The Legal Studies Collection is the first of its kind to offer readers an English language compendium of contemporary legal research by scholars linked to Spanish Universities. The series, published by Tirant lo Blanch, will cover a wide range of topics and examine key aspects of the Spanish legal system as well as analysing the most important issues under debate in other jurisdictions. Each book will aim to present a thorough and incisive study of its subject, providing specialised material to legal academics. It is expected that the series will become a source of reference for law students and play a major part in fostering academic excellence in the study of Law.
LEGAL CHALLENGES OF THE XXI CENTURY
legal studies
LEGAL CHALLENGES OF THE XXI CENTURY Ángeles Solanes Corella Elena M. Górriz Royo (Directors)
Andrew O’Flynn Pablo Quinzá Redondo (Coordinators)
(Directors)
legal studies
Ángeles Solanes Corella Elena Górriz Royo
legal studies
legal studies
3
legal studies
This book presents original research papers which cover a range of topics representing some of the most pressing legal challenges of the new century. Readers can find valuable research not only in Public law, (specifically, Constitutional law, Legal History, Criminal law, Philosophy of Law or Administrative law) but also in Private law (more precisely in Civil law, Business law and International Private law). The School of Law of the University of Valencia (EG) is the first Law Faculty to launch such an initiative in Spain, and it opens a window to the Common law system and the study of its many institutions, categories and theories in all branches of the legal system. The publication of this book is vital in order to foster the process of internationalization and to promote the pursuit of excellence in the University.
LEGAL CHALLENGES OF THE XXI CENTURY
COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO DE LA EDITORIAL TIRANT LO BLANCH María José Añón Roig
Catedrática de Filosofía del Derecho de la Universidad de Valencia
Ana Cañizares Laso
Catedrática de Derecho Civil Universidad de Málaga
Jorge A. Cerdio Herrán
Catedrático de Teoría y Filosofía de Derecho. Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
José Ramón Cossío Díaz
Ministro de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de México
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
Juez de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM
Owen M. Fiss
Catedrático emérito de Teoría del Derecho de la Universidad de Yale (EEUU)
José Antonio García-Cruces González
Catedrático de Derecho Mercantil de la UNED
Luis López Guerra
Juez del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Catedrático de Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Ángel M. López y López
Catedrático de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Sevilla
Marta Lorente Sariñena
Catedrática de Historia del Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Javier de Lucas Martín
Catedrático de Filosofía del Derecho y Filosofía Política de la Universidad de Valencia
Víctor Moreno Catena
Catedrático de Derecho Procesal de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Francisco Muñoz Conde
Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla
Angelika Nussberger
Jueza del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Catedrática de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad de Colonia (Alemania)
Héctor Olasolo Alonso
Catedrático de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) y Presidente del Instituto Ibero-Americano de La Haya (Holanda)
Luciano Parejo Alfonso
Catedrático de Derecho Administrativo de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Tomás Sala Franco
Catedrático de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social de la Universidad de Valencia
Ignacio Sancho Gargallo
Magistrado de la Sala Primera (Civil) del Tribunal Supremo de España
Tomás S. Vives Antón
Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad de Valencia
Ruth Zimmerling
Catedrática de Ciencia Política de la Universidad de Mainz (Alemania)
Procedimiento de selección de originales, ver página web: www.tirant.net/index.php/editorial/procedimiento-de-seleccion-de-originales
LEGAL CHALLENGES OF THE XXI CENTURY
ÁNGELES SOLANES CORELLA ELENA M. GÓRRIZ ROYO (Directors)
ANDREW O’FLYNN PABLO QUINZÁ REDONDO (Coordinators)
Valencia, 2017
Copyright ® 2017 Todos los derechos reservados. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro puede reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento electrónico o mecánico, incluyendo fotocopia, grabación magnética, o cualquier almacenamiento de información y sistema de recuperación sin permiso escrito de los autores y del editor. En caso de erratas y actualizaciones, la Editorial Tirant lo Blanch publicará la pertinente corrección en la página web www.tirant.com. Este trabajo se ha realizado gracias al Servicio de Consultoría suscrito con la Secretaría General de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación, de la cual el Dr. Nicolás Rodríguez García ha sido el Coordinador Académico.
Directores de la colección: TOMÁS S. VIVES ANTÓN Catedrático de Derecho Penal Universidad de Valencia ELENA M. GÓRRIZ ROYO Titular de Derecho penal Universidad de Valencia
© Ángeles Solanes Corella Elena M. Górriz Royo y otros
© TIRANT LO BLANCH EDITA: TIRANT LO BLANCH C/ Artes Gráficas, 14 - 46010 - Valencia TELFS.: 96/361 00 48 - 50 FAX: 96/369 41 51 Email:tlb@tirant.com www.tirant.com Librería virtual: www.tirant.es ISBN: 978-84-9169-012-2 Si tiene alguna queja o sugerencia, envíenos un mail a: atencioncliente@tirant.com. En caso de no ser atendida su sugerencia, por favor, lea en www.tirant.net/index.php/empresa/politicas-de-empresa nuestro Procedimiento de quejas. Responsabilidad Social Corporativa: http://www.tiran.net/Docs/RSCTirant.pdf
Index Prologue........................................................................................ 9 María Elena Olmos Ortega
Introduction.................................................................................. 11 Ángeles Solanes Corella Elena M. Górriz Royo
A human rights perspective on the responsibility of transnational corporations: does Spain need a plan?.......................................... 13 Ángeles Solanes Corella
Involuntary actions in Criminal law: are sonambulism and other states of unconsiousness, cases of absence of action or temporary mental disorder?........................................................................... 33 Elena M. Górriz Royo
A new instrument governing international sucessions in the European Union: general overview and impact on Spanish legislation. 57 Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís
The UK, the EU and “Brexit”: 1972-2017.................................... 79 Antonio Bar Cendón
When shall we three meet again? Lady Macbeth, Murder and the Crime of Witchcraft. A tribute to Shakespeare on the 400th anniversary of his death....................................................................... 129 Pau Cuquerella i Miralles
Balancing cultural reproduction and cultural recognition in private schools: a human rights perspective....................................... 153 Pier-Luc Dupont
Landowners and Public Administration in England and Spain. A comparative view.......................................................................... 175 Ana María De la Encarnación
Private equity and leverage: towards an appropriate regulatory design........................................................................................... 187 Miguel Gimeno Ribes
8
Índice
The Relationship between European Human Rights Instruments and their Impact in Spain............................................................. 203 Luis Jimena Quesada
Choice of Law on Employees’ Intellectual Property Rights........... 217 Gyooho Lee
The impact of harmonized European Private Law and the acquis communautaire on national Law around Europe. (An approximation between Civil Law and Common Law)............................ 247 Luz M. Martínez Velencoso
The Need for a Secularized Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future. A Proposal to Unravel a Complex Issue in Western Society.. 299 Aniceto Masferrer
The Foreclosure of properties with securitised mortgages in Spain: the lack of legal entitlement of the originator to request foreclosure................................................................................................... 323 Andrew John O’Flynn
The EU regulation of 24 june 2016 in matters of matrimonial property regimes: a general overview............................................ 335 Pablo Quinzá Redondo
Corruption in Transition: Political Scandals and Privatisation in Serbia............................................................................................ 347 Marija Zurnić
PROLOGUE It is a great source of satisfaction for me to write the prologue to this book which collects articles from a prestigious group of lecturers and professors from the University of Valencia, as well as contributions from distinguished members of other Universities, all of whom were invited speakers at the series of lectures organised by the Legal Workshops programme of the Law Faculty in the academic year 2014/2015. This initiative, the only one of its kind in Spain, has been led by the Law Faculty of the University of Valencia, and seeks to further the goals of the internationalisation of the University and the pursuit of academic excellence. The articles collected here display the qualities of originality and rigourous analysis, and, in their respective fields of research, confront many of the challenges presented to legal scholars at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The authors of each article are experts in the study of these challenges in their native tongues, but by presenting their work in English they are sure to carry the debate beyond national borders to their counterparts in other jurisdictions. On a personal note I should like to congratulate the Law Faculty, through the work of Dr. Angeles Solanes, the Vice Dean of International Relations, and Dr Elena Górriz, for pioneering the publication of a collection of articles on new legal challenges in English, a language of crucial importance for contemporary legal scholars. Praise is also due for the quality of the work presented in this collection, and particularly in this respect to Mr Andrew O’Flynn for the correction of each of the articles that this work contains. The legal workshops provide an unprecedented forum for meetings and debate among legal scholars, and I am delighted that the present volume is only the first in a series to be published in the years to come.
MarĂa Elena Olmos Ortega Dean of the Faculty of Law The University of Valencia
INTRODUCTION Given the complex nature of a globalized world the need to internationalise our Universities, and particularly their Schools of Law, cannot be ignored. Although the Spanish language, as the second most widely spoken language in the world, provides our national Universities with a precious tool of communication, the search for excellence in both research and teaching also challenges us to forge contacts with other leading Universities, and many of the best of them are located in the English speaking world. With this aim, the School of Law at the University of Valencia has launched a number of programmes designed to strengthen the links with English-speaking Universities and foremost among these is a project to promote the use of English by scholars and professors. This project has organised an ongoing series of Legal Workshops, which are open to all the members of the University community. As a testament to the quality and diversity of these legal workshops, the lecturers who have taken part present in this volume their original presentations as research papers, and these cover a range of topics which, in our opinion, are representative of some of the most pressing legal challenges of the new century. The School of Law of the University of Valencia is the first Law Faculty to launch such an initiative in Spain and it is our hope that it will serve to promote the use of innovative methodologies within the academic field. Additionally, it opens up a window to the Common law system and the study of its many institutions, categories and theories. Given the broad usage of legal English as a work tool in the legal systems of numerous countries, this project not only has the effect of facilitating the contact with Common Law legal cultures, but also of strengthening the academic exchange programmes with lecturers all over the world. In this respect, the Legal Workshops of the School of Law have benefitted enormously from the participation of visiting scholars, namely, Prof. Gyooho Lee, (Chung Han University of Seoul) and Dr. Marija Zurnić (New Europe College-Centre for Advanced Study, Bucharest, Romania). In recognition of the importance of promoting the usage of English by our own academic staff, a large number of lecturers of the School of
12
Introduction
Law have taken part in the workshops. This book collects the presentations of Dr. Antonio Bar Cedón (Constitutional Law Chair Professor, UV and Jean Monnet ‘ad personam’), Dr. Luis Jimena Quesada (Chair professor of Constitutional law. UV), Dr. Aniceto Masferrer (lecturer in Legal History, UV), Dr. Luz Martínez (lecturer in Civil Law, UV), Dr. Carmen Azcárraga (lecturer in International Private Law, UV), Dr. Ana María Encarnación Valcacer (lecturer in Administrative law, UV), Dr. Pablo Quinzá Redondo (lecturer in International Private Law, UV), Dr. Miguel Gimeno Ribes (lecturer in Commercial Law, UV), Mr. PierLuc Dupont (Human Rights Institute Researcher, UV), Mr. Andrew O’Flynn (Commercial Law Department, UV) and Mr. Pau Cuquerella (School of Law, UV). We very much appreciate the support given by the hosts of each Legal Workshop. In this respect, we want to thank the participation of Prof. Vives Antón, Prof. Carlos Esplugues, Prof. J. M. Embid Irujo, Dr. Rosario Serra Cristobal, Prof. Emiliano Borja Jiménez, Dr. Rafael Marimón, Dr. Andrés Boix Palop, and Dr. Jaime Martí Miravalls. Last but not least, we would like to thank the coordinators of this book, Andrew O’Flynn and Pablo Quinzá Redondo, and in particular we would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Andrew O’Flynn, Research Fellow at the Business Law Department of the School of Law (UV), for his work in reviewing and correcting each of the papers presented here. We hope that this shall be only the first volume of a series of books that, as directors, we would like to organise in the future in collaboration with the visiting scholars and professors who shall be invited to present their research to the School of Law of the University of Valencia. We firmly believe that the initiative that has resulted in the publication of this book is vital in order to foster the process of internationalization, to encourage academic exchanges and to promote the pursuit of excellence in our University. Valencia, January 15th. 2017 Prof. Ángeles Solanes Corella Philosophy of Law Prof. Elena M. Górriz Royo Criminal Law
A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS: DOES SPAIN NEED A PLAN? ÁNGELES SOLANES CORELLA University of Valencia*
Summary: 1. INTRODUCTION; 2. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CORPORATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL; 3. THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL PLAN ON CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN SPAIN; 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS: PENDING ISSUES; BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. INTRODUCTION Today’s globalised economy requires corporations to transcend national borders in search of an increasingly deregulated market where exchanges take place quickly through information and communication technologies, which, in turn, function within an insufficiently defined legal space. The economic power wielded by many transnational corporations places them in a position that renders national and international standards nearly useless. Financial engineering, outsourcing and strategies of tax avoidance have caused many states to feel helpless when it comes to collecting the economic resources they need in order to implement redistribution policies favouring the most disadvantaged citizens (Aparicio, J. & Valdés, B., 2011, pp. 9-15). It is also essential to tackle the challenge posed by the fact that globali-
*
This paper was written as part of research project DER2015-65840-R (MINECO / FEDER) “Diversity and Conviviality: Human rights as guidelines for action”, funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund; and research project PROMETEO/2014/078 “Social justice, human rights enforcement and integration”, within the excellence research programme of the Valencian Government.
14
Ă ngeles Solanes Corella
sation often serves as an excuse for budget cuts and rights’ violations (De Lucas, J., 2008). If it is to avoid leaving the definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to the sole discretion of corporations driven by business interests, this whole process of possible change requires a number of modifications in their internal structure, based on a transformation of what is usually referred to as modes of governance. The new governance, unlike older models, is understood as polycentric in the sense that it is based on the premise that the state cannot tackle social challenges by itself, hence it needs the involvement of other actors. This perspective thus insists on responsible regulation, informal cooperation, public-private partnerships and multilateral processes, since the regulation of the activities of transnational corporations is essential (Ruggie, J. G., 2015). Corporate management and administration must not limit themselves to complying with legal requirements when shaping the social interest of the company in a way that looks beyond the strict interests of shareholders and considers those affected by the activity of the company. This amounts to a more deliberative and horizontal way of proceeding. The whole approach is not without challenges, such as those deriving from the internal structure of many corporations whose administrators are not even shareholders. This requires an emphasis on human rights as an essential point of reference when formulating corporate interests. Rights operate as a boundary based on ethical and legal criteria of good governance, both politically and economically. This is the only way of guaranteeing rights such as equality and non-discrimination, freedom of association, collective bargaining, the right to strike, protection of health and safety at work and fair pay, neutralising situations such as child labour, forced labour or human trafficking. In relation with these issues, there is an ongoing debate over whether corporate regulations should be binding or voluntary. The trend is toward a greater regulation by both states and supranational organisations (e.g. the European Union) in the definition of CSR. Society is expected to convey to corporations what should be understood as socially responsible.
A human rights perspective on the responsibility of transnational corporations
15
Halfway between legislative regulation and voluntariness (self-regulation and internal codes), we have witnessed the appearance of a formula called Global Framework Agreements. These are intermediate instruments of voluntary regulation, but broader in scope. GFA are defined as a “negotiated agreement between a transnational company and a global federation of unions in order to establish a relationship between the parties and ensure that a company abides by the same rules in all the countries where it operates. These rules and principles are generally related to workers’ rights, employment and other areas of corporate social responsibility that usually take the form of a relatively broad code” (Jiménez, J. C., 2007, pp. 114-130). Organisations like the ILO consider Global Framework Agreements to be an effective way of creating a shared context between corporations and workers, since they can incorporate principles drawn from different conventions and make it unnecessary to negotiate new labour standards, enhancing existing ones (Prandi, M., 2012, p. 54). Therefore, there is a general acceptance of the idea that investment decisions must incorporate criteria that are not strictly financial, an area in which environmental, social and corporate governance indices have gained increasing importance. The dissemination and use of indices or indicators such as FTSE4Good IBEX Index helps identify corporations in Spain’s IBEX 35 that meet the standards of good practice in corporate social responsibility and that work for environmental sustainability, the development of positive relationships with stakeholders, and the defence and support of human rights. The index is fully reviewed every six months, in March and September. This is known as an “extra-financial” analysis in existing practices of good governance, based on the growing awareness of the impact issues, such as climate change, can have on the value of corporations. Such a perspective involves recognising potential risks for society and the environment and, therefore, for human rights. Investors and corporations themselves acknowledge the added value that good practice of corporate responsibility may generate, beyond improving brand image. However, it remains difficult to overcome the traditional voluntarist interpretation of CSR and impose it beyond corporate self-regulation. Given the increasing importance of this issue, a process that can
16
Ángeles Solanes Corella
be considered as “multilateral” has taken shape, characterised by the emergence of initiatives and documents developed by corporations, social organisations and governments, which intends to offer guidelines for corporate practice (Campos, A., 2011, p. 51). Nevertheless, responsibility remains widely seen as voluntary and independent from legal regulation.
2. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CORPORATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL The decolonisation process led to a transformation in corporate practices and the terms of their relations, ushering in a different era that required new regulations (BURKE, R., 2010). The first attempts by the United Nations to regulate the activities of transnational corporations took place in the seventies but met with little success from the perspective of social responsibility (De Schutter, O., 2006). Various international organisations, such as the ILO and OECD, also contributed to the subsequent adoption of instruments relating to transnational corporations, although recognition of the human rights obligations of non-state actors still remained very limited (MartínOrtega, O., 2008, pp. 58-66). A turning point in this process was the Global Compact proposed in 1999 by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. This multilateral agreement insists that the private sector must cooperate with the United Nations in protecting human rights, the environment and the development of fair and equal labour relations (Rasche, A. / Kell, G., 2010). Based on international standards, this agreement lays down ten basic principles to be fulfilled in the medium and long term. They are organised in four pillars: human rights (corporations should support and respect the protection of international human rights and make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses), labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption. The implementation of the Pact received the collaboration of the International Labour Organization (ILO), mainly through the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.
A human rights perspective on the responsibility of transnational corporations
17
A decisive step toward the current context of CSR was the submission by John Gerard Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, of report A/HRC/8/5 of 7 April 2008 entitled “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, which rests on three basic pillars (Ruggie, J. G., 2013 and 2015): 1. The state’s duty to protect human rights: states must protect against violations of human rights committed within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including corporations. To this end, appropriate measures must be taken to prevent, investigate, punish and redress these abuses through appropriate policies, regulations and law enforcement. 2. Corporate responsibility must respect human rights: corporations must refrain from violating third parties’ human rights, and address the negative consequences on human rights caused in part by their activities. 3. Access to reparations: as part of their duty to protect against human rights’ violations related to business activities, states should take appropriate measures to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that when such abuses take place within their territory and/or jurisdiction, those affected may obtain effective remedies. The OECD has also been promoting CSR since 1972, when its Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were first issued. The guidelines were reviewed in 2000 and in 2011 the OECD made a remarkable effort to adapt them to new international developments, incorporating a section on human rights. In general, these guidelines can be seen as assuming the Ruggie principles by stating that, while states have an obligation to protect, corporations must respect human rights. However, the OECD guidelines do not sufficiently focus on a fundamental aspect of CSR, namely that which relates to the standard of due diligence. Indeed, this organisation does not emphatically assert the need for remedies in cases where due diligence activities do not avoid or minimise infringements of human rights (Martín-Ortega, O., 2013, pp. 11-13).
18
Ă ngeles Solanes Corella
As a necessary complement for the implementation of the Ruggie principles, the Human Rights Council created on 6 July 2011 (in the aforementioned A/HRC/17/4) the so-called Working Group. In June 2014, the UN gave a new momentum to CSR through the adoption by that Council of resolution 26/9, on the elaboration of a legally binding international instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. After decades of failed or partly frustrated UN attempts, this intends to promote a tool that could, in the long term and from a global perspective, achieve a greater protection and fulfilment of such rights. As the resolution stresses, states have the obligation and the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it is their duty to protect against violations of human rights taking place within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including transnational corporations. Therefore, assuming that the development of this international instrument must be progressive, it establishes an open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, with a mandate to develop a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other enterprises in international human rights law (GĂłmez, F., 2015). The first session of the aforementioned intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and human rights provided an opportunity to put forward, among other things, a number of concrete proposals to guide the development of the legally binding international instrument referred to in the resolution. Among them, eight key points may be underscored (Gaberell, L. / GonzĂĄlez, E., 2015): 1. Focusing on multinational corporations: trying to prevent them from escaping legal control by setting headquarters in states with more lenient rules on taxation, accountability and transparency. 2. Asserting the obligation to respect all human rights: in an attempt to vindicate their primacy. 3. Compelling states to protect human rights: promoting nationwide access to justice and redress for victims and affected communities and making a clear reference to extraterritorial obligations. 4. Reasserting the primacy of human rights over trade and investment agreements: on the one hand, the so-called free trade agreements
A human rights perspective on the responsibility of transnational corporations
19
have endowed transnational corporations with a special power; on the other hand, the possibility of recourse to international courts and arbitration and to investor-state resolution mechanisms is troubling as it allows large corporations to sue states to promote their private interests. 5. Establishing the civil and criminal liability of corporations and their executives: based on a double indictment principle under which both the legal person and the individuals who make the decisions may be liable, including joint and several liability. 6. Including obligations for international economic and financial institutions: paying particular attention to the economic policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other regional banks that may contribute to the impunity of transnational corporations. 7. Establishing international mechanisms to enforce the treaty: through the creation of a monitoring body, a public centre for the supervision of large corporations and a world court on human rights and transnational corporations. 8. Protecting negotiations from corporate influence: avoiding the dangerous confusion that can occur with the alliance between the United Nations and large corporations. In the European context, the discussion of issues of corporate social responsibility can be seen as having started, without the possibility of any backtracking, in 2001 with Green Paper (COM (2001) 366 final). The following year, the Commission issued a communication entitled Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development (COM (2002) 347 final), stating the principles of European action: the recognition of the voluntary nature of CSR; credibility and transparency in CSR practices; the focus on the activities in which Community intervention provides added value; a balanced and comprehensive approach to CSR, including economic, social and ecological aspects as well as the interests of consumers; attention to the needs and characteristics of SMEs; and the support and compatibility with existing international agreements (the core labour standards adopted by the ILO and the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations).
20
Ă ngeles Solanes Corella
The Commission proposed focusing on the following actions: raising awareness of the positive impact of social responsibility in business and society, both in Europe and the rest of the world, particularly in developing countries; promoting the exchange of experiences and good practices on CSR among corporations; promoting the development of management skills in the field of CSR; promoting the adoption of social responsibility practices among SMEs; facilitating the convergence and transparency of practices and instruments of social responsibility; and creating a multilateral forum at EU level, integrating CSR into Community policies. The contents of this communication were discussed in a second phase, under the so-called European Multistakeholder Forum on CSR. Created in 2002 and supported by the European Commission, the forum brought together representatives of business, unions, NGOs and others. Its initial result was the report of 29 June 2004. The conclusions of the forum of 3 and 4 February 2015 insist on the need to incorporate CSR into the DNA of companies, most of which accept the Guiding Principles of the UN. A new strategy for CSR may therefore continue to follow global principles and guidelines, but successive reports should not entail additional legislation increasing corporations’ fiscal burden. A European regional policy benchmark is found mainly in Directive 2014/95/UE of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 22 October 2014, amending Directive 2013/34/UE with regard to the disclosure of non-financial information and information on diversity by certain large corporations and groups. This amendment involves the insertion of two new articles, 19a and 29a, which respectively refer to non-financial statements and consolidated non-financial statements. Under these provisions, large corporations that are public interest entities and that, at the closing date of their balance sheet, exceed an average of 500 employees over the previous year, are required to include in the management report a non-financial statement containing the necessary information to understand the evolution, results and situation of the company, and the impact of their activity on environmental and social issues as well as staff, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption and bribery. These priorities are aligned with COM (2011), 681 final, of 25 October, which includes the renewed EU strategy 2011-2014 for cor-