vast majority behave in accordance with the law. However, it is an exaggeration to pay for the harm of others.
The reversal of the burden of proof is “presumptuous”
According to the text of the initiative, it would be up to the company to demonstrate that due diligence has been observed. Today the plaintiff has to prove the breach of a company.
According to Keller-Sutter, this could lead to lengthy and expensive legal procedures and overwhelm the legal system. Implementing Swiss law abroad as a Swiss regional court is pointless.
