In the recent past, European states have adopted mandatory due diligence (MDD) laws for holding companies accountable for the environmental and human rights impacts of their supply chains. The institutionalization of the international due diligence norm into domestic legislation has, however, been highly contested. Our contribution analyzes the discursive struggles about the meaning of due diligence that have accompanied the institutionalization of MDD in Germany and France. Based on document analysis and legal analysis of laws and law proposals, we identify a state-centric, a market-based, and a polycentric-governance discourse. These discourses are based on fundamentally different understandings of how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights should be translated into hard law. By outlining these discourses and comparing the related policy preferences, we contribute with a better understanding of different ways in which MDD is institutionalized, with important consequences for the possibilities to enhance corporate accountability in global supply chains.

中文翻译：

---

外国公司责任：法国和德国强制性尽职调查制度化的争议

最近，欧洲国家通过了强制性尽职调查（MDD）法，要求公司对其供应链的环境和人权影响负责。然而，将国际尽职调查规范纳入国内立法的制度化却引起了激烈的争议。我们的贡献分析了伴随德国和法国 MDD 制度化而发生的关于尽职调查含义的争论。基于文献分析以及对法律和法律提案的法律分析，我们确定了一种以国家为中心、以市场为基础、多中心的治理话语。这些论述基于对如何将《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》转化为硬法的根本不同理解。通过概述这些论述并比较相关政策偏好，我们有助于更好地理解 MDD 制度化的不同方式，这对增强全球供应链中企业责任的可能性产生重要影响。