Povzetek: Februarja 2022 je Komisija predlagala daljnosežno in celovito Direktivo o skrbnem pregledu v podjetjih glede trajnosti ("Direktiva"). Prispevek obravnava Direktivo, jo primerja s prizadevanji za trajnost v ZDA ter ponuja dognanja in kritike tako glede Direktive kot tudi zakonodaje ZDA. Primerjava razkrije več osnovnih ugotovitev. Verjetno zaradi precej različnih družbenih in političnih kultur Direktiva daleč presega vsa prizadevanja ZDA za trajnost. Zaradi tega je tudi del hitro napredujočega trajnostnega okvira EU, ki trajnost sprejema kot samostojen cilj. V ZDA pa so vidiki trajnosti skoraj vedno uokvirjeni znotraj finančne paradigme, kar moti politične razprave in zavira regulativna prizadevanja. Direktiva se uporablja za gospodarske družbe glede na njihovo velikost in panogo. Uveljavitev pravila s podobnim dosegom bi bila v ZDA težavna, ker sta korporacijsko pravo in pravo vrednostnih papirjev, na katerih bi najverjetneje temeljile obveznosti glede trajnosti, jurisdikcijsko razdrobljena. Navsezadnje so ZDA za razliko od svoje običajne omahljivosti na tem področju pred desetletjem eksperimentirale s potrebno skrbnostjo o človekovih pravicah s t. i. pravilom o konfliktnih mineralih. Pravilo ni uspelo zaradi vrste razlogov - političnih, strukturnih in regulativnih -, ki še vedno odmevajo in so razlog za previdnost glede potenciala Direktive, da znatno izboljša človekove pravice.
Ključne besede: Direktiva o skrbnem pregledu v podjetjih glede trajnosti, trajnost, potrebna skrbnost, primerjalno pravo, primat delničarjev, teorija deležnikov, pravilo o konfliktnih mineralih, direktorjeve dolžnosti
Abstract: In February 2022, the European Commission proposed a far-reaching and comprehensive directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (the "Directive"). This Article describes the Directive, compares it to sustainability efforts in the US, and offers observations and critiques about both the Directive and US law. The comparison reveals several primary takeaways. First, likely owing to their significantly different social and political cultures, the EU Directive goes far beyond any US sustainability efforts. Second, and relatedly, the Directive is part of a rapidly progressing EU sustainability framework, which embraces sustainability as a stand-alone goal. In the US, however, considerations of sustainability are almost always framed within a financial paradigm, which distracts policy discussions and stalls regulatory efforts. Third, the Directive applies to companies based on size and industry. Enacting a rule with similar coverage would be difficult in the US because the corporate and securities laws on which sustainability obligations would most likely be based are jurisdictionally fragmented. Finally, in a departure from its usual hesitancy in the area, the US experimented with human-rights due diligence a decade ago, with the so-called conflict minerals rule. The rule failed for a range of reasons-political, structural, and regulatory-which still resonate and provide grounds for caution about the potential of the Directive to significantly improve human rights.
Keywords: EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, sustainability, due diligence, comparative law, shareholder primacy, stakeholder theory, conflict minerals rule, fiduciary duties
