The paradox of multinational enterprises is that they are bound, by tradition, to have to deal with a huge number of different legal systems, at worst with the majority of the State in the present world (see Dahan – Lerner – Milman – Sivan 2016, 425 et seq.) and, at the same time, to potentially be a regulatory body able to set rules that shall be complied with throughout their organization, irrespective of national borders (or irrespective of any supranational regulatory frameworks), restoring some minimum equality on profiles handled in aggregate, at time under the stimulus of social responsibility assessment systems (see Turner 2016, 195 et seq.). It is impossible for multinational groups to resist the temptation of taking advantage of the pay differences that are specific of each legal system, although the centralized unilateral regulation worldwide generates some partial distributive justice. The European Union Directive was not conceived for tourism companies, but rather for manufacturers and distributors of fast - moving consumer goods, not for service providers, involving buyers in a global arena and strong reputational interests. Facing the widespread effectiveness crisis of labour law, many multinational enterprises have placed their trust in the concept of social responsibility and in the related certification schemes, in order to ensure extensive visibility of aware compliance with the law provisions (see Ballestero – Perez – Gladish – Garcia – Bernabeu 2015, 27 et seq.). One may wonder whether the very importance that these systems have acquired is a sign of our time, given the indirect confirmation of the outbreak of illegal activities and given the need for some consolidated form identifying legitimacy as an aware and recognizable goal of private action. If there were no deeply rooted unlawfulness, social responsibility and the methods to assess it would make no sense (see Doh – Guay 2004, 7 et seq.). These phenomena show that enterprises seek reciprocal acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their conducts in business relationships and in the interaction between structures that have to dialogue (for competitive or collaborative purposes), in geographical and product - type areas that are often very far one from the other. Ultimately, these views involve tourism companies in a significant manner, although the underlying considerations were drawn to the good manufacturing dynamics and decentralization of manpower - intensive manufacturing plants to Countries that provide low protection of the environment and of workers and that feature poor effectiveness of the related rules. In the tourism scope, the problem is the organization of recreational facilities in Countries other than the home one of the parent company, in any case entailing interaction with nature 75 THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DUE DILIGENCE DIRECTIVE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==