Hard Law Vs Soft Law

César Rodríguez-Garavito would conclude that Energy Access Partners’ (EAP) proclamations of responsibility does not offer effective guarantees because they are ultimately soft laws with no legally binding forces. This argument can be related to Nike’s code of conduct and BP’s greenwashing cases. Due to the nature of soft law, EAP’s proclamations do not offer effective guarantees. It is important to understand the separation of hard and soft laws and their relations to EAP. Hard law is known as the law in the books, put in place by legal institutions that are made to be followed. It is absolute in the manner as it is written, however, it does not necessarily play out that way in society. This is typically shown as the binding force of traditional law and it is easier to enforce because clear guidelines are in place. Soft law, is what companies put into place, their own form of checks on their policies and how it affects their workers, such as no mandatory overtime. However, unlike hard law, there is no legally binding force that is behind the law. It is up to the companies to maintain them and it is not effective unless there is an outside arbiter that cannot be swayed by the company it is evaluating. The enforceability is reliant on the company itself. Nike is a company that has fallen victim to soft law. As a company …show more content…
The words and proclamations become a facade to reach an end goal in favor of the civilian population. A company can easily claim what they want, but if there is no one to monitor or evaluate the actions of a company a company can portray itself however it wants. Given the context of BP and Nike’s soft laws, if there are no hard laws or guarantees, there is no enforceability or responsibility on behalf of EAP. EAP is merely pandering to its audience on its website, without enforcing or putting into play their