双语案例解析｜法国 La Poste 警觉计划案：司法首次实质界定企业尽责义务法律边界

导 语

随着企业尽责义务立法在全球持续推进，如何从“形式披露”走向“实质履责”，正成为监管与司法实践的关键议题。近期法国巴黎上诉法院针对 La Poste 警觉计划的判决，首次明确了风险识别、供应商评估、利益相关方协商及成效监控等环节的具体要求，被视为对尽责义务标准的一次实质性司法校准。

随着欧盟《企业可持续发展尽职调查指令》（CSDDD）即将正式落地，欧洲各国法院也开始在司法实践中对“企业尽责义务”进行更细致、实质化的解释。2025年6月17日，法国巴黎上诉法院作出一项具有代表性的判决（案号：24/05193），驳回了法国邮政公司（La Poste）针对其2021年“警觉计划”（vigilance plan）缺陷所提出的上诉请求，标志着法国法院首次明确指出“形式化披露”不足以履行法律意义上的企业尽责义务。

As the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) approaches formal adoption, courts across Europe are beginning to interpret “corporate due diligence” more substantively in legal practice. On June 17, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal issued a representative ruling (Case No. 24/05193), rejecting La Poste’s appeal and upholding a lower court decision that the company’s 2021 vigilance plan failed to meet the legal obligations under France’s Duty of Vigilance Law.

这不仅是一起工会主导的诉讼胜利，更是一次对企业履行《警觉法案》（Loi sur le devoir de vigilance）核心义务的司法校正。

This case, led by a trade union rather than an NGO, marks a judicial correction of what constitutes a legally sufficient vigilance plan.

一、案件起因：由工会发起的尽责审查 Case Background

案件的起诉方并非 NGO，而是法国邮政系统的工会 SUD PTT。该工会认为 La Poste 所发布的 2021 年警觉计划存在以下四项严重缺陷：

风险图谱过于概括，无法真实反映企业运作所涉及的具体人权与环境风险；

对分包商和供应商的评估机制缺乏明确标准与针对性措施，存在较大“纸面合规”嫌疑；

未就举报机制与工会进行前期协商或征询意见，违背了“利益相关方参与”原则；

披露的监控指标未能反映风险控制措施的成效，缺乏对结果的评估机制。

    巴黎初审法院于2023年12月5日作出判决，支持了上述全部主张，并责令 La Poste 补充警觉计划的相关内容。

The lawsuit was initiated not by an NGO, but by the French postal union SUD PTT, which alleged four major deficiencies in La Poste’s 2021 vigilance plan:

The risk mapping was too general and failed to reflect specific human rights and environmental risks associated with operations;

The evaluation of subcontractors and suppliers lacked criteria linked to identified risks, resembling “paper compliance”;

The whistleblower system had not been preceded by stakeholder dialogue with the union;

The monitoring indicators failed to show the actual impact of risk control measures.

On December 5, 2023, the Paris Judicial Court sided with the union on all counts and ordered La Poste to amend its vigilance plan.

二、上诉与驳回：法院如何解读“实质尽责义务”？Key Points of Appeal and Rejection

    La Poste 在2024年3月提起上诉，试图推翻一审裁定。然而巴黎上诉法院在今年6月17日明确驳回了所有上诉主张，理由如下：

1. 风险图谱必须细化至“可评估层级”

法院指出，La Poste 的风险图谱未能对“最严重风险”进行具体识别与排序，缺乏从国家/地区、业务活动、工种/岗位等维度的风险分析，违反了法国《商法典》第 L.225‑102‑4 条第一款关于“适当详尽性”的法律要求。

2. 审核机制不等于风险评估机制

La Poste 所主张的“三阶段监督机制”（即自评表、远程审核、实地审核）未与风险图谱挂钩，未就关键分包商或风险较高供应链环节进行优先审查。因此，“即使存在审核活动，也无法证明其履行了尽责义务”。

3. 举报与申诉机制的制定应先征询工会意见

法院认为 La Poste 虽在年度会议中介绍了举报机制草案，但并未提供充足机会给工会提前发表意见或参与机制设计，因此不构成有效协商。

4. 监控指标不能只反映“做了什么”，而应展示“起了什么作用”

法院指出 La Poste 2021 年披露的“措施执行数量”等活动指标，并未显示措施对改善风险状况的影响，无法满足《警觉法案》对“成效评估”的要求。

La Poste appealed the ruling in March 2024. However, the Court of Appeal on June 17, 2025, dismissed all claims with the following reasoning:

1. Risk mapping must be detailed and assessable

The court ruled that La Poste’s plan did not identify or prioritize risks in accordance with Article L.225‑102‑4 of the French Commercial Code. It lacked risk analysis by geography, business activity, or job type.

2. Audit mechanisms do not equal risk assessments

Although La Poste claimed to have a “three-stage monitoring system” (self-assessment, remote audit, on-site audit), the court held that these procedures were not linked to the main risks identified in the plan and thus could not serve as effective due diligence.

3. Whistleblower systems must involve prior consultation

The court found that although La Poste had introduced the system during annual meetings, it had not offered unions sufficient opportunity to provide input in advance.

4. Monitoring indicators must evaluate results, not just actions

The court ruled that La Poste’s 2021 performance indicators, focused only on activity levels, could not demonstrate the effectiveness of measures and thus failed to meet the legal requirements.

三、判决结果与影响 Final Ruling and Implications

法院最终驳回了 La Poste 的上诉，维持原判，并判令其在合理期限内完成警觉计划补充工作，承担诉讼费用，并向工会支付 5000 欧元。尽管法院未支持工会要求公开全部分包商名单与介入措施的请求，但此次判决已被普遍视为：

❗️ 法国法院首次对企业“尽责计划”的实质内容进行司法审查并予以实质修正❗️ CSDDD 在尚未正式转化为法国法律前，已被法院用作解释指引依据

The court ultimately rejected La Poste’s appeal, upheld the original judgment, and ordered the company to complete the required amendments to its vigilance plan within a reasonable timeframe, bear the litigation costs, and pay €5,000 to the trade union. Although the court did not grant the union’s request for full disclosure of all subcontractors and the specific measures applied to them, the ruling has nonetheless been widely regarded as:

❗️The first judicial reviewin France to require substantive corrections to a corporate vigilance plan;

❗️A signal that courts may apply the CSDDD’s structure even before it is formally transposed into national law.

四、对中国企业的启示：不要忽视“程序与实质”的双重义务 Key Takeaways for Chinese Companies

企业在设计尽责机制时，不能只满足于“有制度、有报告”，而要确保其内容贴合实际风险、过程体现参与原则、结果能够量化评估。无论是风险图谱、供应商审核机制，还是举报制度与监控体系，都必须体现出“针对性、透明度与结果导向”。随着欧盟CSDDD等法律的推进，未来的尽责义务将更强调实质有效性而非程序合规。

This case sends a clear message to Chinese companies: having a formal due diligence framework is not enough. The content must address real risks, the process must involve stakeholders, and the outcomes must be measurable. From risk mapping to supplier evaluations, and from grievance mechanisms to monitoring systems, companies must demonstrate that their measures are targeted, participatory, and results-oriented. Under CSDDD and similar laws, the shift is toward substantive effectiveness, not just procedural formality.

End