Groups and networks of companies are the scene of a proliferation of poles of power and a dilution of power, giving particular acuity to one of the major issues in liability law today, that of identifying who is responsible.
Redefining the scope of employee rights beyond the workplace is an extremely familiar issue in labor law. From this point of view, social jurisprudence knows perfectly well how to go beyond corporate partitions, and even has a particular aptitude for thinking about what might be called organizational choice. On the other hand, the attribution of liability to the parent company clashes with the construction of labor law around the figure of the employer, the sole debtor of obligations, and consequently with the principle of the autonomy of the legal entity.
The concept of imputation, however, can be used to consider liability schemes, allowing for a dissociation between the perpetrator of the act and the legal person liable. A study of the different ways in which imputation can be made reveals an evolution. While certain mechanisms are based on the need for solidarity between the companies of a group for failure to perform the same obligation, other mechanisms attempt to return to a distributive vision of liability, with the different companies owing distinct obligations that are complementary to each other. This is the case with tort liability and, of a different nature, with the proposed law on the duty of vigilance of parent companies.
The study of these different imputation techniques must also be accompanied by a study of the justifications for such imputation. Control of the structure, control of the subsidiary's activity, participation in a business process - these are just some of the reasons for the changing patterns of liability.
In short, the employment relationship must now be considered in relation to the corporate relationship. Behind these developments lies a renewal of the company model, which is the basis of labor law, and a shift in focus from society to the company.
