Introduction

In 2017, France enacted the Law on the Duty of Vigilance, becoming the first country to pass a human rights due diligence law. However, the implementation and enforcement of the Law has been described as disappointing. For example, there has been no official monitoring of company’s compliance, and plaintiffs have encountered different procedural barriers.

The French experience is a good test case to investigate how laws enacted in the Global North can -and sometimes cannot- impact companies and operations in the Global South. Three cases involving Brazilian companies will be discussed in this blog to illustrate such impacts in the Brazilian context. The cases involve agricultural supply chains, including cattle, soy, coffee, and orange suppliers. Historically, alongside the construction sector, the agricultural sector is one of the economic sectors with the most workers rescued from forced labor conditions in Brazil (2003-2020). Brazil adopts a broader definition than the forced labor concept established by the International Labor Organization. The Brazilian Criminal Code establishes as a crime to subject someone to ‘labor analogous to slavery’, which comprehends four situations: forced labor; degrading working conditions; debt bondage; and exhaustive workdays (Article 149). For this blog post, I will use the term “forced labor” to facilitate, but it comprehends all four types described in the Brazilian legislation. More specifically, the cattle supply chain alone involves 28% of the cases of forced labor registered during that period (SmartLab). Agriculture is also the main cause for deforestation in the country in different biomes, from the Amazon rainforest to the Cerrado savanna (see here).

Many Global North laws about corporate accountability on human rights abuses propose to impact suppliers’ conducts and the public debate in the Global South. Therefore, the analysis will focus on the potential impacts of the French law beyond courts, in order to assess if it is generating any positive effects in the public debate within Brazil.

Envol Vert et al. v. Casino Group

An international coalition of associations filed a formal notice in September 2020 against Casino Group due to the involvement of its subsidiary’s –Grupo Pão de Açúcar- cattle suppliers with illegal deforestation and land grabbing of indigenous peoples’ lands, including JBS, one of the largest meat processors companies in the world. In March 2021, a civil lawsuit was filed against Casino Group, alleging that the company did not comply with its obligations under the French law. 

Besides linking JBS to environmental impacts, a report by Amnesty International concluded that the company’s suppliers were involved in systemic human rights violations, including forced labor cases involving indigenous peoples and migrants. Furthermore, rural communities were subject to intimidation, threats, and violence by cattle farmers that are JBS’s indirect suppliers. 

These allegations were supported by the Center for Climate Crime Analysis. According to the Center’s report, Casino Group continued to purchase meat from suppliers associated with human rights violations of indigenous peoples, and illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, including deforestation cases in the supply zone of three meat-packing plants controlled by JBS. In December 2022, the coalition of organizations refused the mediation proposed by the judge. The organizations are waiting for a judicial decision. 

CGT & Others v. McDonald’s France

In March 2022, a group of trade union organizations filed a formal notice against McDonald’s France arguing that the company failed to publish a vigilance plan since the law was enacted in 2017. McDonald’s sources several agricultural commodities from Brazil, such as coffee through Massimo Zanetti Group; orange juice, through Sucocitrico Cutrale and The Coca-Cola Company; and soy for chicken feed through SLC Agricola and Cargill. 

According to a report by the Brazilian NGO Repórter Brasil, the company’s suppliers were involved directly and indirectly in several human rights violations. Regarding the coffee supply chain, the Massimo Zanetti Group’s suppliers have been involved in different labor rights violations, including noncompliance with working hour limits, and accusations of firing employees that demanded raises and better working conditions. As for the orange suppliers, they were also linked to labor rights violations, such as cases of forced labor, specifically debt bondage, and lack of personal protective equipment and toilet facilities at the farms. Finally, regarding the soy supply chain, for chicken feed, an important supplier for McDonalds’s commercial partner is linked to several environmental violations related to deforestation, and labor rights violations, specifically regarding freedom of association. The group of trade unions have not filed a civil lawsuit yet, and they are still waiting to go through the formal notice phase. 

Comissão Pastoral da Terra & Notre Affaire à Tous v. BNP Paribas

Comissão Pastoral da Terra and Notre Affaire à Tous filed a formal notice in October 2022 against BNP Paribas, claiming that the company’s vigilance plan is not adequate to prevent violations of human rights, and it lacks clarity concerning the bank’s environmental commitments. The bank provides financial services to Marfrig, the second largest meat packing company in Brazil. 

The notice is based on analysis by the Center for Climate Crime Analysis. According to the Center, Marfrig’s suppliers were responsible for over 120,000 hectares of illegal deforestation in the Cerrado savannah and the Amazon rainforest in Brazil between 2009 and 2020. Furthermore, a report by Repórter Brasil concluded that Marfrig’s suppliers had farms located within the Apyterewa indigenous land in the Brazilian Amazon. In 2019, the indigenous land had around 10% of its territory deforested in areas linked to these suppliers. Furthermore, the indigenous people Parakanã from that land are living in constant cultural and physical threat due to the presence of illegal cattle breeders. In June 2023, the associations filed a civil lawsuit against BNP Paribas, and are now waiting for a judicial decision.

Impacts of the cases in Brazil

These cases have had limited repercussions and implications on different stakeholders in Brazil. Regarding the Brazilian companies involved in the allegations, no economic impacts were identified. In fact, in 2022, JBS was ranked the second biggest company in Brazil considering revenue, while Marfrig was ranked eighth and Cargill ninth.

Before filing the formal notices, French organizations engaged in collaborative work with Brazilian organizations, including Civil Society Organizations (CSO), in particular to conduct investigations in order to collect potential evidence. One of the main actors that provided evidence through investigative reports is the NGO Repórter Brasil. The NGO is a leading organization that investigates cases related to labor rights violations and socioenvironmental harms in Brazil associated with businesses activities. Because of its active role in all three cases, it developed a specific social media communication strategy aimed at drawing attention to the reports and the notices (see below). However, the engagement on social media was relatively low, with little critical engagement from social media users expressing either a negative point of view about the companies involved, or a positive one about the case going to court to seek accountability.

Repórter Brasil’s tweet about BNP Paribas case.

Repórter Brasil’s thread about McDonald’s case.

Another relevant CSO involved in both the BNP Paribas and Casino Group case is Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT in Portuguese). CPT is an organization that works to promote labor rights and land rights in rural regions of Brazil. Like Repórter Brasil, due to its active role in collecting evidence and providing expertise about the Brazilian context, CPT also systematically highlighted the cases on its social media accounts. Yet, the engagement from social media users was equally low. The main national trade unions in Brazil were also actors in the formal notice against McDonald’s France: União Geral de Trabalhadores and Central Única dos Trabalhadores. Both did not seem to have a communication strategy on social media to raise awareness about the case within the country.

Moreover, considering social media posts from other organizations about the cases, very few comments were found. For example, on Instagram, some users supported the Casino case on seeking accountability for deforestation, while others supported a more general boycott against the beef industry (see here and here).

The cases also had a small impact on academic debates and scholarship. Casino’s case was cited to exemplify the opportunities for strategic litigation against multinationals due to their involvement with human rights violations in their value chains. One scholar highlighted the importance of the joint work of NGOs and civil society from different countries in order to hold multinationals to account. Another reflected on the importance of the French Law for strategic litigation specifically citing the Casino Group case, and its human rights violations and one environmental harms scholar reflected upon the choice of a French court instead of a Brazilian one to claim for damages. He considers that this choice does not reflect the (in)capacity of the Brazilian judicial system to deal with such claims, but instead as resulting from financial considerations linked to the possibility of getting full compensation from the French parent company. Regarding the public debate among politicians, no significant engagement with all three cases was found. Two politicians referred to the deforestation allegations associated with the McDonalds and Casino cases on social media, however they did not mention the formal notices or court cases, but the investigative reports (see here and here).

The most notable repercussion of the launch of proceedings under the French law was on national media reporting. Some of the biggest newspapers ran specific articles on the cases. Comparably, McDonald’s case received less attention from the media than Casino and BNP Paribas (see here and here). In an article about the Casino case, indigenous organizations involved in the lawsuit were quoted as believing that the Brazilian judicial system is insufficient to hold corporations accountable. To them, the French law, as well as other forms of accountability overseas, can help ensure their access to remedy. Representatives of Envol Vert also emphasized that what happens in the Amazon is not just a local issue affecting biodiversity and local indigenous peoples, but a global challenge. Since this is a global challenge, it is possible and reasonable to seek remedy and accountability in foreign courts.

Other newspapers also covered the Casino case (see here, here, here and here), and generally discussed the unprecedented nature of the case in a positive way. One article highlighted that this movement is part of a international campaign to scrutinize deforestation in the Amazon, targeting not only companies but also the Brazilian federal government at the time, as former president Jair Bolsonaro was dismantling environmental institutions and legal frameworks, enabling deforestation to advance.

The BNP Paribas case also received a lot of attention from the media. In particular, the bank’s response to the notice, stating that it may end commercial relations with clients that are not aligned with their environmental goals for the agricultural sector, which includes monitoring direct and indirect suppliers of the beef supply chain in the Amazon and Cerrado by 2025 (see here, here, here and here). Nevertheless in Brazil was not strongly e.

Most of the Brazilian companies involved have released statements (see here, here, and here) regarding their responsibility with regard to the allegations made. The statements usually reaffirm their commitments to end deforestation, to monitor direct and indirect suppliers, and to check and monitor suppliers for potential human rights violations. Regarding the latter, some companies (JBS and Marfrig) stated that they conduct socioenvironmental analysis on their suppliers and use geospatial data to monitor deforestation and potential impacts in protected areas.

Furthermore, SLC Agricola and Massimo Zanetti Group emphasised that McDonald’s only purchases products that are certified with sustainable certification programs, including Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) and Rainforest Alliance.

As for the potential impacts on the companies’ practices and processes, besides the statements mentioned above, there is no public evidence of further consequences. In fact, the Sustainability Reports published by some of these companies in the same year of the formal notice provided information contradicting the accusations. For example, in its 2022 report, Marfrig considers itself an international reference for good practices in sustainability, with effective actions to address deforestation, climate change and to defend and promote human rights. Another example is JBS, in its in the2020 report, the company claims to have zero tolerance for deforestation, monitoring 100% of its suppliers for over 10 years, and that in 2020 the company started implementing blockchain technology to guarantee a value chain free from illegal deforestation. The reports do not mention the cases in the French courts. It seems that the Brazilian companies are both unwilling to recognize their responsibility and continue to think that their policies are already sufficient to fulfil their human rights and environmental responsibilities.

Conclusion

Although the cases discussed in this blog involved an extensive network of actors, who supported them by investigating, collecting evidence and structuring the case, their practical repercussions on Brazil’s companies and public discourse seem to have been relatively limited. They did not result in shaming of the companies involved or public backlash. While these cases are perceived by academics and CSOs as important trailblazers to hold transnational corporations accountable for the harms they cause to human rights and the environment in Brazil, it is at this point difficult to link to them to deeper transformative effects on Brazil’s political or economic reality. It is unclear how much they affected the companies concerned in terms of their internal process, but in general in their public discourse they did not acknowledge any specific responsibility nor the need to change their way of doing business.