雙語案例解析｜法國 La Poste 警覺計劃案：司法首次實質界定企業盡責義務法律邊界

導 語

隨著企業盡責義務立法在全球持續推進，如何從“形式披露”走向“實質履責”，正成為監管與司法實踐的關鍵議題。近期法國巴黎上訴法院針對 La Poste 警覺計劃的判決，首次明確了風險識別、供應商評估、利益相關方協商及成效監控等環節的具體要求，被視為對盡責義務標準的一次實質性司法校準。

隨著歐盟《企業可持續發展盡職調查指令》（CSDDD）即將正式落地，歐洲各國法院也開始在司法實踐中對“企業盡責義務”進行更細致、實質化的解釋。2025年6月17日，法國巴黎上訴法院作出一項具有代表性的判決（案號：24/05193），駁回了法國郵政公司（La Poste）針對其2021年“警覺計劃”（vigilance plan）缺陷所提出的上訴請求，標志著法國法院首次明確指出“形式化披露”不足以履行法律意義上的企業盡責義務。

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.

這不僅是一起工會主導的訴訟勝利，更是一次對企業履行《警覺法案》（Loi sur le devoir de vigilance）核心義務的司法校正。

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：由工會發起的盡責審查 Case Background

案件的起訴方并非 NGO，而是法國郵政系統的工會 SUD PTT。該工會認為 La Poste 所發布的 2021 年警覺計劃存在以下四項嚴重缺陷：

風險圖譜過于概括，無法真實反映企業運作所涉及的具體人權與環境風險；

對分包商和供應商的評估機制缺乏明確標準與針對性措施，存在較大“紙面合規”嫌疑；

未就舉報機制與工會進行前期協商或征詢意見，違背了“利益相關方參與”原則；

披露的監控指標未能反映風險控制措施的成效，缺乏對結果的評估機制。

    巴黎初審法院于2023年12月5日作出判決，支持了上述全部主張，并責令 La Poste 補充警覺計劃的相關內容。

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、上訴與駁回：法院如何解讀“實質盡責義務”？Key Points of Appeal and Rejection

    La Poste 在2024年3月提起上訴，試圖推翻一審裁定。然而巴黎上訴法院在今年6月17日明確駁回了所有上訴主張，理由如下：

1. 風險圖譜必須細化至“可評估層級”

法院指出，La Poste 的風險圖譜未能對“最嚴重風險”進行具體識別與排序，缺乏從國家/地區、業務活動、工種/崗位等維度的風險分析，違反了法國《商法典》第 L.225?102?4 條第一款關于“適當詳盡性”的法律要求。

2. 審核機制不等于風險評估機制

La Poste 所主張的“三階段監督機制”（即自評表、遠程審核、實地審核）未與風險圖譜掛鉤，未就關鍵分包商或風險較高供應鏈環節進行優先審查。因此，“即使存在審核活動，也無法證明其履行了盡責義務”。

3. 舉報與申訴機制的制定應先征詢工會意見

法院認為 La Poste 雖在年度會議中介紹了舉報機制草案，但并未提供充足機會給工會提前發表意見或參與機制設計，因此不構成有效協商。

4. 監控指標不能只反映“做了什么”，而應展示“起了什么作用”

法院指出 La Poste 2021 年披露的“措施執行數量”等活動指標，并未顯示措施對改善風險狀況的影響，無法滿足《警覺法案》對“成效評估”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、判決結果與影響 Final Ruling and Implications

法院最終駁回了 La Poste 的上訴，維持原判，并判令其在合理期限內完成警覺計劃補充工作，承擔訴訟費用，并向工會支付 5000 歐元。盡管法院未支持工會要求公開全部分包商名單與介入措施的請求，但此次判決已被普遍視為：

?? 法國法院首次對企業“盡責計劃”的實質內容進行司法審查并予以實質修正?? CSDDD 在尚未正式轉化為法國法律前，已被法院用作解釋指引依據

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、對中國企業的啟示：不要忽視“程序與實質”的雙重義務 Key Takeaways for Chinese Companies

企業在設計盡責機制時，不能只滿足于“有制度、有報告”，而要確保其內容貼合實際風險、過程體現參與原則、結果能夠量化評估。無論是風險圖譜、供應商審核機制，還是舉報制度與監控體系，都必須體現出“針對性、透明度與結果導向”。隨著歐盟CSDDD等法律的推進，未來的盡責義務將更強調實質有效性而非程序合規。

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