Council of States rejects the counter-proposal to the group, responsibility

With 22 to 20 votes decided the small chamber on Tuesday, not on a bill. Now, the national Council on the train again. This had called for a counter-proposal.

With the statutory rules, to take the national Council, the group responsible initiative of the Wind out of the sails. Corporations should be liable for damage caused by you or your subsidiaries abroad.

disadvantages for the economy

The majority in the Council of States considered a regulation is unnecessary and harmful. With the rules proposed, the disadvantages that threatened the Swiss company big Ruedi Noser (FDP/ZH) warned. The Swiss economy would be forced out of many countries to withdraw.

The indirect counter-proposal is not a compromise, but it is basically a law for the implementation of the Initiative, criticized Noser – out of fear of the vote. This is the wrong way to go. Such "extreme" demands could be met with a resounding "no".

fear is a bad adviser

Beat Vonlanthen (CVP/FR) quoted from correspondence of the last days, the begat of fear before the vote. Fear is a bad counselor, he noted. He had been for a long time of the opinion, there is a need for a compromise. Now he had come to the conclusion that such was not to be found.

in Addition, I recognized the economy, the signs of the times a maximum, said Vonlanthen. So have the Swiss chocolate industry that in the long term, the entire offer come from sustainable production. The few black sheep would have to be held accountable. This is already possible today. With a new liability regime, in contrast, show trials against the Swiss company, threatened, to this than the elimination of competitors.

reputational risk for Switzerland

The proponents of a liability regime reminiscent of the scandals of the last time. That there is a Problem, is not to deny, said Robert Cramer (Greens/GE). This is also a reputational risk for Switzerland. Even the affected companies argued in favour of a counter-proposal. How to wait during the Bank's secret again on the great crisis would not be meaningful.

Christian Levrat (SP/FR) was, it should not be that a Swiss company has introduced a child labour and environmental pollution abroad. He also pointed to regulations in other countries. Furthermore, the SP President made it clear that he fears the referendum campaign to conduct A campaign, the machinations of corporations like Glencore or Nestlé to give him no trouble.

"Wind of change" blowing emphasized

Daniel Jositsch (SP/ZH), it is a matter of "the economy", but only to large, internationally active firms. As a representative of the Canton of Zurich spent in much good conditions for the company. However, the "wind of change" bubble in the direction of clean, environmentally friendly, human rights-compliant economy. "This is the future."

Anne Seydoux (CVP/JU) for a counter-proposal. The Argument that because of a few black sheep, no law should be enacted, not convince. With the same Argument, one could also dispense with the criminal law, gave them concerns.

ownership of the company

Behind the Initiative, charities, human rights and environmental organizations. The Federal Council saw no indirect counter-proposal. He Act put on the ownership, said Minister of justice, Karin Keller-Sutter. It is in the best interest of the economy, human rights and environmental standards. The discussed measures are not internationally coordinated.

The legal Commission of the Council of States had agreed to a counter-proposal, but heavily watered down. From the point of view of the founders, would be excluded with the Version of the Commission, in effect, that corporations could be held accountable. With the Version of the national Council, the founders could live with.

subsidiarity clause built

The Council of States Commission had installed a subsidiarity clause: The plaintiff should, as far as action is reasonable in the subsidiary, which has committed human rights or environmental law violation.

In the Version of the national Council of the counter-proposal provides that companies can be held liable if affiliates violate the foreign provisions for the protection of human rights and the environment, unless you can provide certain evidence.

Either the companies must demonstrate that they have met the due diligence measures, in order to prevent damage of this type. Or you must prove that you were not able to take on the behavior of the controlled company's influence. To apply this scheme for companies of a certain Size or with specific risks. (nag/sda)

Created: 12.03.2019, 12:12 PM