Search results

The authors have examined the developments in law and in practice concerning integrated reporting. An integrated report combines the most material elements of information about corporate performance (re: financial, governance, social and environmental functioning) – currently reported in separate reports – into one coherent whole. The authors first explore the motivation of companies and legislators to introduce integrating reporting. Next, they analyse how integrated reporting can be supported by legislation thereby taking into account the existing regulatory environment.

Literature study; desk research, analysing integrated reports; organisation of an international academic conference (30 May 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands).

EU law needs adjusting in the field of corporate annual reporting. Although integrated reporting is currently being explored by some frontrunners of the business community and is being encouraged by investors, the existing legal framework does not offer any incentive, nor is uniformity and credibility in the reporting of non-financial information stimulated. The law gives scant guidance to companies to that end. The authors argue that amending the mandatory EU framework can support the comparability and reliability of the corporate information. Moreover, a clear and sound EU framework on integrated corporate reporting will assist international companies in their reporting. Presently, companies have to comply with various regulations at an EU and a national level, which do not enhance a holistic view in corporate reporting. The authors provide options on how to do this. They suggest combining EU mandatory corporate reporting rules with the private regulatory reporting regime developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Focus on EU and Dutch corporate reporting laws, non-legislative frameworks, and corporate practices of frontrunners.

The chapter can provide guidance to policymakers, companies and other stakeholders who want to form an opinion on how to legally support integrated reporting. It addresses important questions, especially concerning how European and domestic legislation could be adjusted in order to (i) reflect the newest insights regarding corporate transparency and (ii) become an adequate framework for companies with added benefits for financiers and investors. Moreover, it reports on the benefits of integrated reporting for reporting companies. The authors argue that integrated reporting can be a critical tool in implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the main corporate strategy of a company.

This study aims to discover the legal borderline between licit online marketing and illicit privacy-intrusive and manipulative marketing, considering in particular consumers’ expectations of privacy.

A doctrinal legal research methodology is applied throughout with reference to the relevant legislative frameworks. In particular, this study analyzes the European Union (EU) data protection law [General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)] framework (as it is one of the most advanced privacy laws in the world, with strong extra-territorial impact in other countries and consequent risks of high fines), as compared to privacy scholarship on the field and extract a compliance framework for marketers.

The GDPR is a solid compliance framework that can help to distinguish licit marketing from illicit one. It brings clarity through four legal tests: fairness test, lawfulness test, significant effect test and the high-risk test. The performance of these tests can be beneficial to consumers and marketers in particular considering that meeting consumers’ expectation of privacy can enhance their trust. A solution for marketers to respect and leverage consumers’ privacy expectations is twofold: enhancing critical transparency and avoiding the exploitation of individual vulnerabilities.

This study is limited to the European legal framework scenario and to theoretical analysis. Further research is necessary to investigate other legal frameworks and to prove this model in practice, measuring not only the consumers’ expectation of privacy in different contexts but also the practical managerial implications of the four GDPR tests for marketers.

This study originally contextualizes the most recent privacy scholarship on online manipulation within the EU legal framework, proposing an easy and accessible four-step test and twofold solution for marketers. Such a test might be beneficial both for marketers and for consumers’ expectations of privacy.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of a new European Union (EU) initiative attempting an interesting paradigm shift in the field of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and lessons learned from the manifest failure of past EU initiatives (Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA) have allowed for such a paradigm shift for the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

This paper draws on reports, legal scholarship and other open source data to examine a legislative innovation for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

The EU legislative initiative that will be examined is innovative in nature and goes beyond international norms on cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The new initiative needs to be integrated into the broader EU framework that targets criminal proceeds, and at the same time, to be anchored to respect for human rights.

This study examines the strengths and weaknesses of an important new EU initiative, its compatibility with human rights standards and its relationship to international standards of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation.

The purpose of this paper is to map out the voluntary‐regulatory dynamics of the discourse of human rights in a business context within the European Union (EU) regulatory environment.

The paper examines the human rights and corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourses at the EU institutional level, in order to identify the interplay between soft and hard regulatory instruments that may contribute to the “human rights for business” normative landscape.

A renewed focus at the international level on business and human rights has recently produced a United Nations (UN) framework document mapping corporate and state responsibilities in the area of human rights (the UN SRSG Ruggie Framework). Emphasising voluntariness as main tool, but also recognizing the importance of domestic uses of corporate law, of the investment and trade agreements, as well as of the international development cooperation tools, this framework report is in need of “operationalisation”. Starting from the interface between domestic and international developments in CSR and human rights for business, the paper explores the extent to which the European CSR context can offer tools and instruments towards such an operationalisation of the corporate responsibility for human rights and for social values generally. The article charts the dynamic relationship between EU soft regulatory attempts and the community mandatory legislation. Together, these define the EU's policy on CSR and human rights.

The paper reveals an innovative normative mosaic, made up of complex soft and hard regulatory instruments that should enable the EU to integrate economic, trade and human rights policies and, ultimately, to contribute to the new CSR framework proposed at the international level.

This paper aims to investigate and provide pathways for leveraging the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD’s) Ten Global Principles (TGPs) for countering tax crimes in the EU.

The study is guided by the combination of traditional and innovative research methods drawn from criminal law and justice, public regulatory theory and tax law, based on socio-legal and comparative methodologies.

The research shows that EU has achieved considerable amount of progress when it comes to meeting the TGPs. However, law and practice in EU Member States indicate that there are different legal, human and organisational approaches to fighting tax crimes. The TGPs could be strategically applied to complementing the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) and other initiatives on Administrative Cooperation.

Although the TGPs appear encompassing, there are opportunities to harness the potency of these principles and to provide more tailored principles that can help engineer sustainable remedies for countering tax crimes in the EU.

The paper critically analyses, through a multidisciplinary approach, the main legal, human and organisational factors influencing the prosecution of tax crimes in the EU Member States.

Realignment and harmonisation of tax enforcement paractices in the EU Member States thus help in the reduction of tax gap resulting from tax offences.

The paper provides novel approaches and findings based on empirical info obtained from face-to-face focus groups with end users and law enforcement agencies in tax enforcement eco-system in ten different EU Member States.

Recent developments in the EU’s anti-corruption strategy have brought the EU closer to meeting the UNCAC’s objectives, i.e. the Proposal for a Directive on combating corruption (2023) and the Proposal for a Directive on Asset Recovery and Confiscation (2022). This paper aims to discuss these developments from the perspective of the UNCAC, to identify missing elements in the EU’s asset recovery mechanisms.

Critical approach towards EU anti-corruption policy (discussing the problems and solutions). Review of EU developments in asset recovery law.

There is a political will on the part of the EU to fight corruption through the rules enshrined in the UNCAC. However, improving EU law by introducing a new type of confiscation of unexplained wealth and criminalising illicit enrichment, without establishing convergent rules for the return of corrupt assets from EU territory to the countries of origin, cannot be seen as sufficient action to achieve the UNCAC’s objectives. In modelling mechanisms of the return of assets, the EU should search for solutions to overcome the difficulties resulting from the ordre public clause remaining a significant factor conditioning mutual legal assistance.

This paper discusses the possible input of the EU, as a non-State Party to the UNCAC, to advance implementing the UNCAC solutions on asset recovery by establishing convergent rules for the return of corrupt assets from EU territory to countries of origin.

The aim of the present study is to shed light on the role of legal practitioners, namely, lawyers and notaries, in the fight against money laundering: Are they considered as facilitators or obstacles against money laundering? How does the global and the EU legal framework deal with the legal professionals?

The research follows a deductive approach attempting to respond to questions such as: How do the lawyers’ and notaries’ societies react in front of the anti-money laundering measures that concern them and why? What are the discrepancies between the lawyers’ professional secrecy and the obligations that EU anti-money laundering legislation assigns them?

This study disclosures the response of the European union and international legal and regulatory framework as well as the reflexes of the international and European legal professionals’ associations to this danger. It also demonstrates the reaction of lawyers against European union anti-money laundering legislation, to the point that it limits not only the confidentiality principle but also the position of the European judicial systems to the contradiction between this principle and the lawyers’ obligation to report their suspicions to the authorities.

To fulfil the study goals, it was necessary to overcome some obstacles, like the limitation of existing sources. Indeed, transnational empirical research considering the professionals who facilitate money laundering is narrow. Besides, policymakers and academics only recently expressed more interest in money laundering and its facilitators.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the legal professionals’ role not only in money laundering practices but also in anti-money laundering policies.

EU social policy is perhaps the most controversial aspect of European integration yet, despite all the political clashes on the matter, concepts like “social Europe” or “social dimension” remain ill‐defined and imprecise terms. Intends to outline and clarify in detail the debate about whether or not the European Union should have competence with regard to labour market affairs. A key message is that social policy has been controversial because it has become embroiled in the debate about the future political direction of the EU. In particular, three contrasting political models –symbiotic integration, integrative federalism and neo‐liberalism – have been put forward as organizing principles for the EU and each has a coherent view of what form social policy should take at the European level. It is the clash between these three models that has caused EU social policy to be so contestable and intractable.

The paper aims to examine the environmental challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in EU law that regard both illicit uses of the technology, i.e. overuse or misuse of AI and its possible underuses. The aim of the paper is to show how such regulatory efforts of legislators should be understood as a critical component of the Green Deal of the EU institutions, that is, to save our planet from impoverishment, plunder and destruction.

To illustrate the different ways in which AI can represent a game-changer for our environmental challenges, attention is drawn to a multidisciplinary approach, which includes the analysis of the initiatives on the European Green Deal; the proposals for a new legal framework on data governance and AI; principles of environmental and constitutional law; the interaction of such principles and provisions of environmental and constitutional law with AI regulations; other sources of EU law and of its Member States.

Most recent initiatives on AI, including the AI Act (AIA) of the European Commission, have insisted on a human-centric approach, whereas it seems obvious that the challenges of environmental law, including those triggered by AI, should be addressed in accordance with an ontocentric, rather than anthropocentric stance. The paper provides four recommendations for the legal consequences of this short-sighted view, including the lack of environmental concerns in the AIA.

The environmental challenges of AI suggest complementing current regulatory efforts of EU lawmakers with a new generation of eco-impact assessments; duties of care and disclosure of non-financial information; clearer parameters for the implementation of the integration principle in EU constitutional law; special policies for the risk of underusing AI for environmental purposes. Further research should examine these policies in connection with the principle of sustainability and the EU plan for a circular economy, as another crucial ingredient of the Green Deal.

The paper provides a set of concrete measures to properly tackle both illicit uses of AI and the risk of its possible underuse for environmental purposes. Such measures do not only concern the “top down” efforts of legislators but also litigation and the role of courts. Current trends of climate change litigation and the transplant of class actions into several civil law jurisdictions shed new light on the ways in which we should address the environmental challenges of AI, even before a court.

A more robust protection of people’s right to a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment follows as a result of the analysis on the legal threats and opportunities brought forth by AI.

The paper explores a set of issues, often overlooked by scholars and institutions, that is nonetheless crucial for any Green Deal, such as the distinction between the human-centric approach of current proposals in the field of technological regulation and the traditional ontocentric stance of environmental law. The analysis considers for the first time the legal issues that follow this distinction in the field of AI regulation and how we should address them.