Federal popular initiative "For responsible companies - to protect people and the environment"

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flag for the initiative in Schaffhausen

The federal popular initiative “For responsible companies - for the protection of people and the environment” (also known as Corporate Responsibility Initiative , KOVI or KVI for short) was a popular initiative in Switzerland .

The initiative demanded that corporations based in Switzerland also have to respect human rights and international environmental standards outside of Switzerland. To this end, corporations should be made liable for human rights violations and disregard of binding environmental standards; regardless of where the corresponding actions took place.

In the referendum on November 29, 2020, the initiative achieved a majority of the people with around 50.7% yes votes , but failed because of the also required number of cantons . The group responsibility initiative was only the second popular initiative in the history of the Swiss federal state that was rejected because of the majority of the cantons.

The initiative

aims

On the one hand, the initiative was intended to better protect people in developing countries against abuse. On the other hand, it should prevent Switzerland's reputation from being damaged by the misconduct of individual corporations. Opponents of the initiative argued that states are responsible for enforcing human rights, not companies.

The initiative required corporations to take into account the protection of people and the environment, something that industry had also agreed internationally since the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights . The initiative stipulated that companies identify risks to people and the environment in their business activities by means of a due diligence check, take countermeasures and publicly report on the risks and measures taken.

The initiators assumed that the injured parties bear the burden of proof for the existence of an actual control relationship, the unlawfulness, the damage and the causal relationship, while the company has to provide evidence of the care taken due to the proposed reversal of the burden of proof.

Initiative Committee

Around 130 organizations were members of the sponsoring association of the corporate responsibility initiative. The co-presidency of the initiative committee consisted of the former prosecutor and Ticino old Senate Dick Marty ( FDP ) and the law professor Monika Roth . The initiative committee consisted of a total of 23 people, including:

Initiative text

The Federal Constitution 1 is amended as follows:

Art. 101a Corporate responsibility

1 The Confederation takes measures to strengthen respect for human rights and the environment by businesses.

2 The law regulates the obligations of companies with a registered office, head office or main branch in Switzerland according to the following principles:

a. Companies abroad must also respect internationally recognized human rights and international environmental standards; They have to ensure that internationally recognized human rights and international environmental standards are also respected by the companies they control; Whether one company controls another depends on the actual circumstances; control can in fact also take place through the exercise of economic power;
b. Companies are obliged to carry out an appropriate due diligence process; In particular, they are obliged to determine the actual and potential effects on internationally recognized human rights and the environment, to take suitable measures to prevent violations of internationally recognized human rights and international environmental standards, to put an end to existing violations and to be accountable for measures taken; these obligations apply to controlled companies and to all business relationships; the scope of these due diligence checks depends on the risks in the areas of human rights and the environment; When regulating the duty of due diligence, the legislator takes into account the needs of small and medium-sized companies that have low such risks;
c. The companies are also liable for the damage that companies controlled by them have caused due to the violation of internationally recognized human rights or international environmental standards in the course of their business activities; they are not liable under this provision if they can prove that they have taken all due care in accordance with letter b to prevent the damage or that the damage would have occurred if this care had been exercised;
d. The provisions issued on the basis of the principles under letters a – c apply regardless of the law defined by private international law.

1 SR 101

history

Emergence

A coalition of 50 development and human rights organizations, environmental and women's associations, trade unions, church groups and critical shareholder associations launched the “Law without Frontiers” campaign in November 2011. By mid-2012, 135,000 people had signed a petition demanding that the Federal Council and Parliament draw up a law according to which companies based in Switzerland must respect human rights and environmental standards all over the world.

Ruggie strategy for Switzerland

At the same time as the petition was submitted, five MEPs submitted parliamentary proposals, including a postulate in June 2012 that required the Federal Council to work out a Ruggie strategy for Switzerland, i.e. a national action plan to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, like them adopted unanimously by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011. On December 14, 2012, the postulate was narrowly accepted by the National Council, and this National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights (NAP) was published in December 2016.

The Federal Council's NAP did not propose any new, legally binding measures, instead it reiterated that it was up to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of companies to ensure compliance with human rights and environmental standards.

Launch of a popular initiative

On April 21, 2015, the corporate responsibility initiative was launched by over 60 NGOs. On October 10, 2016, the popular initiative “For responsible companies to protect people and the environment” was submitted with 120,418 valid signatures, and on November 1, 2016, the Federal Chancellery declared it to have come about.

Federal and parliamentary deliberations

The Federal Council requested the Parliament in autumn 2017 in his message , the initiative without a counter-proposal to be recommended for rejection. In its message, the Federal Council recognized the initiators' concerns as justified, but justified its rejection with the fact that the initiative went too far with the liability rules.

Unlike the government, the legal commissions of the Council of States and the National Council came out in favor of working out a counterproposal. The National Council followed its commission on June 14, 2018 and passed a draft law as an indirect counter-proposal to the initiative. The initiative committee then held out the prospect that it would withdraw the referendum if the proposal were not watered down in the Council of States. Without the detour via a constitutional amendment by popular initiative, legal regulations could come into force much faster, which is in the interests of those affected by human rights violations.

With a majority of 22 to 20 votes, the Council of States decided in March 2019 neither to respond to the National Council's counter-proposal nor to the counter-proposal of its own preliminary advisory commission. The business went back to the National Council. On June 13, 2019, the latter decided with 109 to 69 votes to hold on to the indirect counter-proposal to the corporate responsibility initiative.

In its meeting on August 14, 2019, the Federal Council decided to advocate a proposal in the parliamentary debate on the indirect counterproposal that includes the obligation to report on sustainability on respect for human rights and environmental protection, but no liability rules that go beyond the previously applicable rules go out. On December 18, 2019, the Council of States voted 25 to 13 in favor of a counter-proposal without liability rules.

International context

In the course of the unanimously adopted UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , various countries have included a duty of care in laws; some of these regulations relate to specific sectors, products or geographical zones. In Germany, an initiative calls for a legal regulation on corporate responsibility called the Supply Chain Act . In addition, the jurisprudence in various states is constantly developing.

Positions and voting campaigns

French flag for the corporate responsibility initiative
Flag on the bell tower of the Pauluskirche in Bern

The group responsibility initiative was coordinated by an association of the same name, which, according to its own statements, consisted of “130 aid organizations, women's, human rights and environmental organizations, church, cooperative and trade union associations and shareholder associations”, including Amnesty International , Greenpeace and WWF . In addition to the initiative committee, other people spoke out in favor of the popular initiative, such as the Bern mayor Alec von Graffenried , Bishop Felix Gmür and former Federal Councilor Ruth Dreifuss . In addition, around 450 so-called local committees had formed across all parts of the country to support the initiative. The Group Responsibility Initiative Association anticipated a donation-financed budget of 1.3 million Swiss francs for the voting campaign.

The initiative was also supported in the voting campaign by an economic committee, a civic committee and an independent church campaign. The political movement Operation Libero had also spoken out in favor of the corporate responsibility initiative.

In October 2020, the Swiss Green Party and the Green Liberal Party passed the yes slogan. Even Bio Suisse , Pro Natura , GSoA and VPOD stood behind the initiative. The yes slogan was also decided by the parties BDP , EDU , EVP , MCG and SPS as well as by the sections CVP BE, GE, TG, UR , JCVP CH, ZH , JFDP SH and SVP Unterwallis . CVP GL and GR have decided to release votes.

The group responsibility initiative was fought primarily by the business umbrella organization Economiesuisse and the group association Swissholdings . According to media reports, Economiesuisse planned to invest up to eight million francs in the counter-campaign. The communications agency furrerhugi was commissioned with the campaign management . In January 2020, furrerhugi published a so-called “fact check” on behalf of the business liberal movement succèSuisse , which was developed with the advice of the TX Group media group and is advertised on their online media. In addition, the no-slogan was also passed by the Chamber of Agriculture (LAKA) of the Swiss Farmers' Association . The bourgeois parties FDP, SVP and CVP have also passed the no slogan in the majority of their sections. The initiative was also rejected by Chocosuisse . The No Committee thought the initiative was anti-business.

Referendum

Voting results by cantons

The initiative came to the people and the estates on November 29, 2020. The Swiss people approved the initiative with a narrow majority of 50.73% yes votes ( people's majority ). However, the initiative failed because of the cantons .

  • Yes (8 1 ⁄ 2 stands)
  • No ( 12 5 ⁄ 2  stands)
    • «Corporate Responsibility Initiative» - preliminary official final results
    Canton Yes (%) No (%) Participation (%)
    Kanton AargauKanton Aargau Aargau 43.07% 56.93% 43.15%
    Canton of Appenzell AusserrhodenCanton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden Appenzell Ausserrhoden 43.48% 56.52% 50.65%
    Canton of Appenzell InnerrhodenCanton of Appenzell Innerrhoden Appenzell Innerrhoden 34.98% 65.02% 41.59%
    Canton of Basel-CountryCanton of Basel-Country Basel-Country 47.54% 52.46% 45.73%
    Canton of Basel-StadtCanton of Basel-Stadt Basel city 61.93% 38.07% 55.21%
    Canton BernCanton Bern Bern 54.60% 45.40% 48.27%
    Canton of FriborgCanton of Friborg Freiburg 56.56% 43.44% 45.06%
    Canton of GenevaCanton of Geneva Geneva 64.16% 35.84% 45.64%
    Canton of GlarusCanton of Glarus Glarus 47.14% 52.86% 40.24%
    canton of Grisonscanton of Grisons Grisons 45.79% 54.21% 43.83%
    Canton of JuraCanton of Jura law 68.69% 31.31% 40.46%
    Canton lucerneCanton lucerne Lucerne 44.09% 55.91% 47.80%
    Canton of NeuchâtelCanton of Neuchâtel Neuchâtel 64.60% 35.40% 41.03%
    Canton of NidwaldenCanton of Nidwalden Nidwalden 32.20% 67.80% 50.63%
    Canton of ObwaldenCanton of Obwalden Obwalden 36.20% 63.80% 49.56%
    Canton of SchaffhausenCanton of Schaffhausen Schaffhausen 47.24% 52.76% 66.22%
    Canton of SchwyzCanton of Schwyz Schwyz 31.57% 68.43% 47.13%
    Canton of SolothurnCanton of Solothurn Solothurn 43.83% 56.17% 45.72%
    Canton of St. GallenCanton of St. Gallen St. Gallen 42.32% 57.68% 45.46%
    Canton of TicinoCanton of Ticino Ticino 54.16% 45.84% 43.40%
    Canton of ThurgauCanton of Thurgau Thurgau 42.35% 57.65% 44.39%
    Canton of UriCanton of Uri Uri 41.47% 58.53% 44.74%
    Canton of VaudCanton of Vaud Vaud 59.84% 40.16% 46.65%
    Canton of ValaisCanton of Valais Valais 44.71% 55.29% 45.78%
    Canton of ZugCanton of Zug train 35.24% 64.76% 55.99%
    Canton ZurichCanton Zurich Zurich 52.83% 47.17% 49.99%
    Federal coat of arms ÜÜÜSwiss Confederation 50.73% 49.27% 47.02%

    See also

    literature

    • Ellen Hertz, Yvan Schulz: Business and Human Rights. The limits of goodwill , Seismo, Zurich 2020, ISBN 978-3-03777-241-6 .

    Web links

    Commons : Federal popular initiative “For responsible companies - to protect people and the environment”  - collection of images, videos and audio files

    To the initiative

    Pro campaigns

    Counter-proposal, counter-campaigns, critics

    Movies

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ Jann Lienhart: Stands more: when a No from Uri is 31 times more effective than a Yes from Zurich. In: nzz.ch. November 30, 2020, accessed November 30, 2020 .
    2. ↑ Dick Marty, Justice Instead of Alms . Day indicator. March 11, 2019. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
    3. ↑ Christoph Krummenacher: FDP divided on sense and nonsense of the group initiative . nau.ch. March 27, 2019. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
    4. ↑ Guiding principles for business and human rights, implementation of the framework of the United Nations "Protection, Respect and Remedy", Berlin 2013 (PDF)
    5. ↑ Melanie Huber-Lehmann, Frauke Renz: Liability litigation due to human rights violations abroad procedural hurdles of the corporate responsibility initiative , in: jusletter , August 20, 2018 (access behind Paywall). Burden of proof according to Art. 8 of the Civil Code
    6. ↑ a b organizations. In: konzern-initiative.ch. Retrieved November 24, 2020 .
    7. ↑ Personalities. In: Group Initiative. Retrieved on March 27, 2019 (German).
    8. ^ SR = Systematic Legal Collection , SR 101 = Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation
    9. ↑ Hold the Federal Council accountable now! In: www.rechtohnegrenzen.ch. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    10. ↑ postulate 12.3503. In: parlament.ch. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    11. ^ Report on the Swiss strategy for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, report of the Federal Council in compliance with Postulate 12.3503, Alec von Graffenried, dated December 9, 2016 (PDF)
    12. ↑ BBl 2016 8107
    13. ↑ BBl 2017 6335
    14. ↑ 17.060 Message on the popular initiative “For responsible companies - to protect people and the environment” from September 15, 2017 (PDF)
    15. ↑ Commission decides on an indirect alternative to the corporate responsibility initiative. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    16. ↑ National Council wants to hold corporations accountable. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    17. ↑ Council of States rejects counter-proposal on corporate responsibility. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    18. ↑ Group responsibility initiative: National Council for counter-proposal - radio. Retrieved August 14, 2019 .
    19. ↑ Corporate Responsibility - The Unusual Maneuver of the Federal Council. August 14, 2019, accessed August 24, 2019 .
    20. ↑ Swiss companies should report on compliance with human rights and environmental protection standards. In: admin.ch. August 14, 2019, accessed August 14, 2019 .
    21. ↑ Council of States does not want any liability rules for corporations . In: Tages-Anzeiger . December 18, 2019, ISSN  1422-9994 ( tagesanzeiger.ch [accessed December 25, 2019]).
    22. ↑ Official Bulletin. Retrieved December 25, 2019 .
    23. ↑ Initiative Supply Chain Act: Initiative Supply Chain Act. Retrieved July 15, 2020 .
    24. ↑ Expert opinion on principal liability for controlled companies, Germany, England, France, Holland, Canada, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law, 2019 (PDF)
    25. ↑ Business & Human Rights in Law. Retrieved on August 14, 2019 .
    26. ↑ Personalities. In: konzern-initiative.ch. Retrieved January 5, 2020 .
    27. ↑ Local Committees. In: konzern-initiative.ch. Retrieved November 24, 2020 .
    28. ↑ a b c Christoph Krummenacher: Millionaire battle for corporate initiative: initiators beg for money. In: nau.ch. October 24, 2019, accessed January 5, 2020 .
    29. ↑ a b c Florence Vuichard: Economiesuisse plans million dollar campaign with Furrerhugi. In: handelszeitung.ch. October 24, 2019, accessed January 5, 2020 .
    30. ↑ Economic Committee for Responsible Business. Retrieved January 5, 2020 .
    31. ↑ a b Lisa Aeschlimann: Bourgeois support group initiative. In: tagesanzeiger.ch. September 20, 2019, accessed January 5, 2020 .
    32. ↑ Civil Committee for Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved January 5, 2020 .
    33. ^ Church for Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved January 5, 2020 .
    34. ↑ Council of States on Kovi: Chance missed. In: operation-libero.ch. December 18, 2019, accessed January 5, 2020 .
    35. ↑ GRÜNE adopt reform agenda for the agriculture and food industry 2021. In: gruene.ch. October 24, 2020, accessed October 25, 2020 .
    36. ↑ Green liberals decide yes slogan to the corporate responsibility initiative. In: grunliberale.ch. October 17, 2020, accessed October 25, 2020 .
    37. ↑ Group responsibility initiative YES. In: bio-suisse.ch. Retrieved November 7, 2020 .
    38. ↑ a b c Group responsibility initiative. In: swissvotes.ch. Retrieved November 20, 2020 .
    39. ↑ Elia Blülle: «Also read our fact check on this». In: republik.ch. January 29, 2020, accessed February 12, 2020 .
    40. ^ Swiss Farmers' Association: Chamber of Agriculture supports suspension of agricultural policy 22+. September 21, 2020, accessed October 8, 2020.
    41. ↑ Corporate responsibility: The Swiss chocolate manufacturers support Parliament's counter-proposal and reject the initiative. In: chocosuisse.ch. November 20, 2020, accessed November 21, 2020 .
    42. ↑ No-committee
    43. ↑ Voting templates for November 29, 2020. In: admin.ch. July 1, 2020, accessed July 15, 2020 .
    44. ↑ a b Template No. 636 - Provisional official result. Federal Chancellery, November 29, 2020, accessed on November 29, 2013 .