#MeToo liike ja yritysten oikeudellinen riskienhallinta

Miten yhdysvaltalaisten yritysten käyttämät vastuunrajoitusinstrumentit toimisivat oikeudellisina siirrännäisinä Pohjoismaissa?

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

Kuvaus

The purpose of this article is to examine limitations of liability related to sexual harassment scandals. These so-called #MeToo clauses are quite common in the U.S. and therefore the focus is on U.S. law and particularly on novel risk management practices utilized by U.S. firms. Although, there is not yet much information available on #MeToo clauses, it seems that they can be divided into four categories: 1. #MeToo clauses in director agreements, 2. #MeToo clauses in investment and 3. M&A agreements and 4. so-called mandatory/forced arbitration clauses. The analysis is structured so that first the limitations of liability mentioned above are introduced comprehensively and paying special attention to their relation to the #MeToo movement and to other topical phenomena. Next the focus shifts to the doctrine of legal transplants and particularly on the question, how do limitations of liability work as legal transplants in the Nordic countries. The objective is to analyze are there normative restrictions that limit the use of such transplants and furthermore, is there a genuine need to copy #MeToo practices. The research findings of the article suggest that #MeToo clauses serve mainly the interests of the firms using them, hence their true objective is not to fix flawed corporate cultures, but to safeguard the value of the firm. As for Nordic law, there are no direct legal restrictions limiting the use of such instruments, however, there is reason to believe that the objectives behind #MeToo clauses are not aligned with Nordic values. Also, there is no genuine need to introduce #MeToo clauses in, e.g., Nordic director agreements, investment agreements and M&A agreements as there are more efficient ways to prevent sexual harassment in work communities.
Alkuperäiskielisuomi
LehtiLakimies
Vuosikerta117
Numero5
Sivut608-632
Sivumäärä25
ISSN0023-7353
TilaJulkaistu - 3 lokakuuta 2019
OKM-julkaisutyyppiA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä, vertaisarvioitu

Tieteenalat

  • 513 Oikeustiede

Lainaa tätä

@article{f5e7a83c6932463e94340606425fedd3,
title = "#MeToo liike ja yritysten oikeudellinen riskienhallinta: Miten yhdysvaltalaisten yritysten k{\"a}ytt{\"a}m{\"a}t vastuunrajoitusinstrumentit toimisivat oikeudellisina siirr{\"a}nn{\"a}isin{\"a} Pohjoismaissa?",
abstract = "The purpose of this article is to examine limitations of liability related to sexual harassment scandals. These so-called #MeToo clauses are quite common in the U.S. and therefore the focus is on U.S. law and particularly on novel risk management practices utilized by U.S. firms. Although, there is not yet much information available on #MeToo clauses, it seems that they can be divided into four categories: 1. #MeToo clauses in director agreements, 2. #MeToo clauses in investment and 3. M&A agreements and 4. so-called mandatory/forced arbitration clauses. The analysis is structured so that first the limitations of liability mentioned above are introduced comprehensively and paying special attention to their relation to the #MeToo movement and to other topical phenomena. Next the focus shifts to the doctrine of legal transplants and particularly on the question, how do limitations of liability work as legal transplants in the Nordic countries. The objective is to analyze are there normative restrictions that limit the use of such transplants and furthermore, is there a genuine need to copy #MeToo practices. The research findings of the article suggest that #MeToo clauses serve mainly the interests of the firms using them, hence their true objective is not to fix flawed corporate cultures, but to safeguard the value of the firm. As for Nordic law, there are no direct legal restrictions limiting the use of such instruments, however, there is reason to believe that the objectives behind #MeToo clauses are not aligned with Nordic values. Also, there is no genuine need to introduce #MeToo clauses in, e.g., Nordic director agreements, investment agreements and M&A agreements as there are more efficient ways to prevent sexual harassment in work communities.",
keywords = "513 Oikeustiede",
author = "Ville P{\"o}nk{\"a}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "3",
language = "suomi",
volume = "117",
pages = "608--632",
journal = "Lakimies",
issn = "0023-7353",
publisher = "Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys",
number = "5",

}

#MeToo liike ja yritysten oikeudellinen riskienhallinta : Miten yhdysvaltalaisten yritysten käyttämät vastuunrajoitusinstrumentit toimisivat oikeudellisina siirrännäisinä Pohjoismaissa? / Pönkä, Ville.

julkaisussa: Lakimies, Vuosikerta 117, Nro 5, 03.10.2019, s. 608-632.

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

TY - JOUR

T1 - #MeToo liike ja yritysten oikeudellinen riskienhallinta

T2 - Miten yhdysvaltalaisten yritysten käyttämät vastuunrajoitusinstrumentit toimisivat oikeudellisina siirrännäisinä Pohjoismaissa?

AU - Pönkä, Ville

PY - 2019/10/3

Y1 - 2019/10/3

N2 - The purpose of this article is to examine limitations of liability related to sexual harassment scandals. These so-called #MeToo clauses are quite common in the U.S. and therefore the focus is on U.S. law and particularly on novel risk management practices utilized by U.S. firms. Although, there is not yet much information available on #MeToo clauses, it seems that they can be divided into four categories: 1. #MeToo clauses in director agreements, 2. #MeToo clauses in investment and 3. M&A agreements and 4. so-called mandatory/forced arbitration clauses. The analysis is structured so that first the limitations of liability mentioned above are introduced comprehensively and paying special attention to their relation to the #MeToo movement and to other topical phenomena. Next the focus shifts to the doctrine of legal transplants and particularly on the question, how do limitations of liability work as legal transplants in the Nordic countries. The objective is to analyze are there normative restrictions that limit the use of such transplants and furthermore, is there a genuine need to copy #MeToo practices. The research findings of the article suggest that #MeToo clauses serve mainly the interests of the firms using them, hence their true objective is not to fix flawed corporate cultures, but to safeguard the value of the firm. As for Nordic law, there are no direct legal restrictions limiting the use of such instruments, however, there is reason to believe that the objectives behind #MeToo clauses are not aligned with Nordic values. Also, there is no genuine need to introduce #MeToo clauses in, e.g., Nordic director agreements, investment agreements and M&A agreements as there are more efficient ways to prevent sexual harassment in work communities.

AB - The purpose of this article is to examine limitations of liability related to sexual harassment scandals. These so-called #MeToo clauses are quite common in the U.S. and therefore the focus is on U.S. law and particularly on novel risk management practices utilized by U.S. firms. Although, there is not yet much information available on #MeToo clauses, it seems that they can be divided into four categories: 1. #MeToo clauses in director agreements, 2. #MeToo clauses in investment and 3. M&A agreements and 4. so-called mandatory/forced arbitration clauses. The analysis is structured so that first the limitations of liability mentioned above are introduced comprehensively and paying special attention to their relation to the #MeToo movement and to other topical phenomena. Next the focus shifts to the doctrine of legal transplants and particularly on the question, how do limitations of liability work as legal transplants in the Nordic countries. The objective is to analyze are there normative restrictions that limit the use of such transplants and furthermore, is there a genuine need to copy #MeToo practices. The research findings of the article suggest that #MeToo clauses serve mainly the interests of the firms using them, hence their true objective is not to fix flawed corporate cultures, but to safeguard the value of the firm. As for Nordic law, there are no direct legal restrictions limiting the use of such instruments, however, there is reason to believe that the objectives behind #MeToo clauses are not aligned with Nordic values. Also, there is no genuine need to introduce #MeToo clauses in, e.g., Nordic director agreements, investment agreements and M&A agreements as there are more efficient ways to prevent sexual harassment in work communities.

KW - 513 Oikeustiede

M3 - Artikkeli

VL - 117

SP - 608

EP - 632

JO - Lakimies

JF - Lakimies

SN - 0023-7353

IS - 5

ER -