Duty-of-Vigilance Litigation and Supplier Upgrading

Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation represents a profound normative transition from voluntary corporate social responsibility toward binding legal accountability across global value chains. The enactment of pioneer national instruments, particularly the French Duty of Vigilance Act, established mandatory risk identification and mitigation plans for lead multinational buyers [1]. This statutory evolution challenges classic doctrines of corporate personality by imposing transnational behavioral duties on lead enterprises regarding the operations of their foreign subsidiaries and contractual partners [7, 8]. Consequently, judicial proceedings under vigilance statutes have transformed corporate accountability into an active locus of legal contention, directly influencing operational norms throughout global supply structures [4].

However, significant frictions arise when judicial enforcement intersects with the complex industrial realities of transnational production networks. While litigation aims to deter exploitative practices and prevent systemic harms, empirical inquiries indicate that mandatory regulatory pressures produce uneven compliance incentives across different sustainability dimensions [6]. The judicialization of vigilance plans creates intricate liability exposures that alter lead firm procurement practices, frequently transferring cost burdens onto vulnerable suppliers in emerging economies [3, 6]. Furthermore, standing limitations, stringent burdens of proof, and evidentiary asymmetries continue to obstruct rightsholders in obtaining effective judicial remedy, raising fundamental questions regarding the ultimate impact of vigilance lawsuits on substantive working conditions and environmental standards [2, 3].

This dissertation investigates the structural mechanisms through which duty-of-vigilance litigation shapes supplier upgrading trajectories across transnational production networks. Employing a multi-jurisdictional doctrinal synthesis paired with global value chain governance theory, the study systematically traces how legal scrutiny and judicial claims against multinational enterprises permeate downstream and upstream contractual relationships [1, 5]. By comparing legal liabilities with supplier capability enhancements, this work evaluates the operational prerequisites necessary for judicial deterrence to foster durable social, environmental, and technological upgrading rather than defensive buyer disengagement [6, 7].

Ultimately, this doctoral research establishes an integrated framework that bridges judicial enforceability, corporate governance mechanisms, and sustainable industrial upgrading in international supply chains. Through an exhaustive examination of statutory requirements, court decisions, and institutional enforcement architectures, the study offers both theoretical contributions to international economic law and actionable guidance for developing balanced regulatory policies that reconcile legal accountability with equitable value chain development [2, 8].