development will be similar to the one that took place with repeated actions taken by the promotion of occupational health and safety, which is also a similar scope, for the involved interests. At least in Italy, the directives were interpreted as requiring companies to adopt all the set measures (information, training, use of suitable equipment) and any other arrangement suggested by prudence and diligence; companies are required to adopt any and all measures that, in accordance with business specificities, experience - based and technical knowledge, are necessary in order to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of workers. That obligation is irrespective of the capillary regulation under the industry - specific prevention rules of the European Union. If anything, the employee shall identify the reason for the prejudice caused to his or her physical or moral sphere because of noncompliance with precautionary rules, irrespective of whether they are laid down by specific mandatory provisions or are to be identified on a case – by - case basis. The company shall foresee risks and eliminate or mitigate them, from a transnational perspective focusing on the protection of work in the widest sense, of the environment and of fundamental rights, of course in case the interpretation of the new Directive proves in lines with the above questionable forecasts. First and foremost, compliance with the obligation relies on the rational understanding of threats and of the measures that are fit to fend them off and, then, on the adoption of suitable arrangements. As, in terms of value hierarchy, dignity and safety rank higher than profit, the company shall identify all the precautionary rules suggested by risk, without stopping at mere compliance with the single provisions. Actually, also where there is no express provision, the general expectations in terms of prudence shall in any case be complied with, along with all the necessary precautions, in accordance with technical and experience - based rules. Having regard to the prevention of occupational diseases and accidents, the obligation is very flexible as, on the one hand, it requires that risks be understood and, on the other hand, that all possible cautionary strategies be identified and adopted. Specifically, the company shall inform its conduct with acquisition of the best knowledge and experience. Essentially, the obligation is not fulfilled by simply complying with the legislation on prevention. Actually, the obligation is defaulted not only by breaching the set rules. Effective supervision is expected, with the only limit of anomalous and unforeseeable conducts of workers, which does not include imprudent and not abnormal conducts, especially if the conduct is allowed or facilitated by organizational gaps. The employee’s behaviour in causing the damage does not trigger liability only if it is abnormal, unforeseeable 79 THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DUE DILIGENCE DIRECTIVE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==