Abstract (EN)

Social responsibility standards voluntarily set by a company create obligations both in respect of their issuers and their receptors. Law operates a double movement of legalization (they shall become binding for employees) and control (this binding nature is to exist only if it satisfies the justification and proportionality criteria) to standards that create new constraints for employees. The employer may, espacially by means of a code of conduct, restrict the exercise of freedom of its employees provided that such limitation is justified by the interest of the company and proportionate to the aim pursued. In addition, under the influence of a renovated corporate governance, social interest is now open to the interests of stakeholders. This changes the responsibilities of executives and forces them to set up and report on their corporate social responsibility policies. Once acquired the idea that a company has to integrate social responsibility into its business, the question of the legal nature of the measures implemented comes into play. One may distinguish on the one hand unilateral initiatives of the company, usually by means of a code of conduct and, on the other hand, concerted initiatives taking the form of international framework agreements. Both of these CSR instruments are relatively foreign to lawyers. After comparing codes of conduct and unilateral commitments, I attempted to legally qualify international framework agreements through a contractual perspective. From these analyzes, it appears that commitments entered into by a company, whether unilaterally or adopted after consultation, generate binding obligations. Standards of corporate social responsibility are subject to a process of legalization and individuals can now usefully use them as part of a trial to assert their claims.