Hardening soft law – The regulatory trilemma of CSR in the EU’s TCLF sector

Z prawa miękkiego w twarde – trilemat regulacyjny CSR w europejskim sektorze TCLF

This article examines the evolving legal nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the European Union (EU), focusing on the textile, clothing, leather and footwear (TCLF) sector. Analysing legal and policy developments, it argues that the legal architecture of CSR has become pluralistic and hybrid. Once conceived as voluntary conduct beyond legal mandate, CSR is undergoing a “hardening” through which soft-law norms and societal expectations crystallise into binding obligations. Frameworks from legal sociology and regulation studies – legal pluralism, reflexive law, autopoiesis, meta-regulation and the regulatory trilemma – illuminate this shift. The analysis highlights EU initiatives such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and national laws (France’s Loi de Vigilance, Germany’s Supply Chain Act) that embed CSR into formal legislation. In the TCLF sector, new rules compel firms to internalise social and environmental responsibilities across their supply chains. This hybrid governance seeks to strengthen accountability while preserving flexibility. CSR in the EU has no single doctrinal source or fixed legal status; it exists at the dynamic interface of hard and soft law across global, regional and national levels, raising key questions about normative coherence and the role of stakeholders in enforcing corporate accountability.

Artykuł analizuje ewolucję prawnej natury społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu (CSR) w Unii Europejskiej (UE) z uwzględnieniem sektora tekstylnego, odzieżowego, skórzanego i obuwniczego (TCLF). Analiza regulacji i polityk publicznych wykazuje, że architektura prawna CSR staje się pluralistyczna i hybrydowa. CSR, pierwotnie postrzegany jako dobrowolne działanie wykraczające poza wymogi prawne, przechodzi proces „hartowania”, w którym normy soft law i oczekiwania społeczne przekształcają się w wiążące obowiązki. Wykorzystano teorie socjologii prawa i regulacji – m.in. pluralizm prawny, prawo refleksyjne, autopoiesis, meta-regulację i trilemat regulacyjny. Analiza obejmuje unijne dyrektywy w sprawie sprawozdawczości przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz w sprawie należytej staranności przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju, a także regulacje krajowe (francuską Loi de Vigilance i niemiecką ustawę o łańcuchu dostaw), które włączają zasady CSR do prawa obowiązującego. W sektorze TCLF nowe przepisy nakładają obowiązek uwzględniania odpowiedzialności społecznej i środowiskowej w łańcuchach dostaw. Hybrydowe podejście regulacyjne ma zwiększyć odpowiedzialność korporacyjną przy zachowaniu elastyczności. CSR w UE nie ma jednolitego źródła doktrynalnego ani ustalonego statusu prawnego; istnieje na granicy hard i soft law na poziomie globalnym, regionalnym i krajowym, co rodzi pytania o spójność norm i rolę interesariuszy w egzekwowaniu odpowiedzialności.

References/Bibliografia

Addink, H. (2019). The Principle of Human Rights: Good Governance – Concept and Context. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841159.003.0012

Baxi, U. V. (2016). Some newly emergent geographies of injustice: Boundaries and borders in international law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 23(1), Article 2. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol23/iss1/2

Buhmann, K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: What role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700610655187

Buhmann, K., Roseberry, L., & Morsing, M. (2011). Corporate Social and Human Rights Responsibilities: Global, Legal and Management Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

Casey, D., & Scott, C. (2011). The crystallization of regulatory norms. Journal of Law and Society, 38(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00535.x

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. (2016). Human rights and business – Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member states. https://edoc.coe.int/en/fundamental-freedoms/7302-human-rights-and-business-recommendation-cmrec20163-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states.html

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directives 2004/109/EC, 2006/43/EC and 2013/34/EU as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Official Journal of the European Union L 322/15, 16.12.2022.

Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Official Journal of the European Union L 330/1, 15.11.2014.

Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence. Official Journal of the European Union L 2024/1760, 5.07.2024.

Directive (EU) 2025/794 of 14 April 2025 amending Directives (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards the dates from which Member States are to apply certain sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence requirements. Official Journal of the European Union L 2025/794, 16.04.2025.

Friedman, L., & Hayden, M. (2016). Law: Formal and Informal. Oxford University Press.

Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (2009). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.

Jimenez, G. C. (2014). A survey of fashion law. In G. C. Jimenez, & B. Kolsun (Eds.) Fashion Law. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kurowski, M. (2025). Społeczna odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw w zarządzaniu łańcuchem dostaw. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz [Supply Chain Due Diligence Act]. (2021). Bundesgesetzblatt, I, 2959.

Loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre. Journal officiel de la République française, 28 March 2017.

LPP S.A. (2024). Modern slavery statement 2024. https://wwwlpp62711ea95a.blob.core.windows.net/blobwwwlpp62711ea95a/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/LPP-Modern-Slavery-Statement-2024-EN.pdf

Luhmann, N. (2018). Some problems with “reflexive law”. In A. Febbrajo (Ed.), Law, Legal Culture and Society: Mirrored Identities of the Legal Order (184–200). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351040341

Machowicz, K. (2019). The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in the environment of a knowledge-based economy – Institutional support by the Council of Europe. Wschód Europy – Восток Европы – East of Europe, 5(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.17951/we.2019.5.2.99-107

McBarnet, D., Voiculescu, A., & Campbell, T. (Eds.). (2007). The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law. Cambridge University Press.

Muchlinski, P. (2012). Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 145–177. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20122218

Nolan, J. (2018). Hardening soft law: Are the emerging corporate social disclosure laws capable of generating substantive compliance with human rights? Brazilian Journal of International Law, 18–62. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3251087

Nolan, J., & Bott, G. (2018). Global supply chains and human rights: Spotlight on forced labour and modern slavery practices. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 24(1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2018.1441610

OECD. (2023). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en

Oleksyn-Wajda, A., & Jankowska, M. (2019). Redukcja emisji gazów cieplarnianych jako nowa strategia IP w branży mody. Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego, (2), 24–32. https://doi.org/1033226/0137-5490.2019.2.3

Oplustil, K., & Weber, A. (2024). Należyta staranność przedsiębiorstw jako element zrównoważonego ładu korporacyjnego – dyrektywa CS3D i jej wpływ na obowiązki i odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, (11).

Orts, E. W. (1995). A reflexive model of environmental regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(4), 779–794.

Parker, C. (2007). Meta-regulation: Legal accountability for corporate social responsibility. In D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu, & T. Campbell (Eds.), The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law (207–237). Cambridge University Press.

Parker, C., & Braithwaite, J. (2005). Regulation. In M. Tushnet & P. Cane (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199248179.013.0007

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row.

Scafidi, S. (2012). Fiat fashion law! The launch of a label – and a new branch of law. In Navigating Fashion Law: Leading Lawyers on Exploring the Trends, Cases, and Strategies of Fashion Law (p. 10). Aspatore.

Scafidi, S. (2015). Introduction: Fashion law triumphant – Designing success in a new legal field. In Navigating Fashion Law. Aspatore.

Tarquinio, L., & Posadas, S. C. (2020). Exploring the term “non-financial information”: An academics’ view. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(5), 727–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2019-0602

Terpan, F. (2015). Soft law in the European Union. European Law Journal, 21, 68–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12090

Teubner, G. (1983). Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law & Society Review, 17(2), 239–285.

Teubner, G. (1985). Corporate fiduciary duties and their beneficiaries: A functional approach to the legal institutionalization of corporate responsibility. In K. J. Hopt & G. Teubner (Eds.), Corporate Governance and Directors’ Liabilities: Legal, Economic, and Sociological Analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility. De Gruyter.

Teubner, G. (2004). Societal constitutionalism: Alternatives to state-centred constitutional theory? In C. Joerges, I. J. Sand, & G. Teubner (Eds.), Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism. Bloomsbury Academic.

Trubek, D. M., Cottrell, M. P., & Nance, M. (2005). “Soft law,” “hard law,” and European integration: Toward a theory of hybridity. University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1002. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.855447

United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework (HR/PUB/11/04).