Landmark French ruling finds cosmetics company liable for failing in its duty of vigilance

The Paris Judicial Court has delivered a landmark judgment against the Yves Rocher Group ("YRG"), a French cosmetics company, finding it liable for failing to fulfil its duty of vigilance for activities that took place within one of its former Turkish subsidiaries. The claim was brought by several NGOs and unions — including ActionAid France and Sherpa — together with 81 former employees, who alleged that over 130 workers were dismissed in 2018 after joining a trade union to challenge long working hours, gender-based discrimination, and weak workplace protections.

This judgment is notable on two counts: it is the first decision awarding damages under the French Duty of Vigilance Act; and it is the first to apply the Act to activities taking place outside French territory (treating the Act as an overriding mandatory provision in lieu of Turkish law).

The allegations

The claimants alleged that over 130 employees were dismissed in 2018 after joining a union to challenge various issues (including long working hours, gender-based discrimination and weak workplace protections).  Regarding YRG’s alleged failure to comply with the Duty of Vigilance law, the claimants asserted that (i) YRG had not published any vigilance plans prior to 2020; and (ii) in the plan that was published, no analysis of risk of serious breaches of fundamental rights resulting from subsidiary activities was included (effectively excluding the Turkish subsidiaries). As a result, YRG had failed in its duty to (i) assess the Turkish subsidiary’s situation; (ii) implement appropriate measures to mitigate risks and prevent serious harm, specifically the mass employee dismissal in 2018; and (iii) establish a mechanism for reporting concerns and gathering reports. 

What the Court Decided

The court emphasised that the obligation under the Act is not one of result, but “an obligation of means to implement the due diligence measures required by law”. YRG argued that it had drawn up vigilance plans for 2017 and 2018 — though these were only filed in 2020 — and that it had a code of business conduct communicated to employees of the Turkish subsidiary. The court was unpersuaded by this and found that YRG had failed to sufficiently identify or assess the seriousness of the risk of infringement of association for the Turkish subsidiary’s employees in its 2017 and 2018 plans. YRG's claim that it could not have been aware of freedom of association issues in Turkey was firmly rejected and the court found that such issues were well-known and that sufficient information was accessible to the company.

Civil liability was established on three cumulative criteria: 

• fault (the risk mapping covered only the supply chain and omitted subsidiary-specific risks); 

• damage (employees were dismissed on account of their trade union membership); and 

• a causal link (had YRG properly identified and assessed the risk to freedom of association, the harm could have been prevented). 

Having established all three criteria, the court concluded that YRG’s failure to comply with its duty of vigilance had directly contributed to the harm suffered by the dismissed employees.

Although in principle the claimants were entitled to claim compensation, the majority of the former employees’ claims for compensation were deemed inadmissible due to a settlement agreement signed with the Turkish subsidiary in 2019. The court ordered YRG to pay compensation to six former employees and damages to the NGO and union claimants.

Key takeaways 

France's first damages award under the Duty of Vigilance Act sends a clear message on compliance: generic oversight frameworks will not suffice, particularly where risks are well known and long standing. There have been two other decisions on the merits: one dismissing the claim (against the French state-owned railway operator) and one granting an injunction (against the French state-owned postal company – see our previous blog post). As a reminder, under the Duty of Vigilance Act, two types of claims are possible: a claim for damages and/or a claim for an injunction. In the present case, claimants initially sought injunctive measures and compensation. Following the sale of the Turkish subsidiaries in 2024, they withdrew their claim for an injunction and maintained their claims for damages.

The judgment also confirms the extra-territorial reach of the regime and the need for vigilance plans to account for operations and subsidiaries in all jurisdictions, regardless of local law standards. 

Companies in scope of the Duty of Vigilance Act should be reviewing their vigilance plans to ensure subsidiary risks are clearly mapped and assessed, reporting and alert mechanisms are operational and properly scoped, and documented evidence of proportionate action is maintained.