This article examines the disparities between the (existing and planned) business and human rights (BHR) legislations in Switzerland and the European Union (EU). More specifically, (i) the key differences that exist between the Swiss and EU BHR legislations are identified, and (ii) the proposed amendments to the Swiss BHR legislation to reach the desired harmonization with the EU framework are put forward. The Swiss BHR legislation, implemented in stages on 1 January 2021 and 1 January 2023, encompasses provisions related to ‘transparency on non-financial matters’, ‘transparency in raw material companies’, and ‘due diligence and transparency in relation to minerals and metals from conflict-affected areas and child labor’. The EU BHR legal framework, however, has undergone a major overhaul, with the recent adoption of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) that introduce additional obligations. These EU regulations have (or will have) important extraterritorial effects, including on Swiss undertakings operating—directly or indirectly—in the EU. To prevent Swiss companies from being subject to a diverse array of regulations (with an increased risk of sanctions in case of non-compliance), a reform of the Swiss BHR legislation is needed to ensure harmonization with EU BHR legislation. This article also serves as a resource if full equivalence between them is sought.

The military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022, and the further introduction of martial law affected all spheres of Ukrainian society, including the non-profit sector’s activities. As a result, civil society institutions were forced to adapt to new public needs, as well as to emerging security challenges and new regulatory restrictions. In this research note, we examine on one side, how the martial law and previous legislation (and the related societal upheavals) have shaped the new roles and functioning of non-profit organizations in Ukraine and, on the other side, what the challenges to volunteers’ and domestic non-profit organizations’ activities in Ukraine deriving from these regulations and legislations. The identification of these challenges ensues from a survey of the Ukrainian non-profit sector as well as an analysis of Ukrainian regulation, statistical data, and recent scientific papers. Overall, we highlight a key discrepancy between Ukrainians’ concept of charitable activities as well as humanitarian aid and the Western approach to the same concepts and suggest regulatory improvements to address other challenges identified to facilitate philanthropic activities in Ukraine.

This study analyzed six legal forms of social enterprises (SEs) across four countries in terms of governance features to clarify trends to be highlighted. The research covered the topics of autonomy, representation/inclusion of stakeholders at the governing body level, membership and voting rights (not necessarily based on capital), and distribution constraints. The study presents two proposals to reconcile the US and European approaches to the governance of SEs: either define the governance patterns to be met to qualify as an SE and obtain any related advantages (under tax, public procurement, or any other law) or refute any organizational definition and treat the governing dimension of SEs as a supportive pillar of the social and economic dimensions instead of a stand-alone pillar.