From product liability to production liability: Modelling a response to the liability deficit of global value chains on historical transformations of production

Abstract

A legal response to the liability deficits inherent in global value chains, the new standard of economic production, could be modelled on legal responses to the liability deficits of earlier transformations of production. One example is provided by the rise of product liability law in the 20th century. In the wake of centralized mass production and fragmented distribution chains, manufacturers and users of goods were increasingly separated from one another not only physically but also from a legal perspective. Law responded by developing causes of action that overcame contractual and corporate boundaries and allowed users of defective goods effective recourse towards manufacturers with whom they otherwise might not have had a legally relevant relationship otherwise. Similarly, in today’s global value chains a central problem is the lack of a legally relevant relationship between lead firms responsible for organizing and governing production and those harmed by their various tiers of subsidiaries, suppliers and subcontractors. Current approaches to developing such a legally relevant relationship, such as debates over a duty of care based on the common law tort of negligence, are comparable to early developmental phases of product liability law. Under product liability, these early developments were found insufficient for guaranteeing the rights of injured parties, as also seems to be the case in relation to global value chains today. I compare law’s responses to these two transformations of production and propose modelling lead firm liability for inadequate value chain governance (‘production liability’) on the current, more advanced phases of development of product liability law.

Smart Mixes in International Supply Chains: A Definition and Analytical Tool, Illustrated with the Example of Organic Imports into Switzerland

“…Governance has been conceptualized as "the regulation and coordination of activities by public and private institutions through a variety of formal and informal instruments" (Boström et al 2015, p. 2). Sustainability regulations, such as national laws regulating work safety, environmental damage, and social security, took decades to operationalize legally in the aftermath of the social, environmental, cultural, and economic turmoil of industrialization (Salminen 2019). Prior to this operationalization, emphasis was on freedom of contract and property as primary organizational principles behind regulating new concentrations of labor, supply, distribution, and consumer contracts within jurisdictions (Salminen and Rajavuori 2019).…”

“…Voluntary corporate social responsibility, if it anachronistically may be called so, is one answer to the ensuing social and environmental problems (Sydow et al 2021). This debate showed that national sustainability laws are much more complex than simple command and control style regulation, with various stakeholders included in, and affecting, legislation and its development in diverse ways (Salminen 2019).…”

Resistance to Regulation: Failing Sustainability in Product Lifecycles

“…It may involve addressing marginalisation by empowering workers through the integration of Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) to trade agreements or worker-led monitoring to public procurement rules or domestic mandatory due diligence laws [54]. It may involve extending the possibility for communities or workers affected by toxicity in mining, manufacturing or e-waste sites to hold lead firms responsible in the courts of countries of third-parties directly harmed by manufacturing processes [55]. Second, any strategy should address sustainability as systemic, encompassing both social foundations and planetary boundaries as well as the entire product lifecycle.…”

Law, agency and sustainability: the role of law in creating sustainability agency

“…Similarly to centralized mass production, the sustainability deficit ensuing from global value chains has elicited increasingly focused responses through developments in regulation, legal doctrine and private governance arrangements. Legislators are currently experimenting with regulation targeting the externalities of transnational production (Bueno and Bright 2020;Salminen and Rajavuori 2019), courts are developing new doctrines related to limited liability and contractual boundaries (Salminen 2019a;Terwindt, Leader, and Yilmaz-vastardis 2017) and companies are deploying new governance mechanisms to govern sustainability on a value-chain-wide scale (Dadush 2019;Salminen 2018). Despite such developments, however, it seems that the crux of the contemporary legal infrastructure, the core structures of private law, still evades major changes (Pistor 2019).…”