with the obligation to supervise should assess what noncompliance consisted in, what could or should have been done and how the act or omission determined or facilitated the damage occurrence. Therefore, if the plausible development can be imagined, the core of the protection provided for by Directive 2024 / 1760 / EU may be the determination of the precautionary rules, carried out later on by the courts, which shall reconstruct the material cause of the injury event and decide if and how its occurrence can be prevented, albeit with reasoning from an ex ante perspective. That being the case, it may be plausible to assume a case law stance overall unfavourable to companies; although the prognostic assessment is to be made (in theory) ex ante, it is a different matter wondering whether the prejudicial act could have been prevented after it was perpetrated, and a different matter again is the adoption on a preventive basis of each appropriate measure, in the hectic business competition, all the more so having to consider events that occurred thousands of miles away from where the parent company is based and with the involvement of suppliers. The court’s standpoint may be the ex - ante one; however, in an unamendable manner, its considerations may be influenced by the fact that it steps in ex post, not so much for any understandable sympathy for the injured party, but rather because it is very difficult to assess prevention once it has proved insufficient. Cautionary rules are more evident when the damage is caused and less so when the company wonders about its future, about what may happen but has not yet occurred. At the first stage, in terms of objective identification of the precautionary rules, it must be assessed if and how the harmful event could be prevented and, therefore, the line of reasoning remains in the cause - effect context. In this regard, it must be assessed what caused the damaged and whether there was a way to eliminate the risk. The precautionary rules shall be assessed in accordance with the most complete and up – to - date knowledge. The protection level cannot depend on practices, which the new Directive intends to improve; what is usually done is of no consequence. The point is whether the damage could be prevented. People shall never rank lower than market logics. If these provisions are implemented, the overall organization of companies, including tourism ones, would be materially influenced, albeit in the long term. 81 THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DUE DILIGENCE DIRECTIVE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==