If the ultimate goals is to prevent “adverse impacts”, it may be wondered why some companies only, set out in Article 2, are involved in setting the business action models that the European Union wants to achieve. Protection against “adverse impacts” should be all - encompassing, as they threaten core values of civil society, such as “human rights”, the environment and workers’ conditions. Nonetheless, this dyscrasia is temporary, as, save by mistake, the system starts to be imposed on larger - sized companies, with progressive extension of its scope of application, somehow scheduled. It is not hard to imagine that, within this trajectory, tourism companies should be concerned in a slow yet unavoidable manner. Although the Directive leaves wide room for the initiative of public authorities, especially of the European Union Member States, the effectiveness of the new rules depends on the responsiveness of protected persons, i. e. “stakeholders”, who should take advantage of the true opportunity that is given them, namely court action. If tourism companies are those based in Countries that have strong attractiveness and natural beauties, but legislations providing poor protection of the environment and of the workers and, therefore, if reference is made to resorts or seaside or accommodation facilities, the responses of employees and neighbouring local people may be reduced and the Directive’s effect may be diluted over time, because tensions are toned down by the goal of businesses, which, in any case, are in charge of the protection of nature and of customers’ wellbeing, with likely high tips and related comprehensive advantages for workers, in accordance with models that have long been widespread and accepted on cruises. The most feared claims and court actions are likely brought against airlines, due to the widespread concern about noise impact in areas near airports and to the strong tensions that, for some years now, have been quite frequent in the Italian market regarding the pay of flying personnel, first and foremost of flight assistants, who are the promoters of considerable disputes whereby they have claimed the inadequacy of their treatment as applied by the remains of the former and not missed Italian national airline. V. THE NATURE OF COMPANIES’ RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY It is quite far - fetched to express any forward - looking considerations on the responsibility and liability envisaged by the new Directive, especially as its transposition is still far away. Nonetheless, it can be expected that the 78
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==