Business and human rights risk management update: Yves Rocher violated duty of vigilance law, French court rules

The risks for companies around business and human rights are multiplying, including litigation risk. On 12 March 2026, the Paris Judicial Court ruled against French cosmetics group Yves Rocher under the 2017 French duty of vigilance law (“DVL”). 

What must companies do under the DVL?

The DVL creates an obligation for corporates meeting certain size thresholds to define and implement a “vigilance plan” to identify and prevent serious harms to human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety and the environment resulting from corporate activities – either directly or indirectly from the operations of subsidiaries or of subcontractors or suppliers with which there is a commercial relationship. Among other things, a vigilance plan should include a mapping that identifies, analyses and ranks risks. The DVL’s obligations are similar to those under the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). 

What claim was brought?

The claim was brought against the parent company of the Rocher group, Laboratoires de Biologie Végétale Yves Rocher (“Yves Rocher”), by former employees of a Turkish subsidiary of the group, a Turkish trade union and the French non-profit organisations  Sherpa and Action Aid. The dispute arose from a significant wave of redundancies carried out by the Turkish subsidiary in 2018 following the establishment of the trade union to which the dismissed employees had subscribed. The claimants alleged they had been victims of serious violations of their fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular trade union rights, and that Yves Rocher had breached their legal duty of vigilance obligations.

Why did the Court rule against Yves Rocher?

The Court held that Yves Rocher had been deficient in preparing the risk mapping of its 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans, which contained no analysis of the risks posed by the group's subsidiaries. The Court held that there was a causal link between the shortcomings of the 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans and the loss suffered by the dismissed employee claimants. 

The Court therefore ordered Yves Rocher to pay €8,000 in total to the former employees, €40,000 to the Turkish trade union and the symbolic sum of €1 to Sherpa and ActionAid.

What does this mean for companies?

This case demonstrates how French courts may assess corporate liability for human rights violations within global corporate groups. French companies may incur civil liability for harm resulting from human rights failures in both France and abroad.

More broadly, beyond France, we have also seen a line of cases in the UK that point to increased ESG litigation risk for UK-headquartered companies in respect of human rights, environmental impact and labour conditions overseas. The best strategy for managing this litigation risk remains appropriate, risk-based due diligence, modelled on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). With increasingly complex modern supply chains, where businesses may struggle to address all their human rights risks equally and at the same time, a risk-based approach focuses attention and resources on the most salient human rights risks. These are the risks that are most likely to occur or that would be most severe if they did.

For help understanding human rights risks in your operations and supply chain and help designing appropriate, risk-based due diligence policies and processes, please get in touch with kerry.stares@crsblaw.com or with your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact.