achieve work safeguard minimum goals, making reference to the parameters and provisions issued by the International Labour Organization (see Barraud de Lagerie – Béthoux – Mias – Penalva – Icher 2020, 699 et seq.). Essentially, as endorsable mistrust has been expressed in competent jurisdiction lying with the courts of all the States where multinational enterprises operate, the French strategy has proved innovative (v. Lyon – Caen 2019, 240 et seq.); litigation before the courts of the parent company’s home Country should ensure balanced and authoritative assessment by the court and give a realistic defence opportunity to those whose claims are not upheld in other geographies, albeit at very high costs as court action is to be moved to European States or, in any case, to mature capitalistic Countries. Furthermore, the parent company’s responsibility for diligent exercise of its direction and coordination powers and for assessing effective implementation of employees’ rights should entail significant organizational transformation, at least in the medium term, with rebalancing of opportunities (see Barraud de Lagerie – Béthoux – Mias – Penalva – Icher 2020, 699 et seq.). Confident in the impartiality and competence of their courts, for France and Germany effectiveness could be ensured, in substantial terms, by providing for the parent company to be held responsible and accountable and, in terms of legal action, by centralizing some disputes, as they may be directly brought against the organizations’ top management (see Murgo 2017, 37 et seq.). As Directive 2014 / 95 / EU leaves but little room to labour law topics, a new one was conceived, which, based on the French model (Dugarereilh 2021, 159 et seq.; Sachs 2017, 380 et seq.), contemplates the parent company’s responsibility in view of legal actions brought by workers before the European courts. Any complete assessment is to be left to a later phase (pessimistically speaking, see Aranguiz 2018, 2341 et seq.), when it can be verified to what extent employees from States ensuring low social protection will bring their claims before European courts and with what outcomes (see Barraud de Lagerie – Béthoux – Mias – Penalva – Icher 2021, 37 et seq.). Reference to some case law precedents concerning very serious situations, such as disasters occurred in manufacturing plants, is not convincing (see Murgo 2017, 37 et seq.), as those events are such as to generate emotional response and concomitant actions in court, for damage to people and high compensation. To the contrary, the effectiveness of the provisions of the International Labour Organization should be based on the protection of the countless individual expectations, in tens of Countries, for pay claims that, while concerning modest amounts on an individual basis, become material in aggregate. Any 71 THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DUE DILIGENCE DIRECTIVE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==