The first frameworks defining standards of human rights protection specifically for business enterprises were non-binding “soft law” like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In recent times, a “hardening” of corporate human rights law has taken place. Several acts of “hard law” have been implemented at a national and EU level. This article provides an overview of the most important ones. The “hard law” provisions differ in their scope: some obligate companies to report on human rights, others stipulate concrete obligations to conduct human rights due diligence. Another way of tackling the issue of human rights compliance has been demonstrated by the prosecution of companies in the United States. While procedural guidelines abstractly stipulate an effective compliance system to be a mitigating factor, the US Department of Justice regularly defines concrete compliance obligations in deferred or non-prosecution agreements. This development could lead to comprehensive liability for negligence due to organisational and monitoring deficiencies. But who defines the standards? This article examines how the changing practice of human rights compliance may have “feedback effects” on hard law, particularly by changing the scale of negligence. Regarding the lack of effectiveness of some due diligence measures, especially in the “certification industry”, it is then asked how legislation may proactively exert influence by defining effective CSR instruments necessary to prevent civil and criminal liability. Using the example of German law, a proposal is made to implement an obligation of human rights due diligence in “hard law” and, simultaneously, set up an independent expert commission that drafts guidelines specifying the necessary measures for different kinds of companies.

中文翻译：

---

企业责任面貌的变化——新硬法与软法影响日益扩大

第一个专门为工商企业定义人权保护标准的框架是不具约束力的“软法”，如联合国商业与人权指导原则。最近，公司人权法的“强化”已经发生。一些“硬法”法案已在国家和欧盟层面实施。本文概述了最重要的内容。“硬法”条款的范围有所不同：一些公司有义务报告人权，另一些则规定了进行人权尽职调查的具体义务。对美国公司的起诉证明了解决遵守人权问题的另一种方法。虽然程序指南抽象地规定了有效的合规体系是一个缓解因素，美国司法部定期在延期或不起诉协议中定义具体的合规义务。由于组织和监控缺陷，这种发展可能导致对疏忽的全面责任。但是谁来定义标准？本文探讨了不断变化的人权遵守实践如何对硬法产生“反馈效应”，特别是通过改变疏忽的规模。关于一些尽职调查措施缺乏有效性，特别是在“认证行业”，然后询问立法如何通过定义有效的 CSR 工具来预防民事和刑事责任，从而主动施加影响。以德国法律为例，提议在“硬法”中履行人权尽责义务，同时，